What Is Abnormality - Essay Example

WHAT IS ABNORMALITY? Human behaviour is rarely ever consistent. People with different backgrounds respond differently to similar stimuli, and even the same person may behave in different ways at different times, under similar circumstances. Ability, personality, cultural requirements, and learning all contribute to the observed behaviour of any individual; and thus to the variations in the behaviours of different individuals (Bennet, 2003). Given the wide spectrum of behaviours exhibited by people, differentiating normal behaviour from the abnormal can be quite a task. What may seem absolutely normal to one individual can sometimes be considered certainly abnormal by another. Over the years, a number of theories have been postulated to explain the distinctions between normal and abnormal behaviours (Barlow & Durand, 2004). The simplest way is to explore the etymology of the word normal; meaning by the norm. Statistically, the behaviours that are most exhibited in a population consist of the norm, or most preferred behaviours. In a normally distributed population, the average scoring behaviours are the ones that also occur most often. Most individuals tend to exhibit similar behaviours, and there are few who exhibit distinctly different behaviours. Thus, individuals who show the most distinct behaviours tend to differ significantly from the rest of the population and are considered to be exhibiting abnormal behaviour (Bennet, 2003). This applies to those individuals who exhibit extremely less as well as those who exhibit extremely high amounts of the given behaviour. The main problem with this method is that there is no way of recognising if the behaviours exhibited by the majority are in any way helpful (Hansell& Damour, 2005). For example, the behaviours exhibited by the majority of the members of the Ku Klux Klan may serve as a standard for the rest, but it cannot be considered as healthy or helpful at all. Another means of differentiating between normal and abnormal behaviour is by using social norms or rules. Most cultural rules are based on what behaviour is acceptable or useful in different situations. Thus, energetic activity may be preferred in out-door games; but frowned upon during a quite dinner party. When people modify their behaviour to fit these norms, their behaviour is said to be normal. On the other hand, if they ignore the norms, or differ from them significantly, their behaviour is said to be abnormal. The major problem with this method is that cultural norms differ between groups of people; and different societies may consider different behaviours acceptable (Barlow & Durand, 2004). When an individual is interacting with members of a different social group; there may be glaring differences in the behaviours exhibited, but this may simply be due to different cultural norms. A third way of identifying instances of abnormal behaviour is to analyse the adequateness and adaptive value of the behaviour. Individuals whose behaviours are self – furthering and useful in a given context are considered to be exhibiting normal behaviours, while individuals whose behaviours are not helpful in realising their goals are considered to be exhibiting abnormal behaviours (Hansell& Damour, 2005). This method does help in identifying behaviours that are counter-productive or harmful – for example, behaviours that are indicative of addictions or eating behaviours – and works well alongside the medical models (Barlow & Durand, 2004). The one shortcoming it has is that it does not explain the potentially self – destructive behaviours of groups like strikers and sportspersons who deny themselves and take great risks for a cause. These individuals would not be said to be exhibiting abnormal behaviours under the commonsense notions; but their behaviours can cause them or others quite a lot of distress. Another method of identifying abnormal behaviours is to identify behaviours that cause distress. While this seems to be an adequate explanation, there are many situations where distress could be considered to be normal (Hansell& Damour, 2005). Examples include bereavement, loss, injury, and conflict. Distress is actually a normal and healthy response to such situations. Another problem is that a minimum amount of stress and distress is a necessary part of everyday life and individuals may come to believe that the distress they are experiencing is normal, when it may not be so. Drug users may not experience significant distress for a long time; as also individuals who experience delusions of grandeur. This does not mean that their behaviours are normal. A final strategy is to identify the conditions for normal behaviours; and classify all other behaviours as abnormal (Jodha, 1958). This perspective is based on the presence of a positive attitude, self appreciation, growth, integrations, autonomy, a realistic understanding of life circumstances, and the ability to reach mastery. The main concern with this approach is that as the analyses become in-depth, fewer individuals classify as normal. Given these problems in identifying those behaviours that can be classified as abnormal, it necessary that the classification process takes place by analysing the behaviours of the individual within the norms of the population as well as those relating to the particular ethnic and cultural history of the individual. The gains from exhibiting the said behaviours to the individuals need to be considered, and the affective response of the individual is also important. The diagnostic criteria used to identify instances of abnormality do account for these by evaluating the behaviours across multiple criteria. The widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the APA uses a number of criteria related to time, extent and intensity of a behaviour before coming to a diagnosis. For example, the diagnosis for an episode of Major Depression is based on the extent of distress, the duration of the symptoms, the coping ability of the individual, the presence of a triggering factor or neurobiological basis, as well as the cognitive and affective experiences of the person (Bennet, 2003). The DSM classifies abnormal behaviour along 5 axes; each one focussing on a particular set of experiential criteria. The classification may be presented as such: Axis I – Symptom Disorders related to organic conditions Axis II – Personality Disorders, with and without distress Axis III – General medical conditions leading to inadequate behavioural responses to situations Axis IV – Psychosocial problems that are related to external conditions Axis V – Global assessment of functioning  Currently, the DSM IV -TR is being used; and the DSM V is expected in 2013. The other diagnostic classification system widely used in Europe is the ICD, presently in its 10th version. The ICD – 10 is published by WHO, and is used in all WHO related work (Barlow & Durand, 2004). There has been a close interaction between the developers of the ICD – 10’s chapter 5 and the DSM IV; which ensure that the classifications are quite close, and differences are primarily a consideration of special cultural features. The main categories of psychologically abnormal behaviour as mentioned in the ICD are: Organic conditions, including symptomatic ones Conditions resulting from use of psychoactive substances Schizophrenia, schizotypal and other delusional disorders Affective and mood related disorders Stress-related and somatoform conditions, including neurotic conditions Behavioural syndromes with a psychological basis Disorders relating to adult personality and behaviour Mental retardation / deficiency Psychological disorders relating to development Behavioural and emotional conditions whose onset usually occurs in childhood and / or adolescence Unspecified mental disorders A vast amount of research has gone into the identification of the reasons why individuals suffer from disorders that lead to abnormal behaviour. Much of this work is reflected the development of the axes of the DSM and the categories of the ICD. Understanding the reasons why individuals fall prey to illnesses that cause mal-adaptive behaviour helps in the early identification of individuals who are prone to or at threat of such illnesses. It also helps us in identifying the key elements that need to be addressed in treatment and care so that the individual’s chances of improvement and recovery are maximised. Some illnesses are seen to have a genetic component, and tend to occur in certain families. Degenerative disorders and conditions like schizophrenia are among those that are known to have a genetic basis. These conditions may be contained if adequate treatment is applied at the right time; but the individuals are in danger of a relapse. Other conditions are also believed to have a biological basis that may or may not be linked to genetics (Barlow & Durand, 2004). These typically include conditions that stem from imbalances of neurotransmitters like the GABA and dopamine; conditions that result from either a disruption of deprivation of basic needs and functioning. Studies of individuals with brain damage have contributed a vast amount of information towards the understanding of these conditions. A number of conditions stem from the socio-cultural experiences of individuals (Barlow & Durand, 2004). Addiction is prominent among the conditions that often have an underlying cause in the social norms that are present in an individuals surroundings. Effects of belonging to certain demographic groups based on gender, ethnic status and area of residence also tend to play a substantial role in these cases, as the norms are often different for different demographic groups even within a seemingly single culture Jenkins (1998). Other factors that play significant roles are systemic factors relating to family groups and the interactions therein. Larger groups like schools and work-place are also implicated in the development of certain conditions. A strong example is that of the growing rates of Anorexia and Bulimia among individuals who are predominantly a part of groups that put a heavy emphasis on the physical looks of a person. It is rare that only a single factor is responsible for the presence of a mental challenge; and often it is the interaction between biological, social and systemic factors that results in an experience that can be termed as an abnormal (Bennet, 2003). An important reason why causative factors are studied is to establish the best possible method of treatment to help the individual return to normal functioning. Bio-psychological conditions and those with organic basis require pharmaco-therapy, while those stemming particularly from systemic and social factors require the individual to make attitudinal and behavioural changes to sustain well-being. The medical models do provide pharmacotherapy options for a number of conditions that cause abnormal behaviour; mostly aimed at re-aligning neuro-transmitter levels and targeting any organic condition responsible for the behaviour. In rare cases, this is also aided with ECT and / or surgery. This model of treatment advocates combining adequate amounts of medicines with rest and sometimes hospitalisation to hasten the recovery process. Besides medicines, the other options often available are individual therapy and group therapy. There are a number of disciplines and model that are applied to the therapeutic process; and some work better than others given the unique experiences of the individual. Traditional therapy is often related to Psychoanalysis and its methods. The psychoanalytic methods are based on the assumption that problems arise from deep-seated and repressed experienced, which need to be resolved in order to experience relief from the distress being experienced. The process is often long-winded, and can take a number of sessions before there is any perceptible change (Barlow & Durand, 2004). More modern approaches include Cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, Gestalt techniques, and the Humanistic model. These approaches are more focused on the situation at hand, and attempt to provide relief from the distress experienced by the individual by addressing the attitudes and behaviours that have led to mal-adaptive behaviour (Bennet, 2003). The attempt of these techniques is to provide a supportive environment in which the individual can address immediate and deeper concerns and affect changes that would lead to relief. While the humanistic model focuses on the attitudes and the self actualisation, the cognitive and behavioural techniques are more effective in affecting a behavioural change. Often, for individuals whose distress stems from systemic and social conditions, the option of group therapy helps in developing responses that are effective responses to a disruptive environment. Group therapy involves having a group of individuals dealing with the same or similar problems who come together and attempt to develop effective responses with the help of one or more facilitators. A prominent example is the way groups help in dealing with addiction behaviours; and can become sources of support and comfort; often providing a substitute to other situations. The choice of what therapy or combination of therapies should be used depends on the particular circumstances of the individual in question. The ideal therapeutic combination will attempt to address all the factors that the problem stems from; and thereby provides a holistic path back to normalcy. References Bennett, P. 2003. Abnormal and Clinical Psychology: An Introductory Textbook. New York: Open University Press.  Hansell, J.; Damour, L. 2005. Abnormal Psychology. Michigan: Von Hoffman Press.  Barlow, D. H.; Durand, V. M. 2004. Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach. Bellmont:Thomson Wadsworth.  Read More