Defining Abnormality - Four Key Approaches

Psychology doesn't have a simple answer to "what's abnormal?" Instead, there are four main ways to define it, each with their own strengths and problems.

Statistical infrequency is the most straightforward - if your behaviour is rare (like having an IQ under 70), you're considered abnormal. It's objective and based on real data, but it falls apart when you realise that having a high IQ is also statistically rare! Not all uncommon traits are disorders.

Deviation from ideal mental health flips the script by asking what mentally healthy people should have. Jahoda suggested we need things like stress resistance, personal autonomy, and accurate perception of reality (remember RAPSAP). This approach looks at the whole person rather than just problems, but it's heavily biased towards Western values - many cultures don't value individual autonomy the same way.

Key Point: Each definition captures something important about abnormality, but none work perfectly on their own - that's why psychologists often combine approaches.

More Ways to Define Abnormality

Deviation from social norms focuses on breaking society's unwritten (and written) rules. This helps identify people who need support, but it's problematic because it can unfairly target people who are just different or individualistic.

The approach also shows clear cultural bias. Cochrane's research found that Black people in Britain were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than white people, but this pattern disappeared in countries with majority Black populations like Jamaica - suggesting diagnostic prejudice rather than genuine differences.

Failure to function adequately looks at whether someone can handle daily life basics like hygiene, work, and relationships. Rosenhan and Seligman identified key signs including unpredictability, personal distress, and maladaptive behaviour.

This definition has real practical value because it focuses on observable behaviours and includes the person's own experience of distress. However, it can unfairly label people making unusual lifestyle choices (like extreme sports enthusiasts or travellers) as abnormal.

Remember: What counts as "normal" varies massively between cultures and time periods - context is everything.

Understanding Phobias

Phobias are way more intense than normal fears - they're irrational, overwhelming responses that can completely disrupt someone's life. Unlike regular worries, phobias involve anticipatory anxiety where even thinking about the feared object causes panic.

Phobias show three types of characteristics. Behavioural ones include panic attacks, avoidance of the feared object, and sometimes endurance (staying but suffering). Emotional characteristics involve intense anxiety and unreasonable responses. Cognitive features include selective attention to the phobic stimulus and irrational beliefs.

The famous Little Albert experiment by Watson and Raynor showed how phobias develop. They conditioned an 11-month-old to fear white rats by making loud noises whenever he reached for one. After just three trials, Albert cried when seeing the rat, and this fear generalised to other white, furry objects.

Mowrer's two-process model explains how phobias work: they're acquired through classical conditioning (like Little Albert's experience) but maintained through operant conditioning. When you avoid your phobia, anxiety decreases, which negatively reinforces the avoidance behaviour.

Clinical Insight: Understanding that avoidance maintains phobias is crucial for treatment - patients need controlled exposure to break the cycle.

Evaluating Phobia Explanations and Treatments

The two-process model is brilliant because it explains both how phobias start and why they persist. It also has massive implications for therapy - if avoidance maintains phobias, then exposure should cure them. Research supports the classical conditioning element too.

However, the model has significant gaps. Many people with phobias can't remember any traumatic trigger event. It also ignores evolutionary factors - we're biologically prepared to fear things that were dangerous to our ancestors (snakes, heights, darkness) more easily than modern dangers like cars.

Systematic desensitisation is the gentler treatment approach. It involves creating an anxiety hierarchy (ranking fears from mild to severe), learning deep relaxation techniques, then gradual exposure starting with the least frightening situations. The relaxation response eventually replaces the fear response through reciprocal inhibition.

Gilroy's research with spider phobia patients showed systematic desensitisation was still effective 33 months later. Patients prefer this approach because it's less traumatic, leading to lower dropout rates. However, it doesn't work well for evolutionary phobias that weren't learned through personal experience.

Exam Tip: Remember that systematic desensitisation works through classical conditioning - the relaxation response becomes the new conditioned response to the phobic stimulus.

Flooding and OCD Basics

Flooding is the extreme alternative - patients face their worst fear immediately rather than gradually. It can work in just one session because there's no escape, so anxiety naturally decreases over time. It's cost-effective and research shows it's as effective as other treatments.

The major downside? Flooding is incredibly traumatic, leading to high dropout rates. It also doesn't work well for complex phobias like social anxiety, which involve irrational thinking rather than just learned fear responses.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) involves two main components: obsessions (unwanted, repetitive thoughts) and compulsions (repetitive behaviours). Remember that obsessions happen in your mind while compulsions are things you actually do.

The characteristics break down predictably: behavioural (compulsions and avoidance), emotional (anxiety, distress, guilt, often accompanied by depression), and cognitive (obsessive thoughts, but usually insight that the anxiety is excessive).

Key Distinction: Unlike many mental health conditions, people with OCD typically know their thoughts and behaviours are irrational - they just can't stop them.

Biological Explanations for OCD

Genetic explanations focus on inherited vulnerability. Two key genes are involved: the COMT gene affects dopamine regulation (higher dopamine levels are more common in OCD patients), while the SERT gene affects serotonin transport, leading to lower serotonin levels associated with OCD.

Neural explanations look at both neurotransmitters and brain structures. Serotonin deficiency is linked to OCD (which explains why antidepressants that boost serotonin help), while higher dopamine levels are associated with compulsive behaviours.

Two brain regions are crucial. The basal ganglia coordinates movement - head injuries here often cause OCD-like symptoms, and disconnecting it from the frontal cortex during surgery reduces OCD symptoms. The orbitofrontal cortex converts sensory info into thoughts and actions - PET scans show this area is overactive in OCD patients.

The research evidence is strong. Lewis found 37% of OCD patients had parents with the disorder. Twin studies show 68% concordance in identical twins versus 31% in non-identical twins, suggesting powerful genetic influence.

Research Insight: The fact that antidepressants work for OCD provides strong support for the serotonin theory - if symptoms improve when serotonin increases, low serotonin was likely part of the problem.

Treating OCD and Critical Evaluation

Drug therapy is the main biological treatment, usually SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors). These work by preventing serotonin from being reabsorbed too quickly, keeping more available in the brain to regulate mood and reduce OCD symptoms.

The biological approach has solid research backing, from family studies to brain imaging. The effectiveness of SSRIs provides particularly convincing evidence that neurotransmitter imbalances contribute to OCD.

However, biological explanations are quite reductionist - they ignore psychological factors completely. Some researchers argue OCD could be learned through classical conditioning (associating neutral stimuli with anxiety) and maintained through operant conditioning (compulsions reduce anxiety, so they're negatively reinforced).

The reality is probably that biological vulnerability interacts with psychological and environmental factors. Someone might inherit genes that make them prone to OCD, but psychological triggers and learning experiences determine whether and how it develops.

Critical Thinking: While biological treatments work, their effectiveness doesn't prove that OCD is purely biological - aspirin helps headaches, but headaches aren't caused by aspirin deficiency!