research methods in abnormal psychology

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Methods Psychiatr Res
• v.23(Suppl 1); 2014 Jan

The psychological perspective on mental health and mental disorder research: introduction to the ROAMER work package 5 consensus document

Hans‐ulrich wittchen.

1 Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy & Center for Epidemiology and Longitudinal Studies (CELOS), Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden Germany

Susanne Knappe

Gunter schumann.

2 MRC‐SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London UK

This paper provides an overview of the theoretical framework of the Psychological Sciences' reviews and describes how improved psychological research can foster our understanding of mental health and mental disorders in a complementary way to biomedical research. Core definitions of the field and of psychological interventions and treatment in particular are provided. The work group's consensus regarding strength and weaknesses of European Union (EU) research in critical areas is summarized, highlighting the potential of a broader comprehensive “Behaviour Science programme” in forthcoming programmatic EU funding programmes. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Undoubtedly, there is increasing convergence between biomedical and psychological research on mental health and mental disorders. Both fields study the same or similar phenomena with similar approaches and methods. Thus, it is not surprising that appraisals of strength and weaknesses in both fields will often come to the same conclusions (Schumann et al ., 2013 ). Despite this continued trend of growing convergence and synergy, there are important, though sometimes subtle differences due to different traditions, theories, principles, and methods that justify a separate presentation and discussion of biomedical and psychological perspectives, highlighting specific needs and priorities that would have been neglected in a joint presentation. Consistent with this appraisal the work group (ROAMER work package 5, WP5) felt it would be helpful to define the field and arrive at consensus about its scope and definitions.

The contribution of the Psychological Sciences

Psychology can broadly be defined as an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of basic psychological functions like perception, cognition, attention, emotion, motivation, as well as complex psychological processes such as decision‐making, volition and behaviour control, including its neural and biological underpinnings, personality, behaviour and interpersonal relationships. Psychology covers normal mental functions and behaviours and addresses the question when, why and how they can become dysfunctional. Thus, psychology covers mental health and abnormal functions and behaviours, like in mental disorders with the goal of understanding individuals, groups and social systems. Psychology has been described as a “hub science” (Cacioppo, 2007 ) with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, and the humanities, such as philosophy. During the last centuries, the field of psychology has undergone several theoretical paradigm shifts (i.e. structuralism, functionalism, psychoanalysis, behaviourism, cognitivism) and is currently typically structured in subfields of which Biological, Experimental, Developmental and Clinical Psychology have become closest to the biomedical field (Haslam and Lusher, 2011 ). But, depending on the theoretical orientation, methods and psychological fields of interest, psychological institutions and psychological research can be grouped under social sciences, the natural sciences or the biomedical sciences, etc. In fact, terms like behavioural neuroscience or cognitive‐affective neuroscience are used almost synonymously and have given rise to denote the field as Psychological Sciences. Corollaries pertaining to the Psychological Sciences include:

• As compared to the biomedical field, the Psychological Sciences emphasize more explicitly a comprehensive interactional bio‐psycho‐social approach to understand and predict a broad construct of “ behaviour” that refers to neurobiological, cognitive, affective and social‐behavioural units of analyses – and should not be misunderstood as denoting simply open motor behaviour.
• To this end, the relative role of biological, psychological and particularly social‐environmental variables and their dynamic interplay in promoting normal and abnormal behaviour is examined within a “dimensional” rather a “categorical” approach (diagnostic approach).
• Consistent with a broad construct of behaviour, Psychological Science research uses a range of specific experimental and empirical methods (qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective) and paradigms in human and animal research to observe causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial, environmental, psychological and biological variables.
• Psychological Sciences emphasize environmental variables and a developmental perspective by appreciating the highly dynamic interplay over time, for example in psychological constructs of vulnerability – stress models as well as interactional constructs like resilience and coping to understand behaviour change and its determinants.
• Based on such models, constructs and methods of the science of psychology has also provided a set of unique methods and techniques for psychological interventions (i.e. psychotherapy) with the goal of preventing, treating and rehabilitating dysfunctional behaviour and mental disorders.

Within the context of this appraisal, we define psychological treatments and interventions as clinically relevant, empirically supported interventions of any type that are based on knowledge and expertise of the Psychological Sciences by using psychological methods and means (as opposed to drugs as in psychiatry), typically by communication and/or behavioural exercises (Wittchen and Hoyer, 2011 ).

This definition includes a large group of methods and approaches, developed to address the needs of patients and groups of patients with mental disorders or mental health problems, as well as their networks of support (e.g. partner and family) and covering prevention, treatment and rehabilitation in all ages. Psychological treatments and interventions might range from highly sophisticated psychotherapy, delivered by specialized psychotherapists, to the application of specific behavioural techniques as part of a broader treatment plan (e.g. psychoeducation or motivational interviewing) by any health provider, including web‐based and e‐health applications, whenever the criteria of the earlier definition are met and efficacy and/or effectiveness is established by randomized clinical trials or equivalent designs (van der Feltz‐Cornelis and Adèr, 2000 ).

Because dysfunctional behaviour (also denoted in the literature as abnormal or clinically relevant behaviour) has large and pervasive effects on health outcomes, there is a broad consensus in the scientific community that there is a continued strong need to improve research with the goal to provide a better understanding of (a) the mechanisms underlying adaptive and dysfunctional behaviour, (b) the mechanisms of behaviour change with regard to (c) normal‐adaptive healthy as well as (d) dysfunctional and clinically significant behaviours as in mental disorders. Towards this goal the work group sees the strong need to adopt a comprehensive “Science of Behaviour” programme, in order to make substantial progress in research of mental health, mental disorders also reflected in substantial improvements in public health as well as savings in healthcare costs (NIH, 2009 ).

It should be noted that we did not work specifically on substance use disorders because of the existence of another European research programme dealing exlusively with this topic ( http://www.alicerap.eu ).

Core issues and topics from a Psychological Science perspective

The subsequent papers are position papers by members of the “roadmap for mental health research in Europe” –initiative (ROAMER) work package 5 (Haro et al ., 2014 ). They address selected and interrelated core areas that are considered to be of particular relevance for an improved future research agenda on mental health. Based on their expertise they were invited as part of the ROAMER discussion process to jointly contribute to a birds‐eye view on important issues in mental health and mental disorder research from a Psychological Science perspective. The choice of topics was selective, though based on prior discussions and consensus of the ROAMER expert work group on “Psychological Research and Treatments”. 1 Their accounts should not be regarded as state‐of‐the‐art reviews. Rather, the aim is to highlight the unique contributions of psychology by these position papers, complementing the contributions of the biomedical field, avoiding replication.

In the first contribution (Wittchen et al ., 2014 ) several fundamental barriers to progress in the area of basic and applied research on behaviour and behaviour change are addressed. A general lack of understanding the basic mechanisms of behaviour, behaviour change as well as moderators and mediators of behaviour in the context of interventions is concluded, highlighting the strong need of respective intensified research. Common “health risk behaviours” are taken as examples to specify what type of research is needed to identify mechanisms and determinants of behaviour initiation, maintenance and behaviour change as well as the critical trajectories between them to provide ultimately also a better understanding of the causes and the treatment of mental disorders. The paper also addresses the question to what degree mechanisms relevant for specific disorders or health risk behaviours are the same, or different across disorders and conditions, and to what degree individual variation (genetic, or individual capacities such as “self‐regulation”), stress and emotion play a role. This discussion is linked to the specific context of psychotherapy research, providing examples how this perspective helps to identify core ingredients and mechanisms of behaviour change.

The position paper by Goschke ( 2014 ) emphasizes the work group's consensus that only improved research of basic and more complex normal and dysfunctional psychological functions and processes, including their neural underpinnings and social contexts, will ultimately allow us to improve our understanding of normative and non‐normative behaviours (i.e. mental disorders), their developmental pathways and processes. This paper describes in greater detail how we might advance in this direction by focusing on “Functions and dysfunctions of cognitive control and decision‐making as transdiagnostic core mechanisms in mental disorders”.

Emmelkamp et al . ( 2014 ) specifically address various domains of clinical research and “state of the art” psychotherapy research in particular. They focus largely on the currently best established, though imperfect, first‐line treatment for many disorders and how to advance research on components, mechanism and effectiveness research. Four topical domains are highlighted in particular that are characterized by partly different research needs. Namely: (a) psychological models and paradigms of mental disorders from a cognitive perspective, (b) methodological issues of improved psychotherapy research, (c) the special needs in psychotherapy of children and adolescents, and (d) the incorporation of e‐health innovations.

The final paper (Fava et al ., 2014 ) provides a methodological framework for improved research on comorbidity and discusses perspectives on the future clinical research agenda within this context.

Conclusions on strengths and weaknesses

Overall, the position papers on psychological perspectives converge on several strengths of the European research field: i.e. a substantial body of expertise and knowledge in both basic and clinical research, strong and increasingly more intimate collaborative ties to the biomedical field, and a broader coverage of mental health issues as opposed to mental disorder research in the biomedical field (Wittchen et al ., 2014 ; Goschke et al ., 2014 ; Emmelkamp et al ., 2014 ; Fava et al ., 2014 ).

At the same time, they also converge on several major general weaknesses, characteristic not only for Europe but worldwide, namely: (a) the fragmentation of research activities in many areas, (b) the lack of coordination and synergy in European research in this field, and (c) the lack of coordinated long‐term programmes with regard to a broader “Science of Behaviour” perspective as the fundamental framework.

On the structural level the work group highlights that there are remarkable gaps in our knowledge regarding the situation of research on psychological treatments and interventions in Europe. In fact – and despite some coordinated EU‐efforts in this domain – it is impossible to determine the degree to which psychological treatments are applied in the EU countries, where and what kind of research and service delivery programmes are in place and how they are integrated into the wider network of mental health care infrastructure. As a result, Europe lacks even the most basic prerequisites for an evidence‐based mental health research policy in this field.

In terms of specific gaps and needs for future research the authors point out marked deficits and provide suggestions on advances needed to meet these research needs. A short summary of these suggestions is given in Table  1 . In sum, the position papers emphasize to varying degrees that a combined approach, appreciating traditional diagnostic classificatory models as well as a facet‐oriented, dimensional multi‐level domain approach by functions and elements of behaviour might be the best way forward. Overall, there seems to be consensus that the field would profit significantly from a concerted programme of the “Science of Behaviour Change”.

Goals and needs for future research in Psychological Science

Declaration of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme Project ROAMER (FP7‐HEALTH‐2011/No 282586).

This paper has been prepared by the authors in the context of the ROAMER project (work package 5, led by Hans‐Ulrich Wittchen). The statements and the position of the paper are made by the authors, based on the work group discussions and thus they reflect an intermediate outcome of the work group. They should not be considered as an official statement of the ROAMER project or as a final outcome or conclusion of the overall programme.

The position papers were generated as part of the activities of a group of leading European experts on psychological research and intervention, in order to provide an assessment of the state‐of‐the‐art of research in different domains, identifying major advances and promising methods and pointing out gaps and problems which ought to be addressed in future research (see Appendix). A similar critical appraisal with partly similar conclusions is concurrently provided elsewhere (Schumann et al ., 2013 ) by the ROAMER work group “Biomedical research”. Experts in both work groups have been selected for their academic excellence and for their competence in the different units of analysis needed to comprehensively characterize particular symptom domains. Their contributions do not aim to be systematic reviews of the field but rather provide a well‐informed opinion of the authors involved. They also do not represent official statements of the ROAMER consortium, but are meant to inform the discussion on psychological research and intervention in mental disorders among interested stakeholders, including researchers, clinicians and funding bodies. Recommendations made in this issue will undergo a discussion and selection process within the ROAMER consortium, and contribute to a final roadmap, which integrates all aspects of mental health research. We thus hope to provide an informed and comprehensive overview of the current state of psychological research in mental health, as well as the challenges and advances ahead of us.

Table A1 ROAMER work package 5 authors and experts (in alphabetical order by last name)

1 Core experts of the ROAMER work package on Psychological Research and Treatments are Drs Arnoud Arntz, Francesc Colom, Pim Cuijpers, Tim Dalgleish, Daniel David, Giovanni A. Fava, Arne Holte, Uwe Koch‐Gromus, Ilse Kryspin‐Exner, Wolfgang Lutz, and Hans‐Ulrich Wittchen. They were supported by dozens of advisors and consultants.

• Cacioppo J.T. (2007) Psychology is a hub science . Observer , 20 ( 8 ): 5, 42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmelkamp P.M.G., David D., Beckers T., Muris P., Lutz W., Andersson G., Araya R., Banos Rivera R.M., Barkham M., Botella C., Carlbring P., Colom F., Essau C., Hermans D., Hofmann S.G., Knappe S., Ollendick T.H., Raes F., Rief W., Riper H., van der Oord S., Vervliet B. (2014) Advancing psychotherapy and evidence‐based psychological interventions . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 23 ( Suppl. 1 ), 58–91. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fava G.A., Tossani E., Bech P., Chouinard G., Csillag C., Wittchen H.‐U., Rief W.. (2014) Emerging clinical trends and perspectives on comorbid patterns of mental disorders in research . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 23 ( Suppl. 1 ), 92–101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goschke T. (2014) Dysfunctions of decision‐making and cognitive control as transdiagnostic mechanisms of mental disorders: advances, gaps, and needs in current research . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 23 ( Suppl. 1 ), 41–57. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haro J.M., Ayuso‐Mateos J.L., Bitter I., Demotes‐Mainard J., Leboyer M., Lewis S. W., Linszen D., Maj M., McDaid D., Meyer‐Lindenberg A., Robbins T.W., Schumann G., Thornicroft G., van der Feltz‐Cornelis C., van Os J., Wahlbeck K., Wittchen H.‐U., Wykes T., Arango C., Bickenbach J., Brunn, Cammarata P., Chevreul K., Evans‐Lacko S., Finocchiaro C., Fiorillo A., Forsman A.K., Hazo J.‐B., Knappe S., Kuepper R., Luciano M., Miret M., Obradors‐Tarragó C., Pagano G., Papp S. Walker‐Tilley T. (2014) ROAMER: a European roadmap for mental health research . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 23 ( Suppl. 1 ), 1–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam N., Lusher D. (2011) The structure of mental health research: networks of influence among psychiatry and clinical psychology journals . Psychological Medicine , 41 ( 12 ): 2661–2668. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Health (NIH) . (2009) NIH Science of Behavior Change . Meeting summary. Bethesda, Maryland, 15–16 June 2009. http://commonfund.nih.gov/behaviorchange/
• Schumann G., Binder E., Holte A., de Kloet E.R., Odegaard K.J., Robbins T.W., Walker‐Tilley T.R., Brown V.J., Buitelaar J., Ciccocioppo R., Cools R., Escera C., Fleischhacker W., Flor H., Frith C.D., Heinz A., Johnsen E., Kirschbaum C., Klingberg T., Lesch K.‐P., Lewis S., Maier W., Mann K., Martinot J.‐L., Meyer‐Lindenberg A., Müller C.P., Müller W.E., Nutt D.J., Persico A., Perugi G., Pessiglione M., Preuss U.W., Roiser J., Rossini P.M., Rybakowski J.K., Sandi C., Stephan K.E., Undurraga J., Vieta E., van der Wee N., Wykes T., Haro J.M., Wittchen H.‐U. (2013) Stratified medicine for mental disorders . European Neuropsychopharmacology . DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2013.09.010 e‐pub ahead of print. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Feltz‐Cornelis C.M., Adèr H.J. (2000) Randomization in psychiatric intervention research in the general practice setting . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 9 ( 3 ): 134–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittchen H.‐U., Hoyer J. (eds). (2011) Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie [Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy] , 2nd edition, Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittchen H.‐U., Knappe S., Andersson G., Araya R., Banos Rivera R.M., Barkham M., Bech P., Beckers T., Berger T. Berking M., Berrocal C., Botella C., Carlbring P., Chouinard G., Colom F., Csillag C., Cujipers P., David D., Emmelkamp P. M. G., Colom F., Essau C. A., Fava G. A., Goschke T., Hermans D., Hofmann S. G., Lutz W., Muris P., Ollendick T. H., Raes F., Rief W., Riper H., Tossani E., van der Oord S., Vervliet B., Haro J. M., Schumann G. (2014) The need for a behavioural science focus in research on mental health and mental disorders . International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 23 ( Suppl. 1 ), 28–40. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Handbook of Research Methods in Abnormal and Clinical Psychology

• Dean McKay - Fordham University, USA

Up to date, variety of relevant topics

Dean R. McKay

Dean McKay, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Director of the Doctoral Training Program in Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Fordham University. He currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Clinical Psychology and Journal of Anxiety Disorders. He has published over 60 journal articles and book chapters, and has over 100 conference presentations. Dr. McKay has been a member of the Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group since 1995. He is Board Certified in Behavioral and Clinical Psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), is a Fellow of the American Board of Behavioral Psychology and the Academy of Clinical Psychology, as well as a Clinical Fellow of the Behavior Research and Therapy Society. Dr. McKay is currently completing a book on the theoretical bases of empirically supported cognitive-behavior therapy interventions, and is a co-editor (with Jonathan Abramowitz and Steven Taylor) of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Subtypes and Spectrum that is being prepared for The Johns Hopkins University Press. Dr. McKay’s research has focused primarily on Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), as well as Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Hypochondriasis and their link to OCD. His research has also focused on mechanisms of information processing bias for anxiety states.

How Psychologists Define and Study Abnormal Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Abnormal psychology is a branch of psychology that studies, diagnoses, and treats unusual patterns of behavior, emotions, and thoughts that could signify a mental disorder.

Abnormal psychology studies people who are “abnormal” or “atypical” compared to the members of a given society.

Remember, “abnormal” in this context does not necessarily imply “negative” or “bad.” It is a term used to describe behaviors and mental processes that significantly deviate from statistical or societal norms.

Abnormal psychology research is pivotal for understanding and managing mental health issues, developing treatments, and promoting mental health awareness.

Defining Abnormality

The definition of the word abnormal is simple enough, but applying this to psychology poses a complex problem:

What is normal? Whose norm? For what age? For what culture?

The concept of abnormality is imprecise and difficult to define. Examples of abnormality can take many different forms and involve different features, so that, what at first sight seem quite reasonable definitions, turns out to be quite problematic.

There are several different ways in which it is possible to define ‘abnormal’ as opposed to our ideas of what is ‘normal.’

Statistical Infrequency

Under this definition of abnormality, a person’s trait, thinking or behavior is classified as abnormal if it is rare or statistically unusual.

With this definition, it is necessary to be clear about how rare a trait or behavior needs to be before we class it as abnormal. For instance, one may say that an individual who has an IQ below or above the average level of IQ in society is abnormal.

The statistical approach helps to address what is meant by normal in a statistical context. It helps us make cut–off points in terms of diagnosis.

Limitations

However, this definition fails to distinguish between desirable and undesirable behavior. For example, obesity is statistically normal but not associated with healthy or desirable. Conversely, a high IQ is statistically abnormal but may well be regarded as highly desirable.

Many rare behaviors or characteristics (e.g., left-handedness) have no bearing on normality or abnormality.  Some characteristics are regarded as abnormal even though they are quite frequent. 

Depression may affect 27% of elderly people (NIMH, 2001).  This would make it common, but that does not mean it isn’t a problem.

The decision of where to start the “abnormal” classification is arbitrary. Who decides what is statistically rare, and how do they decide? For example, if an IQ of 70 is the cut-off point, how can we justify saying someone with 69 is abnormal, and someone with 70 is normal?

This definition also implies that abnormal behavior in people should be rare or statistically unusual, which is not the case.

Instead, any specific abnormal behavior may be unusual, but it is not unusual for people to exhibit some form of prolonged abnormal behavior at some point in their lives, and mental disorders such as depression are very statistically common.

Violation of Social Norms

Violation of social norms is a definition of abnormality where a person’s thinking or behavior is classified as abnormal if it violates the (unwritten) rules about what is expected or acceptable behavior in a particular social group. Their behavior may be incomprehensible to others or make others feel threatened or uncomfortable.

Every culture has certain standards for acceptable behavior or socially acceptable norms .

Norms are expected ways of behaving in a society according to the majority, and those members of a society who do not think and behave like everyone else break these norms and are often defined as abnormal.

With this definition, it is necessary to consider the degree to which a norm is violated, the importance of that norm, and the value attached by the social group to different sorts of violations, e.g., is the violation rude, eccentric, abnormal, or criminal?

There are a number of influences on social norms that need to be taken into account when considering the definition of the social norm:

With this definition, it is necessary to consider the following:

• The degree to which a norm is violated,
• The importance of that norm,
• The value attached by the social group to different sorts of violations, e.g., is the violation rude, eccentric, abnormal, or criminal?

The most obvious problem with defining abnormality using social norms is that there is no universal agreement over social norms.

Social norms are culturally specific – they can differ significantly from one generation to the next and between different ethnic, regional, and socio-economic groups.

In some societies, such as the Zulu, for example, hallucinations and screaming in the street are regarded as normal behavior.

Social norms also exist within a time frame and therefore change over time.  Behavior that was once seen as abnormal may, given time, become acceptable and vice versa.

For example, drunk driving was once considered acceptable but is now seen as socially unacceptable, whereas homosexuality has gone the other way. 

Until 1980 homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder by the World Health Organization (WHO), but today is socially acceptable.

Social norms can also depend on the situation or context we find ourselves in. Is it normal to eat parts of a dead body?

In 1972 a rugby team who survived a plane crash in the snow-capped Andes of South America found themselves without food and in sub-freezing temperatures for 72 days. To survive, they ate the bodies of those who had died in the crash.

Failure to Function Adequately

Failure to function adequately is a definition of abnormality where a person is considered abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life, or experience personal distress.

They may be unable to perform the behaviors necessary for day-to-day living, e.g., self-care, holding down a job, interacting meaningfully with others, making themselves understood, etc.

Rosenhan & Seligman (1989) suggest the following characteristics that define failure to function adequately:

• Maladaptiveness (danger to self)
• Vividness & unconventionality (stands out)
• Unpredictably & a loss of control
• Irrationality/incomprehensibility
• Causes observer discomfort
• Violates moral/social standards

One limitation of this definition is that apparently abnormal behavior may actually be helpful, functional, and adaptive for the individual.

For example, a person who has the obsessive-compulsive disorder of hand-washing may find that the behavior makes him cheerful, happy, and better able to cope with his day.

Many people engage in behavior that is maladaptive/harmful or threatening to self, but we don’t class them as abnormal:

• Adrenaline sports
• Smoking, drinking alcohol
• Skipping classes

Deviation from Ideal Mental Health

Abnormality can be defined as a deviation from ideal mental health.

This means that rather than defining what is abnormal, psychologists define what normal/ideal mental health is, and anything that deviates from this is regarded as abnormal.

This requires us to decide on the characteristics we consider necessary for mental health. Jahoda (1958) defined six criteria by which mental health could be measured:

• A positive view of the self
• Capability for growth and development
• Autonomy and independence
• Accurate perception of reality
• Positive friendships and relationships
• Environmental mastery – able to meet the varying demands of day-to-day situations

According to this approach, the more satisfied these criteria are, the healthier the individual is.

It is practically impossible for any individual to achieve all of the ideal characteristics all of the time.  For example, a person might not be the ‘master of his environment’ but be happy with his situation.

The absence of this criterion of ideal mental health hardly indicates he is suffering from a mental disorder.

Ethnocentric

Ethnocentrism , in the context of psychology, refers to the tendency to view one’s own culture or ethnic group as the standard or norm, and to judge other cultures, values, behaviors, and beliefs based on those norms. I

White, middle-class men devise most definitions of psychological abnormality. It has been suggested that this may lead to disproportionate numbers of people from certain groups being diagnosed as “abnormal.”

For example, in the UK, depression is more commonly identified in women, and black people are more likely than their white counterparts to be diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Similarly, working-class people are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness than those from non-manual backgrounds.

Models of Abnormality

Behavioral Model of Abnormality

Behaviorists believe that our actions are determined largely by the experiences we have in life rather than by the underlying pathology of unconscious forces.

Abnormality is therefore seen as the development of behavior patterns that are considered maladaptive (i.e., harmful) for the individual.

Behaviorism states that all behavior (including abnormal) is learned from the environment (nurture) and that all behavior that has been learned can also be ‘unlearnt’ (which is how abnormal behavior is treated ).

The behavioral approach emphasizes the environment and how abnormal behavior is acquired through classical conditioning , operant conditioning , and social learning .

Classical conditioning has been said to account for the development of phobias. The feared object (e.g., spider or rat) is associated with fear or anxiety sometime in the past. The conditioned stimulus subsequently evokes a powerful fear response characterized by avoidance of the feared object and the emotion of fear whenever the object is encountered.

Learning environments can reinforce (re: operant conditioning) problematic behaviors. E.g., an individual may be rewarded for having panic attacks  by receiving attention from family and friends – this would lead to the behavior being reinforced and increasing in later life.

Our society can also provide deviant maladaptive models that children identify with and imitate (re: social learning theory).

Cognitive Perspective of Mental Health Behavior

The cognitive approach assumes that a person’s thoughts are responsible for their behavior. The model deals with how information is processed in the brain and the impact of this on behavior.

The basic assumptions are:

• Maladaptive behavior is caused by faulty and irrational cognitions.
• It is the way you think about a problem rather than the problem itself that causes mental disorders.
• Individuals can overcome mental disorders by learning to use more appropriate cognitions.

The individual is an active processor of information .

How a person perceives, anticipates, and evaluates events rather than the events themselves, which will have an impact on behavior.

This is generally believed to be an automatic process; in other words, we do not think about it.

In people with psychological problems, these thought processes tend to be negative, and the cognitions (i.e., attributions, cognitive errors) made will be inaccurate:

These cognitions cause distortions in how we see things; Ellis suggested it is through irrational thinking, while Beck proposed the cognitive triad.

Medical / Biological Perspective of Mental Health Behavior

The medical model of psychopathology believes that disorders have an organic or physical cause. The focus of this approach is on genetics, neurotransmitters , neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, biochemistry, etc.

For example, in terms of biochemistry – the dopamine hypothesis argues that elevated levels of dopamine are related to symptoms of schizophrenia.

The approach argues that mental disorders are related to the physical structure and functioning of the brain.

For example, differences in brain structure (abnormalities in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, enlarged ventricles) have been identified in people with schizophrenia.

The Diathesis-Stress Model

According to the diathesis-stress model , the emergence of a psychological disorder requires first the existence of a diathesis, or an innate predisposition to that disorder in an individual, and second, stress, or a set of challenging life circumstances which then trigger the development of the disorder.

In the diathesis-stress model, these challenging life events are thought to interact with individuals’ innate dispositions to bring psychological disorders to the surface.

For example, traumatic early life experiences, such as the loss of a parent, can act as longstanding predispositions to a psychological disorder. In addition, personality traits like high neuroticism are sometimes also referred to as diatheses.

Furthermore, individuals with greater innate predispositions to a disorder may require less stress for that disorder to be triggered, and vice versa.

In this way, the diathesis-stress model explains how psychological disorders might be related to both nature and nurture and how those two components might interact with one another (Broerman, 2017).

Psychodynamic Perspective of Mental Health Behavior

The main assumptions include Freud’s belief that abnormality came from psychological causes rather than physical causes, that unresolved conflicts between the id, ego, and superego can all contribute to abnormality, for example:

• Weak ego : Well-adjusted people have a strong ego that can cope with the demands of both the id and the superego by allowing each to express itself at appropriate times. If the ego is weakened, then either the id or the superego, whichever is stronger, may dominate the personality.
• Unchecked id impulses : If id impulses are unchecked, they may be expressed in self-destructive and immoral behavior. This may lead to disorders such as conduct disorders in childhood and psychopathic [dangerously abnormal] behavior in adulthood.
• Too powerful superego : A superego that is too powerful, and therefore too harsh and inflexible in its moral values, will restrict the id to such an extent that the person will be deprived of even socially acceptable pleasures. According to Freud, this would create neurosis, which could be expressed in the symptoms of anxiety disorders , such as phobias and obsessions.

Freud also believed that early childhood experiences and unconscious motivation were responsible for disorders.

An Alternative View: Mental Illness is a Social Construction

Since the 1960s, it has been argued by anti-psychiatrists that the entire notion of abnormality or mental disorder is merely a social construction used by society.

Notable anti-psychiatrists were Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz, and Franco Basaglia. Some observations made are:

• Mental illness is a social construct created by doctors. An illness must be an objectively demonstrable biological pathology, but psychiatric disorders are not.
• The criteria for mental illness are vague, subjective, and open to misinterpretation criteria.
• The medical profession uses various labels, e.g., depressed and schizophrenic, to exclude those whose behavior fails to conform to society’s norms.
• Labels and treatment can be used as a form of social control and represent an abuse of power.
• Diagnosis raises issues of medical and ethical integrity because of financial and professional links with pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

Why is abnormal psychology important?

Abnormal psychology is a crucial field that focuses on understanding, diagnosing, and treating atypical behaviors, emotions, and thought processes, which can lead to mental disorders.

Its importance lies in enhancing our comprehension of mental health disorders, developing effective treatment strategies, and promoting mental health awareness to reduce stigma.

Additionally, this field helps in implementing preventive measures, guiding mental health legislation and policies, improving the quality of life for those with mental health issues, and serving as an educational tool for professionals and the public.

Through these various contributions, abnormal psychology helps foster a better understanding and handling of mental health matters in society.

How did the study of abnormal psychology originate?

The study of abnormal psychology originated in ancient times, with early explanations attributing abnormal behaviors to supernatural forces. The Greeks later proposed naturalistic explanations, such as Hippocrates’ theory of bodily humors.

After regression during the Middle Ages, the field progressed in the 19th and 20th centuries, with figures like Philippe Pinel and Sigmund Freud advocating humane treatment and developing therapeutic approaches, respectively.

The 20th century also saw the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Currently, the field draws from various disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience , and genetics.

What are the 4 key objectives of the field of abnormal psychology?

The field of abnormal psychology has four primary objectives:

Description: This involves accurately describing, defining, and classifying different psychological disorders. This is important for practitioners and researchers to communicate effectively about each disorder.

Explanation: This involves determining the causes or etiology of different disorders. Researchers aim to understand the biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of abnormal behaviors or mental health disorders.

Prediction: By understanding the course of different disorders, psychologists can predict how they might develop or change over time. This can help forecast the likely course of a disorder in an individual, given certain characteristics or conditions.

Change: Ultimately, the goal of abnormal psychology is to develop effective interventions and treatments that can alleviate the suffering caused by mental health disorders. This objective seeks to change maladaptive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, promoting mental well-being and functional life skills.

What makes defining abnormality difficult?

Defining abnormality in psychology is challenging due to cultural variations, subjectivity, context-dependent norms, societal changes over time, and difficulty discerning when behaviors or emotions become clinically significant. Cultural norms heavily influence perceptions of normality and abnormality.

Additionally, what’s considered abnormal in one context may be normal in another. Definitions also evolve with societal and scientific progress. Furthermore, distinguishing when feelings like sadness or anxiety become severe or prolonged enough to be deemed abnormal is complex.

These factors highlight the need for a nuanced, culturally sensitive, and individualized approach to abnormal psychology.

Why are correlational research designs often used in abnormal psychology?

Correlational research designs are often used in abnormal psychology because they allow researchers to examine the relationship between different variables without manipulating them, which can provide valuable insights into mental health conditions. These designs are particularly useful in cases where variables cannot be manipulated for ethical or practical reasons.

For example, it would be unethical and impractical to manipulate a factor such as childhood trauma to observe its effects on mental health in adulthood. However, a correlational design would allow researchers to examine the relationship between these variables as they naturally occur.

Additionally, correlational designs can help identify risk factors for various mental health conditions. For instance, researchers might find that high-stress levels correlate with an increased risk of depression. Such findings can provide a foundation for preventive measures and guide future research.

However, a key limitation of correlational research is that it cannot establish causality. Just because two variables are correlated does not mean one causes the other. Therefore, correlational findings often need to be followed up by experimental or longitudinal studies to explore potential causal relationships.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.