Historical Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology

Historical Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology
PSY/410

Historical Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology Introduction Although people have tried to explore and discover the roots of abnormal behavior s since antiquity, the field of abnormal psychology emerged as a branch under the functionalist school (Comer, 2006). Understandably, it uses the tenets, research methods, and premises of psychology itself. However, abnormal behavior is more difficult to define. With the advent of cultural and cross-cultural psychology, as well, abnormal psychology and its definitions have been increasingly challenged (Comer, 2006). Therefore, abnormal psychology intersects the main schools of psychology and those of its other branches and often struggles to define the margins of human thought and behavior (Bandura, 2001). Like the behaviors and disorders its studies, abnormal psychology is anomalous in nature. History of Abnormal Psychology Even though modern psychology extended from Wilhelm Wundt’s work in observation, human behavior and the associative philosophies engaged to explain his laboratory-based results in 1879, Wundt’s results often inspired disagreement (Coon and Mitterer, 2010, p. 21). After all, his observations were systematic in nature, rarely reflected “real life” and focused on consciousness. More troubling, perhaps, the introspection analysis often required produced dissimilar explanations, interpretations and meanings. As Coon and Mitterer (2010) reveal, reflection is subjective. Therefore, perceptions and description of the same object or process elicit varied descriptions (p. 21). When such an occurrence repeats itself within a discipline, this engenders other schools of thought, further inquiry and exploration and often engages more methods. Psychology is no exception. As evidenced by William James, an American scholar, (Coon and Mitterer, 2010) his expansion of psychology through the inclusion of animal behavior, religious experience, and abnormal behavior under the aegis and influence of Darwinism and adaptability, the functionalist school grew (p. 23). Addressing the ways in which the mind functioned to facilitate or hinder adaptation to the environment, James (as cited by Conn and Mitterer, 2010) contended that consciousness was not a life-long set of building blocks, but an ever changing, a continuous stream of images and scenarios (p. 22). Because of this, James and the functionalist sought deeper understanding of the interaction between the mind, perception habits, and emotions (p. 23). More importantly, perhaps, they wondered how they promoted survival through adaptability (p. 23). This not only coauthored cognitive, educational and industrial psychology but also helped fashion abnormal psychology. After all, failure to adapt signified abnormality, as did learning differences (p. 23). Through B.F. Skinner’s application of behavioral theory to humans, ideas of “designed culture” emerged (Coon and Mitterer, 2010, p. 23). That is to stay that Skinner believed positive or negative reinforcement created and cultivated responses to various situations and stimuli (p. 24). While he believed that positive reinforcement was the best tool for normative behaviors, he ultimately insisted that punitive measures often resulted in destructive and maladaptive behaviors including war, overpopulation and other deviance (p. 24). The cognitive psychology school criticized his work because it overlooked the cognitive capacity in mediation and mitigation, decision-making and learning (p. 24). The synthesis of these two schools ultimately comprises a significant component of behavior modification programs and therapies used in abnormal psychology. Sigmund Freud believed the unconscious thought held important clues to abnormal behavior. Relating behaviors to events and circumstances, Freud engendered psychoanalysis (Coon and Mitterer, 2010, p. 224). This, too, became a part of psychology and abnormal psychology. Obviously then, defining the normative and the deficiencies therein created Abnormal Psychology. Addressing Abnormalities Abnormal Psychology addressed the abnormal behaviors present within society and among individuals. (Gilles-Thomas, 1989) Using statistical analysis, social norm violation, maladaptive behavior, personal distress, deviation from the ideal, and even a medical definition of mental illness, psychologists and psychiatrists tried to define abnormal behavior. Yet, each of these methods served problematic. While Comer (2006) reveals that mental illness or abnormal behavior had been generally accepted as a medical condition since the 17th century, Gilles-Thomas (1989) contends that mental distress, deviance or dysfunction were merely symptoms of another illness. Just as physical illness and abnormal behavior may not be mutually exclusive, the correlations between the aforementioned defining methods and their results suffer from the same relationships (1989). After all, intelligence may play a role in the definition, but intelligence outside the normative ranges does not necessarily reflect abnormal behavior (1989). Neither does deviation from norms. As Coon and Mitterer (2010) suggest, culture informs such practices (p. 32). Even though norms are persuasive, they vary from society to society. Therefore, what is normative in one may not be normative in another (p. 34). Until late in the 20th century, however, psychology generally used western-based norms as the basis of psychology and abnormal behavior determinants (p. 32). (Gilles-Thomas, 1989) Maladaptive behaviors, either harmful to oneself or one’s society are perhaps the easiest to identify, especially when they are extreme. Nevertheless, they, too, extend from individual circumstances. Therefore, the universal applicability of “normal” may suffer in this regard. Some individuals may use seemingly maladaptive behaviors to adapt to their lives. Likewise, personal distress is also relative to such circumstances and events. Both must be taken in context. Of all the definitions, deviation from the ideal is the most troublesome. It not only asks what an ideal personality is but also suggests that normative reflects societal expectations. Nearly everyone falls short of this. In fact, Gilles- Thomas (1989) contends most will never reach it. Therefore, the ideal is really the abnormal. In order to determine abnormal behavior then, psychiatrists must use the synthesis of these definitions, analyze the behaviors and individuals in light of personal events and circumstances and society. “Abnormal” is not a fixed condition (Comer, 2006; Gilles-Thomas, 1989). Abnormality lies at the margins. Other Lenses Through a biological perspective, (Coon and Mitterer, 2010) physical, chemical and biological processes control behavior (p. 31). Therefore, the investigation of behavior often engages the scientific method, the methodical approach to the discovery of brain and nervous system activity, the hereditary influences, etc. (p. 31). It takes a reductionist view of behavior and human nature and often fails to explain how and why abnormalities occur in many disorders. Psychosocial/humanist models highlight the ways in which self-image; personal growth needs and one’s perception of the world infuse the personal experience of the world, its human problems, potentials and ideals (Coon and Mitterer, 2010, p. 31). Using self-image and self-actualization to explain human behavior, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs most accurately reflects the associative motivational school of thoughts. The sociocultural perspective contends that culture and society influence behaviors in powerful ways (Coon and Mitterer, 2010, p. 31). They persuade individuals to act in ways they have seen, learned and experienced. In essence, society and culture underwrite acceptations and expectations and help carve personalities, behaviors and traits. Conclusion Based upon the preceding passages then, abnormal psychology extends from and intersects general psychology. It employs the scientific method, observation, data gathering, analysis, hypothesis formulation and/or refutation. Unlike its counterparts, it targets a smaller segment of society. It contrasts and compares theoretical aspects and focuses on the anomalies. Because it is less concerned with universal applicability it can and does dismiss numerous theories without refutation. Rather, as Banura 92001) insists, abnormal psychology builds upon them , interweaves various elements from psychology’s schools of thoughts in tangential fashion, accommodates and adopts theoretical frameworks or components, as it deems necessary. It proves fertile ground for perpetual exploration.

References
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 2001: (52) 1-26. Retrieved from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura2001ARPr.pdf

Comer, Ronald J. (2006). Chapter One Outline. Abnormal Psychology & Scientific American Reader for Comer. Worth Pub.
Coon, D., Mitterer, J. O., Talbot, S., & Vanchella, C. M. (2010). Introduction to psychology:

Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Gilles-Thomas, D.L. (1989). Abnormal Psychology: Lecture 1. A Course in Abnormal

Psychology. Retrieved from http://ccvillage.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture1.html

References: Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 2001: (52) 1-26. Retrieved from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura2001ARPr.pdf Comer, Ronald J. (2006). Chapter One Outline. Abnormal Psychology & Scientific American Reader for Comer. Worth Pub. Coon, D., Mitterer, J. O., Talbot, S., & Vanchella, C. M. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gilles-Thomas, D.L. (1989). Abnormal Psychology: Lecture 1. A Course in Abnormal Psychology. Retrieved from http://ccvillage.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture1.html