TEST BANK FOR UNDERSTANDING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR 10TH EDITION BY SUE

Models of Abnormal Behavior TABLE OF CONTENTS I. One-Dimensional Models of Mental Disorders II. A Multi-Path Model of Mental Disorders III. Dimension One: Biological Factors IV. Dimension Two: Psychological Factors V. Dimension Three: Social Factors VI. Dimension Four: Sociocultural Factors LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Discuss what models of psychopathology have been used to explain abnormal behavior. 2. Describe the multi-path model of mental disorders. 3. Describe how much of mental disorders can be explained through our biological makeup. 4. Discuss what psychological models are used to explain the etiology of mental disorders. 5. Discuss the role social factors play in psychopathology. 6. Discuss how sociocultural factors may play a role in the etiology of mental disorders. CLASSROOM TOPICS FOR LECTURE AND DISCUSSION 1. Two important issues that all models should address are (l) whether people with disorders are responsible for their problems and (2) whether they are responsible for solutions to their problems. These ideas are wonderfully summarized in an American Psychologist article by Philip Brickman et al. (1982). The medical model assumes that people are responsible for neither their problems nor the solutions to them. The model implies that professionals must provide help and that disturbed people are relatively passive during recovery. In the extreme form, humanistic-existential thinkers suggest that people are responsible for both creating and solving their difficulties. Some might consider this a moral model: Only the sinner can help himself or herself. Two other quadrants exist as well. One asserts that although people may create their own troubles, they must rely on others to solve them. Finally, a “compensatory” model argues that people may not be responsible for the cause of their problems, but they must be responsible for solving them. You can use the handout for this lecture topic and ask students where the biogenic model and the humanistic-existential perspective should be placed and why. This should lead to a discussion of what helpers can do, the disturbed person’s adoption of a “sick role,” the phenomenon of blaming the victim, and other consequences of adopting a particular model. Another related topic is the disease model of addiction. If alcoholics are the cause of their own problem and should be responsible for the solution, they would be seen in the “moral” cell. In many people’s minds, alcoholism is a disease (the alcoholic is responsible for neither the problem nor its solution). Do students agree with this model? Do they see people addicted to cigarettes in the same way? full file at TEST BANK FOR UNDERSTANDING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR 10TH EDITION BY SUE 18 Chapter 2: Models of Abnormal Behavior What about compulsive gamblers? Another point implicit in the grid is that responsibility for the cause of a problem does not necessitate responsibility for its solution (and vice versa). Ask students if they can think of disorders or other life problems in which a person who is not responsible for the cause is held responsible for its solution. Does this model seem “fair”? The discussion could conclude with the idea that adopting a model is anything but a neutral act. Source: Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C, Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368–384. Internet Site: Neuropsychology Central. Massive site with links to all topics in the neurosciences. 2. Discuss the multi-path model. Nearly all texts on abnormal psychology expose students to a variety of theories that purport to explain mental disorders. For example, students may hear of how researchers have made breakthroughs in the genetics of a disorder, how the unconscious mind may influence one’s behaviors, why irrational thoughts or distorted thinking lead to pathology, or how learned inappropriate behaviors may be culprits. Because psychologists may favor one model over another, textbooks have typically presented different theories as if each alone can explain a disorder or as if each has equal validity. Research shows, however, that disorders are caused by factors that cross various theories. For instance, in the case of Steve V in the chapter, genetics and brain functioning (a biological perspective) may interact with ways of thinking (a cognitive perspective) in a given cultural group (a sociocultural perspective) to produce abnormal behavior. Lead a discussion of the multi-path model with the class sighting relevant examples. 3. You can ask students to assess their own preferred theoretical perspective and its implications. Present the following short hypothetical case as the focus for this discussion: John is 17 and has been drinking heavily since he was 12. He drinks almost every day, but when he is particularly anxious, he drinks until he passes out. His father and his grandfather were diagnosed alcoholics; the father drank himself to death when John was 14. His mother and older brother do not drink at all, and they have always told John that he is the family’s black sheep, the rebellious who is destined to be like his father. Ask students what they think causes John‘s behavior—genetics? Early childhood experiences? Problems with feelings and thoughts? Current circumstances? Wider society? Ask them to defend their choice. The ensuing discussion may lead to an examination of the methods by which we could discover the causes of alcoholism. It should also show how multiple perspectives can shed light on a single case. From the biogenic perspective, you could list genetic vulnerability and briefly explain the concept of concordance. If John had an identical twin, would he, too, drink heavily and at the same times? Also under the biogenic heading, neurochemical differences can be discussed. If we found that John metabolized alcohol differently from his older brother, would that support a biogenic explanation? Point out the need for a preexisting biological difference. Finally, this example can give students an appreciation of diathesis-stress theory. If John has a preexisting, inherited vulnerability, is he doomed to become an alcoholic? (Most likely, a combination of genetic factors and family and social stressors produced this pattern of use.) From the psychodynamic perspective, you could discuss oral fixation. Is dependency a result or a cause of drinking? What information would suggest that early deprivation caused John’s adolescent behavior? John probably engages in the defenses of rationalization, denial, and projection. Full file at Humanistic theorists might focus on John’s lack of self-esteem or the conditions of worth that his family might have placed on loving him. Alienated from society, he may find comfort in intoxication and escape from responsibility. Does he freely choose to drink heavily? Is he being honest with his feelings? Behaviorists would look at how John’s father and grandfather modeled how to drink heavily. At the same time, they probably introduced a good deal of stress in the boy’s life, and he probably learned that drinking reduced that stress. If his mother and brother criticized him a great deal, perhaps drinking became an operant behavior that alleviated the criticism temporarily, illustrating operant conditioning’s concept of negative reinforcement. Finally, if the sight and smell of alcohol now produce an automatic response in John, we could see his use as having a classically conditioned quality, too. If students mention that John probably thinks that he can function only when he is drunk, they appreciate the cognitive viewpoint. He may catastrophize discomforting circumstances in his life and thereby give himself a rationale for drinking heavily. Irrational beliefs such as “unless I am perfect no one will love me, so I might as well get drunk” are part of Ellis’s A-B-C theory of personality. Beck would emphasize illogical thought processes John might have, such as a tendency to maximize any perceived hurt and minimize the effects drinking has on his life. If students focus on the family’s definition of John as the black sheep and the brother as perfect, they are in tune with systems thinking. His mother and father most likely were in frequent conflict; perhaps John resented that or was ignored. How did the family deal with the father’s death? John’s symptoms may only reflect a wider family pathology; in fact, the family may need to have a black sheep so other members maintain their roles. Therefore, mother and brother may unconsciously assist John in staying drunk. You can discuss “enabling” here. Finally, John may be acting out sex- and age-role stereotypes. The multicultural perspective would look at the cultural norms for John and adolescents like him. What is the peer culture like? Are others labeling him “alcoholic” prematurely or using a cultural standard that is inappropriate? The discussion should show that the same information about a person can be interpreted quite differently and that each perspective has something valuable to offer. An eclectic approach is attractive, but note that complete eclecticism is untenable. For example, isn’t it logically impossible for John to be both free in his actions and the product of determinism? 4. A pair of articles points out the tendency for researchers who support a particular orientation to selectively report evidence. The issue in this case is the explanation for the phenomenon of violent men fostering the development of violent sons. Widom (1989) presented what she considered a comprehensive examination of evidence on the question of violence begetting violence. She concluded that violence in adolescence and adulthood stems from being abused as a child. She marshaled considerable support for her environmental/familial explanation. Not long afterwards, DiLalla and Gottesman (1991) argued that Widom left out part of the story. With equal vigor and credibility, DiLalla and Gottesman show that evidence from twin and adoption studies, plus physiological research (on testosterone and 5-HIAA levels, for example), suggests a biological contribution to violence. They do not deny the importance of the environment but suggest that “cultural influence is just one of the paths that make children similar to their parents.” Discuss with your students whether scientists are more or less likely than nonscientists to look in an unbiased fashion at the evidence for and against their position. Ask them what, as consumers of information, they must do to protect themselves from researchers who present a biased interpretation of information while claiming to be thorough in their analysis. full file at 20 Chapter 2: Models of Abnormal Behavior Sources: DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1991). Biological and genetic contributions to violence—Widom’s untold tale. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 125–129; Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3–28. 5. The diathesis-stress model has become paradigmatic for much of the field. A good way to show the diathesis-stress idea is by drawing on the board a graph with low and high vulnerability along the x-axis and low and high stress along the y-axis. A diagonal line would separate those who develop the disorder from those who do not: At very high levels of vulnerability, almost any stress exceeds threshold values; at very low levels of vulnerability, even very high stress levels fail to generate the disorder. However, even a simple two-factor model (genetic vulnerability plus environmental stress) becomes quite complicated, given greater sophistication in our understanding of life stress. Monroe and Simons note that we have trouble determining a threshold level of vulnerability (who is vulnerable?) or gradations of vulnerability (who is highly vulnerable?). Furthermore, we cannot yet determine what type of life stress is important, in what context, with what frequency, and for what disorder. Monroe and Simon’s work focuses on depression. A more complete review of the concept is provided for schizophrenia (Fowled, 1992). Sources: Fowled, D. C. (1992). Schizophrenia: Diathesis-stress revisited. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 303–336; Monroe, S. M., & Simon, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: Implications for depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425. 6. Information that supplements the text’s coverage of operant conditioning will prove important in explaining disorders later in the book. Students will need to understand positive and negative reinforcement, punishment, extinction, and shaping. A handout using a four-cell diagram can communicate this clearly and quickly. The diagram shows four operant processes by which we can alter the strength of a response, all related to the consequences that immediately follow the response. Consequences can either be positive or negative and can either be presented or removed. This should simplify the underlying mechanisms of operant conditioning. It is always difficult for students to differentiate negative reinforcement from punishment. Use the example of behavior in a rainstorm. If you walk out into the rain and get soaked and cold, you are unlikely to do the same thing again. If you walk out into the rain and then put up an umbrella, it removes a negative stimulus and you are more likely to use an umbrella in the next storm. The former is punishment; the latter is negative reinforcement or avoidance learning. Shaping is crucial for understanding abnormal behavior. Explain to students that complex behaviors are made up of component tasks. If we are required to master the complex behavior before receiving any reinforcement, we are unlikely to ever learn it. Parents and coaches know this; they expect and reinforce only the crudest approximations of the “finished” behavior at first. The standard for reinforcement increases incrementally as more and more components of the behavior are added. Ask student athletes how they first learned a complex motor behavior such as a tennis serve or golf swing. Did their coach shape them at an appropriate rate? What happened when they had an off day and dropped back in performance? Next discuss how shaping naturally occurs in families—without the conscious effort involved in teaching a motor skill. How do parents shape their children for keeping their rooms clean, for table manners, or for the expression of feelings? Further, don’t children also shape their parents for a variety of behaviors? A good way to end this portion of your lecture is to discuss how you shape your students (smiling when they take notes or ask good questions) and how they shape you (laughing at your jokes, making eye contact). Full file at Everyday life is a shaping dance: a pattern of reinforcing interactions in which we often unconsciously attempt to alter others’ behavior even as they attempt to alter ours. Internet Site: University of Texas- Classical and Operant Conditioning. Examples of classical and operant conditioning. 7. Many professionals and nonprofessionals make liberal use of the term dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, the term has stretched to the point of describing everything, and, therefore, nothing. You can start a discussion by asking students to list the behaviors or factors they think define dysfunctional. You can compare these with the following concepts presented by Epstein and Bishop in what they call the McMaster model of family systems: Problem-solving difficulties. Most-effective families are able to identify problems, communicate their existence to other family members or relevant outsiders, develop alternative solutions to the problem, decide on a solution, take action to implement the solution, and evaluate its impact. Families are less and less effective if they are incapable of performing these problem-solving tasks. The most dysfunctional cannot do the first step of identifying the problem. Communication problems. Most-effective families communicate directly (to the person to whom the message is intended) and in a clear manner. Least-effective families communicate indirectly (to someone other than the message’s target) and in a masked manner. This sets up a four-cell model: clear and direct, clear and indirect, masked and direct, masked and indirect. Examples help teach these concepts. Tom’s wife is angry with him for not listening to her. Here are examples of communications for each of the four cells. Clear and direct: Tom, when you don’t listen to me, I get really angry. Clear and indirect: Boy, men can really make you angry when they don’t listen. Masked and direct: Tom, you look like hell today! Masked and indirect: Men! What are you gonna do about them? Roles in the family. Most-effective families have specific roles for family members (provide nurturance, make decisions, provide financial resources), although the roles are flexible when circumstances change. The least-effective families are chaotic; no one knows or maintains a role so no one can depend on another family member. Difficulties in expressing emotions. Most-effective families are able to get emotional needs taken care of. Family members can be sad, happy, angry, guilty, or relaxed as they need to be, although there are limitations on the intensity of such expression. Least-effective families allow no emotional expression or are out of control. Difficulties in being emotionally involved with one another. Most-effective families show interest in the welfare and activities of other family members. Least-effective families, in accordance with Minuchin’s structural approach, are either enmeshed (overinvolved) or disengaged (completely uninvolved) from one another. Behavior control difficulties. Most-effective families can control family members’ actions so there are clear expectations for specific situations. However, these families use a flexible and rational system of control so that the reasons for controls and opportunities for change are clear. Least-effective families are inconsistent, where one parent operates on a laissez faire basis while the other is rigidly controlling, or worse, both parents shift suddenly from one extreme to the