considered normal. In a way, it is useful as it criticises other models and psychologists for onlyapproaching ‘abnormality’ by the mental illnesses rather than what is considered healthy.
Some empirical evidence also supports her model such as research in unemployment. It wasfound that those without jobs for a substantial amount of time were unhappy due to lack of ability, not because they were poor or were in financial crisis. However, Jahoda’s model is tooidealistic and in some cases like personal autonomy, children and the elderly may not be able toachieve this because they cannot be independent. Also, those that do fulfill each category maynot necessarily be normal. Due to the fact that it is really subjective, the model is not valid insome cases, and because it was originally developed during the 1980s, it needs to be updatedand revised.
Good desc. and eval.
Another theory is the DSM for classification. it stands for Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Health and consists of 5 axes. In total, there are 16 categories for mentalillnesses, unlike Jahoda, it is a list of what defines abnormal mental health illnesses. This makesit quite precise and accurate due to the well structured and categorized system. It is alsothought to be a better model compared to the ICD. Another good aspect about the model is thatit is often revised. The most recently updated model today is DSM-IV. However, the downside isit does not consider gender and culture, therefore is biased. Another problem is that it does notexplain the mental illnesses and what exact treatment can be enforced. There is only short termtreatment. It does not explain stigmatization mental illnesses and one study by Rosenhanhighlights the impact of labelling and problems with diagnosing when patients are normal.
desc. of study
Rosenhan’s study aimed to investigate the effects of labelling.
as well as... test existingdiagnostic systems.
He had a total of 8 participants, who were to complain to different mentalhospitals that they were hearing voices. All were admitted and 7 were diagnosed withschizophrenia. Participants were meant to take notes on any observations during the ward. After being admitted they were to act normal, not take any medication given by staff and convincethem they were sane. As a result, none of the pseudo-patients were able to convince the staff.The average number of days spent in the ward was 19 and the longest was 52. Patients andstaff were segregated and normal interaction was discouraged. The staff thought that normalactions were symptoms of abnormality. For instance, waiting outside cafeteria for lunch wastermed as oral acquisition syndrome and pacing the corridors out of boredom was seen asnervousness. The pseudo-patients had lost their rights and privacy. They were verbally andphysically abused by staff and felt a sense of powerlessness and because of the label, mouldedinto the expectations of it. Hence self-fulfilling prophecy. An interesting point to note was thatsome of the actual patients sensed normality and questioned pseudo patients if they werereporters!
Although this does give good insight to the problems with labelling, Ketydefended the staff saying that they did not expect normal people to be admitted and were onlybasing actions with the related disorder. Thus this is not enough evidence to conclude thatscientific method for diagnosing is incorrect and inaccurate. This particular study also lackedethical considerations for the participants as they were not protected from mental and physicalharm.
+ deceit towards staff at hospital.