Discuss normality versus abnormality.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of clinical biases in diagnosis.

Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:

• Jahoda’s (1958) work on ideal mental health
• Rogers’ (1959, 1961) descriptions of the fully functioning person
• Szasz’s (1974) and Scheff’s (1966) discussions about problems of psychiatric labelling and the medicalization of problems of living
• Rosenhan and Seligman’s (1989) seven features of abnormality
• Caetano’s (1974) study into the effects of labelling on student and psychiatrist diagnoses of video-taped actors.

Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:

• assumptions and biases in defining the concepts of normal and abnormal
• areas of uncertainty in diagnostic manuals
• methodological considerations in research
• the influence of social and cultural norms on the perception of normality/abnormality
• historical changes in our understanding of what constitutes normal and abnormal behaviour
• ethical implications of definitions of normality and abnormality
• ethical considerations related to labelling and stigmatization.

Responses are likely to focus on explaining concepts of normality vs. abnormality and on related research. Marks awarded for criterion B should focus on how the responses reflect general knowledge of the topic including definitions of terms, explanations of theories and concepts. Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question.

Question 1 was handled fairly well by those who took the time to discuss the issue of normality versus abnormality, rather than just citing anecdotal information or research to illustrate a point being made. Critical thinking was a bit uneven, with some candidates using theories or studies to foster a logical argument, while others seemed to cite "truisms".