failure to function adequately

• rosenhan and seligman (1989)

  suggest the following characteristics that suggest someone was nor functioning adequately:

  1. suffering
  2. maladaptiveness (danger to self)
  3. vividness and unconventionality and loss of control
  4. unpredictablity and loss of control
  5. irrationality/incomprehensibility
  6. causes observer discomfort
  7. violated moral/social standards
• suffering


  behaviour that shows distress
• maladaptiveness


  behaviour that prevents a person from achieving their goals
• vividness and unconventionality of behaviour

  behaviour that is deemed as unusual
• unpredictability and loss of control

  a person may lose control and is emotional
• irrationality and incomprehensibility


  person's behaviour does not make sense in the situation
• observer discomfort


  feeling uncomfortable with others around you
• violation of moral and social ideal standards

  behaviour that goes against universal standards
• evaluation -strength


  FFA takes the patient's perspective into account eg, the criteria of 'suffering'.

  why is this a good thing?

  you account the context of behaviour and offer treatment if necessary
• evaluation - weakness


  however, FFA may still be culturally biased - adequate functioning is defined largely by social norms

  so what?

  it is culturally relative - developed in america which is an individualist society, and have different views compared to a collectionist society.
• another weakness


  also, many people fail to function adequately at some time, but not considered 'abnormal'

  many engage in behaviour that is maladaptive/harmful or threatening to self, but we do not class them as abnormal

  • adrenaline sports
  • smoking, drinking alcohol

  so what?

  if one engages in such activities and is still functioning normally from day-to-day = not classified as abnormal