| Course | PS 360 Psychopathology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Defining abnormality paper |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 360 Unit 1
Distress, Deviation, Dysfunction and Danger: A Defining Abnormality Paper Showing Where Each Proposed Line Fails, and Why Wakefield's Harmful Dysfunction Still Leaves the Boundary Contested
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 360: Psychopathology
Instructor Name
January 12, 2026
Distress, Deviation, Dysfunction and Danger: A Defining Abnormality Paper Showing Where Each Proposed Line Fails, and Why Wakefield's Harmful Dysfunction Still Leaves the Boundary Contested
The Boundary Problem
Before a course on psychopathology can describe any condition, it has to say what makes something a disorder rather than a difference, a hardship or a choice. This paper reports four criteria that have been proposed for drawing that line, distress, deviation, dysfunction and danger, shows where each one fails when used alone, and then examines an influential attempt to combine them. It concludes that the boundary remains contested and explains why that is a reasonable conclusion rather than a failure of the field.
Distress
The first proposal is that a condition is abnormal when it causes the person significant suffering. Introductory texts often list distress among the features of psychological disorders (Spielman et al., 2020), and it captures something real: most people who seek help do so because they are suffering. As a definition on its own, however, distress fails in two directions. Some states that cause intense distress are ordinary responses to events, such as grief after a death, and treating them as disorders would turn normal human experience into pathology. And some conditions that clinicians recognize involve little distress to the person, at least at times, so a distress criterion would miss them.
Deviation
The second proposal is statistical or social deviation: behavior or experience that is unusual for the population or that breaks the norms of the culture. Deviation is easy to measure, but it fails badly as a definition. Many unusual traits, such as exceptional musical talent, are not disorders. Norms differ across cultures and change over time, so a deviation criterion makes the definition of disorder depend on what a society happens to approve, and history includes examples of behavior once labeled disorder largely because it deviated from prevailing norms. Deviation can signal that something needs a closer look; it cannot by itself say what is wrong.
Dysfunction
The third proposal is that a condition is a disorder when it impairs a person's ability to function in daily life, at work, in relationships or in caring for oneself. Impairment is central to modern classification: the current diagnostic manual describes mental disorders in terms of clinically significant disturbance usually associated with significant distress or impairment in important activities (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022), and impairment is often what separates a clinical condition from a milder version of the same experience. Yet dysfunction alone is ambiguous. People can be impaired by circumstances, such as poverty or discrimination, that are not disorders of the person, and the standard of adequate functioning varies with what a setting demands.
Danger
The fourth proposal is danger to oneself or others. Danger matters for decisions about urgent care, but it fails as a definition because most people with psychological disorders are not dangerous, and many dangerous acts are not products of any disorder. Using danger as the defining line would also reinforce a stigma that the evidence does not support.
The Harmful Dysfunction Account
Wakefield (1992) proposed that a mental disorder is best understood as a harmful dysfunction. Dysfunction, in his sense, is a factual matter: the failure of some internal mechanism to perform a function it was designed by natural selection to perform. Harm is a value judgment: the dysfunction must cause harm or deprivation of benefit as judged by the standards of the person's culture. Both are required. A dysfunction that causes no harm is not a disorder, and harm that results from no internal dysfunction, such as distress from oppression or ordinary grief, is not one either.
The account combines the strengths of the earlier criteria while avoiding their main failures. It explains why grief is not a disorder, since the grieving person's mechanisms are working as designed, and why unusual talents are not disorders, since they cause no harm. It also openly admits that values enter the definition through the harm component, which is honest about something the deviation criterion hid.
Why the Boundary Remains Contested
Wakefield's account has been influential and also criticized. Its factual component depends on claims about what mental mechanisms were designed to do, which are often hard to establish, so in practice the line between dysfunction and normal variation remains uncertain for many conditions. Its value component means that judgments of harm can still differ across cultures. The account clarifies what a definition of disorder needs to do without supplying a test that settles every case.
That outcome is reasonable. Psychopathology studies conditions that sit on continuums with ordinary experience, and a boundary drawn on such continuums will always require judgment. What the field can do, and what this course will do, is make that judgment explicit and examine it rather than hide it.
How the Criteria Will Be Used in Later Units
The four criteria do not disappear because none works alone. Later units in this course will meet them repeatedly in a more modest role. Distress and impairment appear in how the classification system describes many conditions, which is why cases in later units attend closely to how a presentation affects a person's daily life and how long it has lasted. Deviation appears in the cultural questions every case raises, since behavior that is unusual in one setting may be ordinary in another. Danger appears only in a narrow role, in decisions about urgent care, which this course leaves to licensed clinicians and the course's own materials. Harmful dysfunction, finally, supplies a question to ask of every category: is there evidence that something is failing to work, or is the label being applied to a difficult but understandable response to circumstances? Keeping that question open is one of the habits this paper is meant to establish for the rest of the term.
A Note on Personal Experience
Some students in this course have their own diagnoses or those of people close to them. This paper uses no personal cases. A definition of disorder is a conceptual question, best examined through the arguments and evidence above, and personal health information is better kept out of graded work.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology-2e
Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47(3), 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.373
Reading the PS 360 Unit 1 instructions
The opening PS 360 unit asks students to explain how psychologists have tried to define abnormality and to judge how well each attempt works. Expect to name the criteria your course materials present, explain each with an example, and show its limits with cases that it includes wrongly or misses. An account that combines criteria, such as harmful dysfunction, gives the paper an argument rather than a list. You should attribute each idea to its source and cite the classification manual without reproducing its definitions. A conclusion that admits the boundary is contested is acceptable and often stronger than a forced verdict. Personal experience and descriptions of people you know have no place in this paper and should be left out entirely.
How the PS 360 Unit 1 example is put together
The sample opens with the boundary problem and the plan for the paper. Four sections, one per criterion, explain distress, deviation, dysfunction and danger with the introductory text as the source, and each gives a case the criterion wrongly includes and one it wrongly excludes. Wakefield's account is then set out: a disorder must be harmful by social values and must involve a failure of some internal mechanism to perform its natural function. A section explains why that account still leaves the line contested, since judgments about natural function are hard to test. The paper closes by explaining how the criteria will be applied in later case units and with a short note keeping personal experience out.
Where the points sit in the PS 360 Unit 1 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the defining abnormality paper usually rewards an accurate account of each criterion, examples that expose limits, a combined or theoretical account, reasoning about what remains unresolved and clear APA writing. The criteria earn credit when each is defined precisely and attributed. Examples score when they show both kinds of failure, including too much and missing too much. Usually the combined account is weighted heaviest, with graders checking that the paper states Wakefield's two conditions exactly and test them. Reasoning is credited when the paper explains why the boundary stays open instead of announcing a final definition. Writing is credited for even-handed, person-first wording that treats differences between people with respect throughout.
PS 360 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Abnormality papers lose points when they list the criteria without testing any of them. Another frequent weakness is treating statistical rarity as if rarity meant disorder, ignoring rare traits that are valued. Students often present danger as a central criterion, which overstates the link between disorder and violence and repeats a stigmatizing myth. Some summarize the harmful dysfunction account without its two parts. Others close with a confident definition the evidence cannot support. Quoting criteria from the manual at length, instead of citing it, uses words that should go to analysis. Drawing on a friend's or relative's experience as an example raises privacy problems and weakens the argument, because single cases cannot test a definition.
Get a PS 360 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 1 instructions with the PS 360 rubric your classroom posts and the readings your section assigns on defining disorder. We write a custom example that states each criterion at full strength, attaches counterexamples where they belong, treats the boundary historically and argues one position. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 360 papers and psychology samples
- PS 360 Unit 2: Classification and criteria overview
- PS 360 Unit 3: Anxiety disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 4: Mood disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 5: Psychotic disorders paper
- PS 360 Unit 6: Personality or substance disorder case
- PS 360 Unit 7: Treatment evidence paper
- PS 360 Unit 8: Comprehensive case analysis
- PS 350 Unit 1: Cognitive methods paper
- PS 101 Unit 1: Discussion post on a course concept
- PS 105 Unit 1: Developmental theory overview
- PS 130 Unit 1: Field overview discussion
PS 360 Unit 1 questions, answered
Do I have to settle on one definition?
Most instructions want a position, yes, but a position can be that no single criterion works and that the boundary is drawn by several considerations together. What fails is a paper that describes four views and then stops. State what you conclude, give the reasons, and say what evidence or argument would move you. Uncertainty stated with reasons still counts as a position.
Is PS 360 the same as a mental health nursing course?
No. A nursing course is about caring for patients and is taught to people who will be licensed to do it. PS 360 studies the literature, the classification system and the evidence base from outside the clinic, and nothing in it qualifies anyone to assess or treat. If your draft contains care planning or interventions for a patient, it has answered a different program.
I have a diagnosis of my own. Should I write about it?
That is yours to disclose or not, and a graded paper is a poor place for it. Your instructor, your classmates and anyone marking the work would be reading private health information you cannot take back. Keep the analysis on the published argument. If the material is hard to work with, your instructor or the school's support services are the right place to raise it.
Where can I find a free PS 360 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full PS 360 Unit 1 defining abnormality paper is on this page free, covering the four criteria, the harmful dysfunction account and margin notes. Assigned a different framework for abnormality? Send the prompt and we draft that paper for you free.
Does PS 360 Unit 1 need to settle what counts as a disorder?
No. The sample argues that each criterion fails alone and that harmful dysfunction narrows the question without closing it, which is a defensible conclusion for this unit.