Supporting Theoretical Framework
Before investigating other possible solutions that can implemented to help resolve adolescent mental health issues, it is best to examine how Mental Health itself fits into some of the traditional psychological frameworks. To begin with, the World Health Organization (2016) defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (para. 2). The key factors that can be summarized from the above definition of mental health are: the individual can recognize his or her own abilities, the individual’s ability to handle stress, the individual’s ability to work, and the individual’s relationship with the community.
|
|
SOURCE: Bandura (1997)
(cited by Snowman & McCown, 2015, p. 297) |
Examining the key factors previously identified, the first one appears to be a good definition for self-efficacy, or “beliefs about one’s ability to successfully carry out particular tasks” (Snowman & McCown, 2015, p. 296). Self-efficacy is a critical part of the Personal Characteristics that comprise 1/3 of the Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model. This model “holds that a person’s behavior is always the result of interactions among personal characteristics, behavioral patterns, and environmental factors” (p. 296). Digging further into the triarchic model, the Behavioral Patterns portion includes the ability to “[make] changes in behavior to overcome or reduce perceptions of low self-efficacy, anxiety, and ineffective learning strategies” (p. 297), which could apply to both item 2 and 3 in the previously defined key factors. And Environmental Factors is a perfect match for item 4 in the key factors.
|
Now that the definition of mental health has been mapped onto the triadic model, how can this help with understanding mental health, or problems with mental health? If one assumes that all people start off at about the same point as babies, at least in regards to personal characteristics and behavior patterns, then the biggest different between babies is the environment they are raised in. According to the triadic model, environmental factors have an equal impact on both personal characteristics and behavioral patterns, so for a developing child, the environment and society may have a significant influence on whether or not mental health problems develop. Stein, Vidich, and Manning-White confirm this somewhat, saying “[c]ontemporary anxiety is connected to the feeling of uncertainty regarding the social situation and social roles and the incessant pressure to adapt and change identity” (as cited by Podgornik and Kovačič, 2014, p. 53).
|
To explore the details of the potential influence the environment can have on the mental health of a developing child, just look at Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development:
In Erikson’s view, personality development occurs as one successfully resolves a series of turning points, or psychosocial crises … Crises occur when people feel compelled to adjust to the normal guidelines and expectations that society has for them … For each crisis, there is a desirable quality that can emerge and a corresponding unfavorable characteristic. |
(Snowman & McCown, 2015, p. 28)
Applying Erikson’s theory, because psychosocial crises are stimulated by society and the environment, if the stimulus is poor, then there would be a good chance that the person going through the crisis would be unable to fully overcome it. If this happens frequently enough, that person could accumulate several of the unfavorable characteristics Erikson discussed.
But would this accumulation of unfavorable characteristics contribute to poor mental health? Unfortunately, the answer is most likely yes, because according to Podgornik and Kovačič (2014), “health and illness are cultural constructs and that their manifestations are part of the cultural patterns of a specific society, which establish the concepts of normality and abnormality” (p. 53). This means that not only can the environment and society affect a person’s mental health, but it can also define what constitutes good and bad mental health. These facts also have unfortunate implications for adolescents in school, because now their environment is limited to a very small percentage of the overall society, so any small differences that may normally be overlooked could potentially be emphasized. This could potentially have a drastic impact on the adolescent’s mental health, and also on his or her view of the immediate environment (i.e. the school).