PYC4811
Assignment 1- 657794
Student Number- 55560296

Community Psychology and Public Health’s
Approaches to Social Problems

Introduction
Community Psychology and Public Health models both cover the same ground but with key differences in the explanation of causes and influences on mental illness. Community psychology has a primary focus on understanding, and working with, people in their wider social context. Public Health on the other hand is concerned with preventing disease and distress of all forms before they occur (Tutorial Letter 102 for
PYC4811, 2015). It attempts through scientific investigation to understand such links between the socioenvironmental context and the individual and then to interrupt or otherwise alter these connections in an effort to reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in high risk behaviours and being exposed to environments that could endanger their health (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015). The central focus of both is focusing more on prevention rather than cure. In the era we are currently in most of the illnesses people suffer from are long term and chronic and therefore the need to see doctors so that is can be controlled is of high demand. The growing social upheaval and intensifying tensions in South Africa have evoked concern and panic among mental health professionals. In an attempt to lessen the anxiety many psychologists have boarded the community psychology wagon to cross the great divide between the comfortable consultancy room and the masses (Seedat et al, 1988). This is why Public Health and
Community psychology go hand in hand together, that is, doctors do not cure the disease but take care of the patient, bringing with it a range of psychological and sociological issues that health professionals need to have some understanding of in order to be able to help patients react to and cope with their conditions
(Gilbert, 1995).
The History of Community Psychology and Public Health
The reason of development of both disciplines goes hand in hand with each other in the sense of the realisation that the wider socio-environmental variables plays a leading role in the development of diseases. Thus community psychology movement developed in the U.S.A. during an era when there was growing concern about both the lack of resources and treatment facilities and the impact of social systems

on the human psyche (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015). Psychologists and other helping professionals began to take note of the effects of social variables like poverty and alienation on mental health’ (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015). Similarly the public health movement of nineteenthcentury England and America was stimulated by unhealthy social conditions in both industrialised urban and rural areas and therefore emerged as 'social action' to combat the spread of infectious diseases
(Gilbert, 1995).
Purposes and goals and contributions of both disciplines
Both of these disciplines are aimed at primary prevention which is seen as being “far less resource intensive and costly” (Guernina, 1995). They both share the ultimate purpose, which is they both divert their attention from the individual to the community. Public health and its emphasis of prevention have deeply influenced the field of community psychology. This is pointed out by George Albee (Guernina,
1995), one of the founding fathers of community psychology, “I learnt something about the field of public health and how successful it has been in eliminating some of the great plagues that have inflicted human kind over centuries, not through individual treatment but through successful efforts at prevention”
(Guernina, 1995).
The Models of Community Psychology and Public Health
Both disciplines differ in their theories of pathology. Public health is based on shift from the biomedical model that focuses on the impact of medicine in the elimination of disease to the psycho-socioenvironmental model that focuses on the promotion and maintenance of health through socioenvironmental and behavioural changes (Gilbert, 1995). Community psychology differs in that it believes the development of pathology is the result the oppressive socio/politico/economical structures and systems (Guernina, 1995). Pathology is the result of an individual being forced to survive in an environment of poverty and violence all of which lead to maladaptive behaviour developing in order to cope with these environments (Gilbert, 1995). Both public health and community psychology are each

based on four different models. Public health concerns itself with the physical and tangible changes within the environment such as sanitation and hygiene and the regulation of the food industry as well as health services (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015). In contrast community psychology concentrates mainly on the development of economic and psycho/social skills with the idea that by taking note of the effect of these social variables on development and growth, that competencies and coping skills can be developed and taught to help reduce the negative impact of these variables and promote positive coping behaviours (Seedat et al, 1988).
Shortcomings and Strengths of the Models
Both models have elements of strength and weakness. Strengths of using community psychology is that your research can be action-driven and can be planned to guide practices, policies and procedures to have a beneficial impact on people’s lives (Williams, 2015). By adopting multi-level perspectives on a psychological issue, you will be able to develop an understanding of the indirect, as well as direct, influences that situations, cultures and contexts can exert on a person’s well-being and behavior
(Williams, 2015). If you adopt more critical modes of community psychology, it is possible to give a voice to the marginalized and the oppressed and you may be able to make real changes to the status quo
(Williams, 2015). Although both Community Psychology’s models offer many strong points, the shift from the individual to the community has not been accompanied by a theory of mental health that takes cognisance of the interaction between the individual and the collective (Seedat et al, 1988). It is seen as imperative to combine individual and community processes to arrive at an integrative perspective of community life, so that we can prevent a one-sided approach (Seedat et al, 1988). For example, in the social action model, they tend to underplay the individual’s subjective experiences, by focusing chiefly on the antagonistic nature of the interaction between groups in society. Therefore it does not openly address the specific ways in which psycho pathology develops but rather assumes that in the process of empowerment problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse and delinquency would be eliminated. The mental health model has still not fully attempted to depart from the conventional individualized conception of

pathology. It essentially overlooks changes which may occur with community processes, which the model assumes to be stable (Seedat et al, 1988).
Public health’s strengths can be viewed in light of their clear and measurable goals. The strategies of prevention and aims are certainly pragmatic with concrete objectives (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811,
2015). This has demonstrated a high success rate in changes with subsequent decreases in incidence and prevalence of major diseases. However the problem with this model stems from its inability to provide for and convince certain groups to comply with western scientific models of health, especially with practices maintained for cultural and religious reasons. However, because this model of disease and distress is a western scientific model, it sometimes conflicts with the traditional and religious beliefs of non-scientists
(Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015). For example, because Catholicism forbids contraception, it is difficult to persuade Catholics that they should make use of condoms during sexual intercourse as a way of preventing spreading HIV/AIDS (Tutorial Letter 102 for PYC4811, 2015).
Conclusion
I believe both models are fairly adequate in providing what they aim for, that is community and health intervention. They influence each other and provide the basis to help eradicate wider societal problems.
They could both improve in certain areas. Community psychology needs to gain more credibility as a discipline and create its own theories while Public Health needs to ensure a more active role and participation of individuals and their communities in the decisions that impact on their health.
References
Gilbert, L. (1995) Sociology and the ‘New Public Health’ in South Africa. South African Journal of
Sociology, 26:4, 115-124.
Guernina, Z. (1995). Community and Health Psychology in Practice: Professor George Albee interviewed by Dr Zoubida Guernina. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5, 207-214.

Seedat, M,. Cloete, N., & Shochet, I. (1988). Community Psychology: Panic or Panacea. Psychology in
Society, 11, 39-54.
Tutorial Letter 102/0/2015, PYC4811 (2015). Department of Psychology, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.
Williams, G., & Zlotowitz, S. (2015). Using a Community Psychology Approach in Your Research.
Academia.edu. Available https://www.academia.edu/2703002/Using_a_community_psychology_approach_in_your_research