Definitions Of Abnormality
Statistical Infrequency
Statistical Infrequency
One way that abnormality can be defined is whether the symptoms or the illness itself is common or not in terms of statistics. According to this definition, any symptom or behaviour which not seen very often often within a population could be considered to be statistically infrequent.
For example schizophrenia is only seen in approximately 1% of the population, therefore it is statistically infrequent.
The statistical approach is usually categorised by looking at human characteristics and looking at how the major majority of people score. For example, if if we look at intelligence within a population, this tends to form a normal distribution curve. Very few people have either extremes, either a very high IQ or a very low IQ. The average IQ is set at 100 and in a normal distribution most people, 68%, have a score which is in the range from 85 to 115. Only 2% of people have a score below 70. Therefore people who have an extremely low IQ are seen has been abnormal and potentially could receive a diagnosis of intellectual disability disorder.
​
Evaluation
1. One strength of this explanation is that it is useful. Statistical infrequency is used by clinicians in order to make a diagnosis. It is used as a common assessment tool for example in the Beck Depression Inventory a score of 30+ which is seen in the top 5% of respondents is widely interpreted as indicating severe depression. This therefore suggest that statistically infrequency is useful in the diagnostic and assessment process.
​
2. One limitation of this explanation is that sometimes an infrequent characteristic can be seen as very positive. For example example a person with an extremely high IQ would be considered to be gifted and this would be a positive characteristic. Similarly, we wouldn’t think of somebody with a very low depression score as being abnormal although statistically they would be abnormal. Both of these examples suggest that being unusual does not necessarily mean that somebody is abnormal.
​
3. However, another strength is that sometimes people who have a very low IQ (statically infrequent) could maybe benefit from support which might be available. Similarly somebody with a very high score on the Beck Depression Inventory could also be likely to benefit from therapy. However, this is not not true for everybody and not everybody would benefit from that label because of the social stigma that is attached to these labels.​​​
Deviation From Social Norms
Deviation from Social Norms
This definition looks at a behaviour and considers whether it differs from how we expect people to behave within our society. A person who deviates from social norms might be considered to be abnormal because in society we have standards and accepted ways of behaving which are considered to be normal for our society. This is a very collective judgement about what we as a society believe is normal behaviour.
This definition looks at the norms which are very specific to the culture that we live in. Therefore, it is difficult to use this definition to consider behaviour on a universal scale; it is culturally relative.
One example of deviation from social norms is homosexuality. For example in the UK culture homosexuality was considered to be abnormal and illegal until 1967. It then remained classified as a mental illness until 1987 when it was finally taken off the of of the diagnostic manuals for psychiatric disorders. However homosexuality continues to be viewed as abnormal and illegal in some cultures. For example, there are laws in certain countries which means that homosexuality can be punished by the death sentence, e.g. Saudi Arabia.
Another example of deviation from social norms comes from Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) which is commonly known as psychopathic behaviour. This is impulsive aggressive and irresponsible behaviour which is classified as abnormal according to the DSM- 5. One of the main features of antisocial personality disorder is the absence of prosocial internal standards. Therefore according to our culture this would be considered to be abnormal.
​
Evaluation
1. One strength of deviation from social norms is that it is very useful. Deviation from social norms is used within clinical practice to consider whether behaviour is acceptable or not. For example, Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is the failure to confirm to culturally acceptable behaviour i.e. recklessness, aggression, violating the rights of others and deceitfulness. Such norms also play a part in the diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder. Therefore this shows that deviation from social norms has validity within psychiatry.
​
2. One limitation of this explanation is that there is lots of variability between social norms in different cultures and over different historical time periods. One person within a specific cultural group may label someone as abnormal using the standards of that culture rather than using that person’s own cultural standards. For example, hearing voices is considered to be normal in some cultures and often seen as being a gift, however this will be seen as a sign of abnormality in the UK. As already noted homosexuality in the UK 100 years ago would’ve been considered to be abnormal, however in today’s society, it is seen as perfectly normal behaviour. Therefore this means it is very difficult difficult to judge deviation from social norms across different situations and different cultures. It is culturally relative.
​
3. Another limitation of deviation from social norms is that it is open to human rights abuses. It can be used as a form of social control within some countries in order to ensure that people are kept in line. For example, deviation from social norms has been used in the UK to demonise people who break those social norms, for example, with homosexuals in the past. Furthermore, women have been diagnosed with conditions such as nymphomania, which is considered to be uncontrollable sexual desire, as a way of controlling their sexuality. This therefore means that deviation from social norms can be used in order to control people whose behaviour does not fit in with society’s norms.
​​
Failure to Function Adequately
Failure to Function Adequately
This definition is quite quite different from the previous two definitions as it focuses on the individual and whether their behaviour is giving cause for concern. Failure to Function Adequately is when somebody appears to be struggling with day-to-day living, for example example, basic standards of nutrition and hygiene. Most people are able to get themselves up in the morning, hold down a job and have friendships with other people, if this no longer seems to be the case then they would be considered to be failing to function adequately.
Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) proposed some additional criteria that can be used to determine whether somebody is coping or not. These include:
-
When a person no longer conforms to interpersonal rules, for example, maintaining eye contact or respecting personal space.
-
When a person experiences severe personal distress
-
When a persons behaviour becomes irrational or they become a danger to themselves or others.
One example example of this could be intellectual disability disorder but only only if that person was also failing to function adequately.
​
Evaluation
1. One strength of the failure to function adequately definition is that it does link to criteria which would be needed in order for a person to seek professional help. If someone is showing signs that they are a danger to themselves or others that might be a sign that there needs to be some intervention. Most of us might have symptoms of mental disorder at some time or other in our life. For example the mental health charity, Mind, suggest that around 25% of people will experience a mental health problem in any given year. Furthermore, it tends to be when we are not functioning very well that we will seek professional help, therefore this explanation has a great deal of validity.
​
2. One limitation of the failure function adequately definition is that it is easy to label non-standard life style choices as abnormal. In practice it might be very very difficult to say whether somebody really is failing to function adequately or whether it is simply that they’ve chosen to deviate from the norm. Not having a permanent job or an address might seem like a failure to function adequately by most people standards, however for some people that might be just how they would like to live. Many people live alternative lifestyles and by this definition might be considered to be failing to function adequately, however this is personal choice.
​
3. Another strength of this explanation is that failure function adequately may not be abnormal. There are many circumstances when we all fail to cope at some time in our lives for example when we experience bereavement, or loss of a job or a relationship.
​
4. Another weakness of this explanation is that sometimes people can function very well despite having very serious mental health problems. For example, someone might be a high functioning addict, or have issues surrounding eating disorders. People in these situations appear to be quite normal, however they are just good at disguising the fact that they are having issues with functioning.
​​​​
Deviation From Ideal Mental Health
Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
This explanation was proposed by Marie Jahoda in 1958. Instead of looking at abnormality as being a set of criteria which a person might lack this explanation looks at the criteria which are needed for ideal mental health and suggest that if we lack any of these criteria then we might be struggling psychologically.
Marie Jahoda suggested the following criteria needs to be met if we have good mental health:
-
We have no symptoms or distress.
-
We are rational and can perceive ourselves accurately.
-
We self actualise and we strive to reach our potential.
-
We can cope with stress.
-
We have a realistic view of the world
-
We have good self-esteem and a lack of guilt
-
We are independent of other people
-
We can successfully work, love and enjoy our leisure time
Evaluation
1. One strength of the Ideal Mental Health criteria is that it is extremely comprehensive. Jahoda’s concept of ideal mental health appears to have high face validity because it covers many of the criteria which might help us distinguish whether we have a mental health problem from those people who don’t. Therefore, these criteria may be discussed meaningfully with a range of professionals who have different theoretical views. For example, if we have an issue with self actualisation we might want to discuss this with a humanistic counsellor. However, if we have an issue with coping with stress, this might be something that we want to discuss with a medical professional who might look to prescribe some medication to make the physical symptoms of anxiety less severe.
​
2. One limitation of the ideal mental health criteria is that it’s not equally applicable to all cultures. Jahoda’s criteria for ideal mental heath come from her experiences and research into her own American background. This means that her viewpoint of what is considered to be needed for ideal mental health might be considered to be ethnocentric. She might be imposing an etic approach to her understanding of ideal mental health. For example, the value that is placed on personal independence is not considered to be a sign of ideal mental health in some cultures. Therefore, it might be difficult to apply her concept of ideal mental health from one culture to another.
​
3. Another weakness of Jahoda’s criteria is that it sets extremely high standards for mental health. It is very likely that nobody will achieve all of the criteria within our lifetime, or at any one point in our lives. However, its is comprehensive and it might be something which we consider working towards.
​​