definitions of abnormality AO3

AO3- deviation from social norms: helps maintain social order

A key strength of the deviation from social norms definition of abnormality is that it helps maintain social order and harmony within a community. This definition identifies abnormal behaviour as any action that breaks the accepted social and cultural norms of a society, which act as guidelines for how individuals are expected to behave. By highlighting behaviour that deviates from these norms, societies can recognise actions that may be distressing, disruptive, or harmful. This early identification helps protect individuals and the wider community from potentially threatening or antisocial behaviour. Therefore, the deviation from social norms definition is useful because it not only identifies abnormality but also supports the smooth functioning of society by safeguarding members from harmful or distressing actions.

AO3- deviation from social norms: era-dependant

A key limitation of the deviation from social norms definition of abnormality is that social norms change over time, meaning what is considered abnormal in one era may be viewed as completely normal in another. Because norms evolve alongside cultural values, behaviours once labelled as signs of mental disorder may later be understood differently. For example, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973, despite being widely accepted in many societies today. This demonstrates that the definition lacks consistency and can reflect prejudice rather than objective abnormality. Therefore, the deviation from social norms definition is limited because it is heavily influenced by cultural and historical context, reducing its reliability.

AO3- deviation from social norms: culturally dependent

A further limitation of defining abnormality as deviation from social norms is that social norms vary widely between cultures. Behaviour that is considered perfectly acceptable in one culture may be viewed as rude, inappropriate, or even abnormal in another. For example, in many Western countries it is normal for someone to blow their nose in public, whereas in India such behaviour would go against social norms. This cultural relativity means that the same behaviour could be judged differently depending on the cultural context, making the definition inconsistent and potentially unfair when applied across diverse groups.

A03- failure to function adequatley: individuals functioning

A strength of the failure to function adequately definition of abnormality is that it aligns closely with the experiences of individuals who seek help. Most people who pursue clinical support for psychological disorders do so because the disorder is interfering with their ability to cope with everyday life, such as maintaining relationships, working, or carrying out daily routines. This means the definition is supported by the lived experiences of those suffering from mental disorders, as it reflects the practical difficulties they face rather than relying solely on external judgments. Therefore, the failure to function adequately definition is useful because it is grounded in the real impact that psychological disorders have on individuals’ daily functioning.

A03- failure to function adequatley: not everyone with a mental disorder fails to function

A significant limitation of the failure to function adequately definition is that not everyone with a mental disorder is unable to function in society. Some individuals are able to appear outwardly normal while still experiencing significant psychological abnormalities. For example, there have been many well-known cases of serial offenders, such as Ted Bundy, who were able to maintain jobs, relationships, and a socially acceptable lifestyle despite having severe psychopathic traits. This challenges the validity of the definition because it shows that the ability to function is not always a reliable indicator of mental health. If a person can meet societal expectations—such as holding employment, maintaining hygiene, or communicating effectively—yet still displays dangerous or abnormal internal states, the definition may fail to identify them as abnormal. Therefore, the failure to function adequately definition lacks comprehensiveness, as it risks overlooking individuals whose disorders do not impair daily functioning but may still pose significant risk to themselves or others.

A03- failure to function adequatley: not everyone who fails ot function is abnormal

Not everyone who is unable to function adequately is necessarily suffering from a mental disorder, which is a limitation of the failure to function adequately definition. In some contexts, psychologically healthy individuals may temporarily struggle to function due to life events. For example, someone who has recently lost a close friend or relative may find it difficult to go to work, engage in social activities, or enjoy hobbies because of the intense grief they are experiencing. This shows that impairment in daily functioning does not always indicate a mental disorder, as it can be a normal and temporary response to situational stress. Therefore, using failure to function adequately as a sole criterion for abnormality risks pathologising normal human experiences, reducing the validity of this definition.

AO3- statistical infrequency: objective

The statistical infrequency definition provides a clear and objective way of determining whether behaviour or characteristics are abnormal. Unlike other definitions that rely on subjective judgment, statistical infrequency uses numerical data to identify behaviours that are rare or unusual within a population. For example, IQ scores can be measured and plotted on a normal distribution, and scores that fall significantly below or above the average are considered statistically infrequent. This objectivity makes the definition scientific and measurable, increasing its reliability when identifying abnormality. However, it also means that rare behaviours are automatically labelled as abnormal, even if they are positive or desirable, which can be a limitation in practical application.

AO3- statistical infrequency: does not always equal abnormality

Statistical infrequency does not always indicate abnormality or the presence of a mental disorder. For example, an IQ score above 140 is statistically rare, but it is not considered a disorder; in fact, it is generally seen as a positive trait. This demonstrates a limitation of the statistical infrequency definition, as it cannot distinguish between rare but desirable traits and rare undesirable traits. As a result, relying solely on statistical rarity risks misclassifying normal or advantageous behaviours as abnormal, reducing the practical usefulness of this definition in psychology.

AO3- statistical infrequency: abnormality does nto alwasy equate to stat infrequency

abnormality does not always equate to statistical infrequency. For example, mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are considered abnormal, yet they are statistically quite common in the population. This highlights a limitation of the statistical infrequency definition, as it would fail to identify many individuals with genuine psychological disorders simply because their condition is not rare. Therefore, while statistical infrequency provides an objective measure, it cannot fully capture all cases of abnormality, limiting its validity as a comprehensive definition.

A03- deviation from ideal mental health: positive real world applications

The Deviation from Ideal Mental Health (DIMH) definition is a positive approach to understanding abnormality because it focuses on what makes people mentally healthy rather than simply what is dysfunctional. This approach has useful real-world applications, particularly in clinical psychology. For example, it can be used as the basis for therapy and treatment, as it emphasises the whole person and aims to improve overall mental health and wellbeing rather than just addressing specific symptoms. By promoting positive mental health, DIMH encourages preventative measures and holistic interventions, making it a practical and constructive framework for supporting individuals in achieving psychological wellbeing.

A03- deviation from ideal mental health: culturally dependent

Another limitation of Jahoda’s Deviation from Ideal Mental Health (DIMH) approach is that the concept of ideal mental health may vary between cultures. For example, Jahoda highlights autonomy as a key characteristic of ideal mental health, yet in more collectivist cultures, prioritising individual autonomy might be seen as undesirable or even socially inappropriate. This cultural bias means that DIMH may not be universally applicable, reducing its cross-cultural validity and limiting its usefulness when assessing mental health in diverse populations.

A03- deviation from ideal mental health: subjective

A limitation of Jahoda’s criteria for Deviation from Ideal Mental Health (DIMH) is that they are highly subjective and difficult to measure. For instance, it is challenging to quantify how much a person is self-actualising or the extent to which they are able to master their environment. While some methods exist, such as patient self-reports or questionnaires, these can be unreliable because individuals are likely to have different personal standards and interpretations of what constitutes success or wellbeing. This subjectivity reduces the practicality and reliability of DIMH as a definition of abnormality, making it difficult to apply consistently in clinical settings.