Discuss definitions of abnormality

AO1: Statistical infrequency

Occurs when an individual has a less common characteristic, for example being more depressed or less intelligent than most of the population.

AO1: The most obvious way to define anything as "normal" or "abnormal" is according to the number of times we observe it - statistics are about numbers. (Example)

According to the statistical definition any relatively usual behaviour or characteristic can be thought of as "normal" and any behaviour that is different to this is "abnormal"

This is what is meant by statistical infrequency. We can, for example, say that at any one time only a small number of people will have an irrational fear of buttons or believe for no good reasons that their neighbours are zombies.

AO1: This statistical approach comes into its own when we are dealing with characters that can be reliably measured, for example intelligence. (Example)

We know that in any human characteristic, the majority of people's scores will cluster around the average and that the further we go above or below that average, the fewer people will attain that score.

This is called the normal distribution.

You can see the normal distribution of IQ.

The average IQ is set at 100. Most people have an IQ in the range from 85 to 115. Only 2% of people have a score below 70. Those individuals scoring below 70 are very unusual or "abnormal" and are liable to receive a diagnosis of a psychological disorder - intellectual disability disorder.

AO3: Real world application - statistical infrequency (Strength)

A strength of the statistical definition is that it has a real-life application in the diagnosis of intellectual disability order.

There is therefore a place for statistical infrequency in thinking about what are normal and abnormal behaviours and characteristics. Actually all assessment of patients with mental disorders include some kind of measure of how severe their symptoms are as compared to statistical norms.

Statistical is thus a useful part of clinical assessment.

AO3: Cannot be solely relied on (Limitation)

IQ scores over 130 are just as unusually as those below 70, but we wouldn't think of super-intelligence as an undesirable characteristic does make the behaviour statistically abnormal but that doesn't mean it requires treatment to return to normal.

This is a serious limitation to the concept of statistical infrequency and means that it would never be used alone to make a diagnosis.

AO3: No benefit to defining abnormality (Limitation)

Another problem with statistical infrequency is that where someone is living a happy fulfilled life, there is no benefit to them being labelled as abnormal regardless of how unusual they are.

So someone with a very low IQ but who was not distressed, quite capable of working etc would simply not need a diagnosis of intellectual disability.

If that person was "labelled" as abnormal this might have a negative effect on the way others view them and the way they view themselves.

AO1: Deviation from social norms

Concerns behaviour that is different from the accepted standards of behaviour.

AO1: Most of us notice people whose behaviour is a deviation from social norms, ie when a person behaves in a way that is different from how expect people to behave. (Example)

Groups of people choose to define behaviour as abnormal on the basis that it offends their sense of what is "acceptable" or the norm.

We are making a collective judgement as a society about what is right.

AO1: Of course those social norms may be different for each generation and every culture so there are relatively few behaviours that would be considered universally abnormal on the basis that they breach social norms. (Example)

Homosexuality continues to be viewed as abnormal (and illegal) in some cultures.

For example in April 2018, Brunei introduced new laws that make sex between men an offence punishable by stoning to death.

AO1: A person with antisocial personal disorder is impulsive, aggressive and irresponsible. According to the DSM-5 (the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) one important symptoms of anti social personality disorder…

is an "absence of proscial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behaviour"

In order words we are making the social judgement that a psychopath is abnormal because they don't conform to our moral standards.

Psychopathic behaviour would be considered abnormal in a very wide range of cultures.

AO3: Real world application - deviation from social norms (Strength)

A strength of the deviation from social norms definition is that it has a real-life application in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

There is therefore a place off for deviation from social norms in thinking about what is normal and abnormal.

However, even in this case there are other factors to consider, for example the distress to other people resulting from antisocial personality disorder.

So in practice, deviation from social norms is never the sole reason for defining abnormality.

AO3: Social norms are non-linear (Limitation)

Another problem with using deviation from social norms to define behaviour as abnormal is that social norms vary tremendously from one generation to another and from one community to another.

This means that a person from one cultural group may label someone from another culture as behaving abnormally according to their standards rather than the standards of the person behaving that way.

For example, hearing voices is socially acceptable in some cultures but would be seen as a sign of mental abnormality in the UK.

This creates problems for people from one culture living within another culture group.

AO3: Should not be too relied on (Limitation)

Too much reliance on deviation from social norms to understand abnormality can also lead to systematic abuse of human rights.

Looking at the historical examples of deviation from social norms in the table on the right, it is pretty clear that these diagnoses were really there to maintain control over minority ethnic groups and women.

The classification appear ridiculous nowadays but only because our social norms have changed.

More radical psychologists suggest that some of our modern categories of mental disorder are really absurd of people's rights to be different.

AO3: More useful as it includes desirability (Strength)

One strength of the deviation from social norms approach is that it includes the issues of the desirability of a behaviour.

The statistical infrequency approach doesn't take desirability into account.

For example, genius is statistically abnormal but we wouldn't want to include that in our definition of abnormal behaviours.

This means that social norms can be more useful than statistical norms.

AO1: Failure to function adequately

Occurs when someone is unable to cope with ordinary demands of day-to-day living.

AO1: How do you define whether someone is failing to function adequetly?

A person may cross the line between "normal" and "abnormal" at the point when they can no longer cope with the demands of everyday life and they fail to function adequately.

We might decide that someone is not functioning adequately when they are unable to maintain basic standards of nutrition and hygiene.
We might also considered that they are no longer functioning adequately if they cannot hold down a job or maintain relationships with people around them.

AO1: Rosenhan and Seligman (1989)

Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) have proposed some signs that can be used to determine when someone is not coping.

These include:

• When a person no longer confirms to standard interpersonal rules, for example maintaining eye contact and respecting personal space.

• When a person experienced severe personal distress.

• When a behaviour becomes irrational or dangerous to themselves or others.

AO1: Jahoda (1958)

Jahoda (1958) suggested that we are in good mental health if we meet the following criteria:

• We have no symptoms or distress

• We are rational and can perceive ourselves accurately

• We self-actualise (reach our potential)

• We can cope with stress

• We have a realistic view of the world

• We have good self-esteem and lack of guilt

• We are independent of other people

• We can successfully work, love and enjoy our leisure.

AO3: Subjective experience included (Strength)

A strength of failure to function adequately is that it does attempt to include the subjective experience of the individual.

It may not be an entirely satisfactory approach because it is difficult to assess distress but at least this definition acknowledges that the experience of the patient is important.

If the sense the failure to function adequately definition captures the experience of many of the people who need help.
This suggests that failure to function adequately is a useful criterion for assessing abnormality.

AO3: Hard to distinguish (Limitation)

In practice it can be hard to say when someone is really failing to function and when they are just deviating from social norms.

We might think that not having a job or a permanent address is a sign of failure to function adequately.

But then what do we say about people with alternative lifestyles who choose not to have those things.

Similarly those who practise extreme sports could be accused of behaving in a maladaptive way, whilst those with religious or supernatural beliefs could be seen as irrational.

If we treat these behaviours as "failures" of adequate functioning, we risk limiting personal freedom and discriminating against minority groups.

AO3: Judgements may not be objective (Limitation)

When deciding whether someone is failing to function adequately, someone has to judge whether a patient is distressed or distressing.

Some patients may say they are distressed but may be judged as not suffering.

There are methods for making such judgements as objective as possible, including checklists such as Global Assessment of Functioning Scale.

HOWEVER, the principle meaning that someone has the right to make this judgement.

AO3: Culture bound (Limitation)

Some of the ideas in Jahoda's classification of ideal mental health are specific to western european and north american cultures.

For example, the emphasis on personal achievement in the concept of self-actualisation would be considered self-indulgent in much of the world because the emphasis is so much on the individual rather than the family or community.
Much of the world would see independence from other people as a bad thing.
Such traits are typical of individualist cultures.

AO3: Hard to attain (Limitation)

Very few of us attain all jahoda's criteria for mental health and probably none of us achieve all of them at the same time or keep them up for very long.

Therefore this approach would see pretty much all of us as abnormal.
We can see this as a positive or a negative.

On the positive side it makes it clear to people the ways in which they could benefit from seeking treatment to improve their mental health.
At the other extreme, deviation from ideal mental health is probably of no value in thinking about who might benefit from treatment against their will.