Definitions of abnormality

Statistical infrequency AO1

• Abnormal if the frequency is more than 2 standard deviations away from the ‘golden mean’ represented on a normally-distributed bell curve

• Eg average IQ = 100, 70> = intellectual disability disorder

Statistical infrequency strengths AO3

• P - objective measure

• E - relies on quantitative data, rather than personal opinion. This is because behaviours or characteristics can be measured statistically, such as IQ scores, and compared to a normal distribution. As a result, decisions about what counts as abnormal are based on fixed cut-off points rather than subjective judgement, which reduces the influence of bias between different clinicians. For example, an IQ score below 70 is widely accepted as statistically rare and is used in diagnosing intellectual disability.

• T - makes the definition more reliable, as different psychologists are more likely to reach the same conclusion when using standardised data

Statistical infrequency limitations AO3

• P - fails to distinguish between desirable & undesirable abnormal behavior

• E - in statistical terms, any behaviour that is very rare is considered abnormal, but this does not take into account whether the behaviour is beneficial or harmful. For example, having an extremely high IQ or exceptional musical ability is statistically infrequent, yet these traits are highly valued and desirable in society. If statistical infrequency were used alone, individuals with these rare but positive characteristics would be classified as abnormal, which clearly reduces the validity of the definition.

• T - abnormality cannot be defined purely in terms of rarity, as it ignores the social value and functionality of behaviour.

• P - ethnocentric

• E - behaviours statistically infrequent in one culture may not be in another eg hearing voices is a symptom of schizophrenia but is common in some cultures (sign of spirituality)

• T - definition isn’t generalisable to all cultures & may create problems for people from one culture living in another cultural group. May cause prejudice & discrimination when really that behaviour is normal in that cultural context, highlighting the need for cultural relativism

Deviation from social norms AO1

• Social norms - expected behaviours that are seen as acceptable

• Abnormal behaviour sways away from the social norms, is unpredictable & violates moral/ideal standards

• Norms are specific to cultures eg queuing, being polite

Deviation from social norms strengths AO3

• P - takes into account the context of behaviour

• E - Unlike statistical infrequency, it considers whether behaviour is acceptable within a particular society, which means it can identify behaviours that are genuinely problematic or disruptive rather than just rare. For example, antisocial behaviours such as aggression or lack of personal hygiene are classified as abnormal because they violate socially accepted rules and can negatively affect others. This makes the definition useful in real-world settings such as the criminal justice system or clinical diagnosis, where understanding social expectations is important.

• T - Therefore, it has practical value in identifying behaviours that may require intervention to protect individuals or society. Highlights the importance of cultural relativism.

Deviation from social norms limitations AO3

• P - era dependency (social norms vary over time)

• E - social norms change over time, so what is considered abnormal in one historical period may be normal in another. This makes the definition unreliable as a consistent measure of abnormality. For example, behaviours such as homosexuality were once widely viewed as abnormal & criminalized in the UK and many other Western societies, but are now largely accepted as normal and legally protected. This shows that judgements based on social norms are influenced by changing societal attitudes rather than fixed psychological criteria.

• T - definition lacks temporal validity & can lead to inconsistent labelling of behaviour across different time periods

Failure to function adequately AO1

• When a person can no longer cope with the demands of everyday

• Eg neglecting personal hygiene, not maintaining relationships

• Rosenhan proposed this is when a person isn’t obeying interpersonal rules, showing signs of distress & behaving irrationally/dangerously

Failure to function adequately strengths AO1

• P - takes into account the subjective experience of the individual,

• E - it considers how the person themselves feels about their ability to cope with everyday life & recognises that abnormality is not just about observable behaviour, but also about internal states such as distress, anxiety, or inability to manage personal wellbeing. For example, a person may appear to be functioning externally, such as going to work or socialising, but still experience severe internal distress that significantly affects their quality of life. By focusing on subjective suffering, this definition is more patient-centred and humane, as it prioritises the individual’s own perception of their mental health rather than relying solely on external judgements.

• T - This may lead to more accurate diagnoses of mental health disorders because such diagnoses are not constrained by statistical limits. Final diagnosis will be comprised of the patient’s (subjective) self reported symptoms & the psychiatrist’s objective opinion.

Failure to function adequately limitations AO3

• P - abnormality isn’t always accompanied by dysfunction

• E - A well-known example is Harold Shipman, who was a respected GP and appeared to function effectively in his professional role, maintaining relationships with patients and colleagues while carrying out normal daily responsibilities. However, despite this outward appearance of adequate functioning, he was responsible for the murder of numerous patients, showing highly abnormal and dangerous behaviour. This demonstrates that individuals can still meet societal expectations and function in everyday roles while engaging in severe psychological abnormality.

• T - reduces validity & its completeness as a definition of abnormality, must be other factors involved

• P - may over-pathologise normal responses to stressful life events

• E - it focuses on whether someone is coping with everyday functioning, but does not always distinguish between long-term mental disorder and short-term distress caused by understandable circumstances. For example, a person experiencing bereavement, relationship breakdown, or job loss may show signs such as low mood, reduced motivation, or difficulty maintaining daily routines. While these behaviours could be interpreted as “failing to function,” they are often a normal and adaptive response to significant life stress rather than evidence of mental illness.

• T - could lead to innaccurate diagnoses, which has a knock on effect on treatments if people are incorrectly being given medication etc. Could also lead to labelling & stigma.

Deviation from ideal mental health AO1

• Jahoda proposed a criteria of ideal mental health eg self-actualisation, good self-esteem, accurate perception of reality, be able to cope with stress

• The less criteria you meet, the more abnormal

Deviation from ideal mental health strengths AO3

• P - comprehensive criteria

• E - Jahoda’s criteria cover a wide range of factors, including having a positive self-concept, being able to cope with stress, resisting stress effectively, having autonomy, and experiencing accurate perceptions of reality. This breadth means that mental health is not judged on a single aspect of functioning, but instead on multiple dimensions of psychological, emotional, and social wellbeing. As a result, it provides a more complete picture of mental health compared to definitions that focus only on statistical infrequency or social rule-breaking.

• T - more holistic approach as looks at the whole person, leading to more accurate diagnoses

Deviation from ideal mental health limitations AO3

• P - unrealistic criteria

• E - Jahoda’s criteria, such as having an accurate perception of reality, resistance to stress, and self-actualisation, represent a very high standard of mental health that does not take into account normal human experiences. In reality, most individuals will occasionally experience stress, anxiety, low mood, or irrational thinking, especially in response to everyday pressures and life events. Furthermore, only a small minority of people reach self-actualisation. According to this definition, however, failing to meet any of these criteria could indicate abnormality, meaning a large proportion of the population might be classified as psychologically unhealthy at times.

• T - not a realistic standard for assessing mental health in everyday life, reducing its practicality

• P - cultural bias

• E - Jahoda’s criteria reflect Western, individualistic values rather than universal standards of mental health. This means the definition assumes that features such as autonomy, personal growth, and self-actualisation are necessary for psychological wellbeing, even though these may not be equally valued across all cultures. In many collectivist societies, for example, such as in parts of Asia or Africa, greater importance is placed on interdependence, family duty, and social harmony, where prioritising group needs over individual independence is seen as healthy rather than abnormal. As a result, individuals who do not display high levels of independence could be wrongly judged as lacking ideal mental health, even though they are functioning appropriately within their cultural context.

• T - This reduces the universality of the definition & suggests it is ethnocentric as it imposes one cultural standard of mental wellbeing onto all individuals. This highlights the need for cultural relativism.

Limitation of all definitions AO3

• P - lead to labelling and stigma.

• E - When someone is classified as “abnormal”, this label can become internalised and affect their self-identity. It may also lead to others viewing the individual differently, resulting in discrimination or social exclusion. For example, being diagnosed as failing to function adequately could cause employers, friends, or even healthcare professionals to treat the person as less capable, even if their difficulties are temporary or context-dependent. It could also affect a person’s self esteem and make them feel abnormal. This is particularly problematic because labels can be long-lasting and difficult to remove, even after a person has recovered.

• T -using these definitions can contribute to social stigma and reduce how individuals are perceived and treated, which raises ethical concerns about the impact of psychological labelling.