Definitions of Abnormality Flashcards
(20 cards)
1) Deviation from social norms
A social norm is an unwritten expectation of behaviour in a particular society which is followed by members of that society. These standards are the explicit and implicit rules of conduct. Anyone who deviates from a social norm and violates any conventional rule of conduct within a society is considered abnormal.
Examples of norms that vary between cultures include acceptance of homosexuality, face and hair covering, acceptable food and how to eat it, levels of modesty in clothing choices and public displays of emotion.
Strength
Point: One strength of the deviation from social norms definition of abnormality is its practicality and clarity.
Evidence: By comparing behaviour to widely accepted societal rules and expectations, this definition offers a straightforward way to identify abnormal behaviour. For example, behaviours such as aggression in public or extreme risk-taking are easily recognised as violations of social norms.
Justification: The simplicity and accessibility of this approach make it a particularly useful framework in real-world settings like clinical diagnosis or legal assessments, where behaviour needs to be judged quickly.
Implication: This enhances the external validity of the definition, as it allows for early identification of abnormal behaviour across various everyday contexts, allowing for necessary intervention before inconveniences arise.
Counterargument: However, this definition is limited in its relevance due to its reliance on cultural relativism.
Evidence: Social norms differ significantly between different cultures, meaning that what is seen as normal in one culture may be viewed as abnormal in another.
For example, people from an Afro-Carriban background living in the UK are 7 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than people living in the UK or people from Afro-Caribbean nations living in Afro-Caribbean nations. This is due to category failure; a Western definition of mental illness is applied to individuals ot acting according to Western cultural norms. In Afro-Caribbean cultures, hallucinations and conversations with angels may be considered part of a typical religious experience, so a doctor in the West Indies would be less likely to diagnose schizophrenia based on these symptoms than a doctor in the UK.
Additionally, homosexuality is still illegal and considered abnormal in around 75 countries, whereas it is widely accepted in many others.
Justification: This cultural variability introduces ethnocentric bias, where the norms of one culture are wrongly imposed on another. It also highlights the subjectivity of the definition, as there is no universal consensus on what behaviours are truly abnormal, making it difficult to assess abnormality in an unprejudiced way.
Implication: As a result, the definition lacks consistency and objectivity because abnormality is not standardised, reducing its overall validity and showing the need for a more cross-cultural approach when identifying abnormal behaviour.
Weakness
Point: Another limitation of the deviation from social norms definition is that social norms change over time, leading to issues such as hindsight bias.
Evidence: For example, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the UK until 1973. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1992 and transgender health issues in 2019. Individuals were even institutionalised as a result, however today, it is considered a normal variation of human behaviour.
Justification: This demonstrates that behaviours once labelled abnormal can later be accepted as normal, which raises ethical concerns. Diagnosing people based on outdated norms may result in a violation of human rights.
Implication: This undermines the validity and ethical standards of using social norms to define abnormality because it allows for harmful labels to be applied to individuals based on dynamic societal views, potentially leading to unjust treatment of individuals who simply deviate from current norms.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of the deviation from social norms definition is that it does not account for how far an individual deviates from a social norm, which is mediated by the degree of severity and the context.
Evidence: For instance, breaking a social norm once may not be considered abnormal, but repeated violations could suggest psychological disturbance. Similarly, walking topless on a beach is typically seen as acceptable, whereas adopting the same behaviour in an office setting would be judged as socially inappropriate or even abnormal.
Justification: This shows that behaviour can only be considered deviant depending on the situation and frequency, meaning the definition is not consistently reliable across different contexts.
Implication: As a result, deviation from social norms alone is not sufficient to define abnormality, as it lacks the nuance needed to explain behaviour fully and may lead to inaccurate or unfair classifications.
Weakness
Point: A major ethical limitation of the deviation from social norms definition is that it can be used as a form of social control.
Evidence: According to Szasz (1974), psychiatric diagnoses based on deviation from social norms may have been used to marginalise or exclude individuals who did not conform to societal expectations.
Justification: This suggests that the definition can be misused to label people as abnormal simply because they behave differently, rather than because they are experiencing psychological distress.
Implication: Such misuse raises serious ethical concerns and undermines the credibility of this definition, especially when abnormality is defined by what is socially acceptable rather than by objective symptoms.
2) Failure to function adequately
The failure to function adequately (FFA) definition of abnormality suggests that an individual is defined as abnormal if they cannot cope with the demands of everyday life and live independently in society. Furthermore, to be classified as abnormal, a person’s behaviour should cause personal suffering and distress because of their failure to cope. However, they may also cause discomfort to other people who observe their behaviour.
Rosenhand and Seligman (1989) claimed that such behaviour can be judged on the basis of 7 criteria, any combination of which may indicate the presence of a psychological disorder:
- Personal distress - the individual suffers from anxiety and displays excessive emotional responses.
- Maladaptiveness - the individual behaves in a way that goes against their accepted, long-term standards and interests.
- Irrationality - when it is difficult to understand the motivations behind the individual, which is usually caused by unreasonable thinking and behaviour.
- Unpredictability - unexpected behaviour.
- Unconventionality - behaviour doesn’t match what is typically expected by society.
- Observer discomfort - causing others around them to feel uncomfortable.
- Violation of moral and ideal standards - behaviour goes against societal norms.
Strength
Point: One strength of the failure to function adequately definition of abnormality is that it takes into account the subjective personal experiences of the individual.
Evidence: Unlike other definitions that rely solely on statistical or societal standards, this approach considers the thoughts, feelings, and perspective of the person experiencing distress.
Justification: By focusing on how well someone is coping with everyday life, the definition allows for a more person-centred and compassionate approach. If someone feels they are struggling, they are more likely to be recognised as needing support.
Implication: This makes the definition a useful and practical model for identifying and assessing psychopathological behaviour, as it aligns more closely with the real-life experiences of sufferers, which is often neglected when making a psychopathological diagnosis.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of the failure to function adequately definition is that it does not account for individual differences in how people cope with psychological disorders.
Evidence: For instance, one person with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) may struggle to function adequately, missing work due to excessive rituals, while another person with the same disorder and symptoms may still manage to maintain a routine and attend work on time.
Justification: This means that two individuals with the same underlying disorder could be diagnosed differently based on how visibly their behaviour affects daily functioning.
Implication: As a result, the definition may lack validity, as it could lead to inaccurate or unfair diagnoses depending on personal circumstances rather than the nature of the disorder itself.
Counterargument: However, individual differences can also be seen as a strength of the failure to function definition, as it allows flexibility in diagnosis.
Evidence: Rather than applying a rigid set of criteria, this approach considers how much a person’s daily life is actually disrupted, which can vary from person to person.
Justification: This means the definition is sensitive to the unique impact a disorder has on an individual, allowing professionals to tailor support based on real-world functioning rather than assuming all cases of a disorder are the same.
Implication: Therefore, while it may reduce standardisation, this flexibility can improve the practicality of the definition in clinical settings.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of the failure to function adequately definition is that some of its criteria rely on subjective judgements.
Evidence: For example, the criterion of ‘observer discomfort’ depends on who is doing the observing, as different people have different tolerance levels. Similarly, ‘violation of moral standards’ raises the issue of whose morals are being used as the standard.
Justification: Essentially, what one person sees as morally wrong might be completely acceptable to someone else, meaning that judgements about abnormality could vary widely based on personal beliefs and interpretations.
Implication: This subjectivity reduces the reliability of the definition, as it may lead to inconsistent diagnoses depending on who is making the assessment.
Weakness
Point: Another limitation of the failure to function adequately definition is that it may overlook individuals with psychological disorders who appear to function normally.
Evidence: For example, individuals with psychopathy often show no personal distress and may function well in society, even achieving success in careers like business or politics due to traits such as low empathy.
Justification: Because they are not visibly struggling to cope with daily life, they may not be identified as abnormal by this definition, despite their condition often having harmful effects on others.
Implication: This means the definition may fail to recognise serious psychological abnormalities when the individual functions outwardly well, limiting its effectiveness in identifying all forms of mental disorders.
3) Statistical infrequency
Statistical infrequency suggests that a behaviour is abnormal if it is very rare in the population. The rarity of the behaviour is judged objectively using statistics, comparing the individual’s behaviour to the rest of the population.
The normal distribution curve shows a population’s average spread of specific characteristics. The mean, median and modal scores are all at the highest point, the most common behaviour. At the tails of the curve (the extreme ends), there are fewer people with those behaviours. Abnormality is defined by comparing individuals to the population and identifying those at the extreme ends - often more than 2 standard deviations away from the mean.
An example is measuring intelligence through the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). The average IQ is 100. 95% of the population have an IQ in the region of 70-130 and 65% of the population have an IQ in the region of 85-115. However, a small percentage of the population (approximately 5%) have an IQ below 70 or above 130. Such individuals are statistically uncommon, therefore they would be classified as abnormal.
Strength
Point: One strength of the statistical infrequency definition is that it provides an objective way of identifying abnormal behaviour.
Evidence: This is because it relies on numerical data and statistical methods, such as standard deviations, to determine what is considered rare within a population.
Justification: This objectivity is beneficial as it reduces the risk of bias. Unlike definitions such as ‘failure to function adequately,’ which rely on a clinician’s judgment to decide if someone is coping, statistical infrequency offers a consistent and measurable standard.
Implication: As a result, different clinicians are more likely to agree on a diagnosis, improving inter-rater reliability and making this definition more scientifically credible.
Counterargument: However, even though statistical infrequency appears objective, it still involves some subjective judgement in practice.
Evidence: For instance, psychologists must decide where to place the cut-off point for what counts as “abnormal” - such as how many standard deviations from the mean are acceptable - and this decision can be somewhat arbitrary.
Justification: This means that the apparent objectivity of statistical methods still relies on human interpretation, reducing the strength of the claim that this definition is entirely free from bias.
Implication: As a result, statistical infrequency may not be as scientifically objective as it seems, which undermines its reliability as a tool for diagnosing abnormality
Weakness
Point: A key limitation of using statistical infrequency to define abnormality is that not all statistically rare behaviours are actually undesirable or in need of treatment.
Evidence: For instance, having an extremely high IQ is statistically infrequent, yet it is often viewed as a positive and desirable trait. On the other hand, conditions such as depression are relatively common in the population but clearly undesirable and often requiring intervention.
Justification: This highlights that statistical infrequency alone is not a sufficient indicator of abnormality, as it fails to account for whether a behaviour causes harm or distress to the individual or others.
Implication: Therefore, the definition lacks nuance and may misclassify individuals as ‘abnormal’ simply due to rarity, when in reality, abnormality should be defined by behaviours that are both statistically infrequent and undesirable. This limits its practical usefulness in diagnosing psychological disorders.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of using statistical infrequency to define abnormality is that it does not account for cultural differences.
Evidence: The definition assumes that the population of the world is contained within a normal distribution, yet cultural variances mean that what is considered normal in one culture may not be viewed the same way in another.
Justification: As a result, the mathematical nature of the definition fails to consider cultural diversity, and behaviours that are seen as statistically rare in one culture may be common or even encouraged in another.
Implication: This could lead to a misclassification of behaviours as abnormal in certain cultural contexts, potentially labelling an entire population as “abnormal” when compared to the standards of another culture.
Weakness
Point: Another limitation of the statistical infrequency definition is that it does not account for the high prevalence of some psychological disorders.
Evidence: For example, the NHS has reported that around 17% of people surveyed meet the criteria for a common mental health disorder such as depression or anxiety.
Justification: Despite being relatively common, these conditions are clearly undesirable and often require treatment, which shows that frequency alone is not a valid measure of abnormality.
Implication: This suggests that statistical infrequency is not always an appropriate definition, as it may fail to identify harmful behaviours that are widespread in the population.
4) Deviation from ideal mental
Jahoda’s definition took a humanistic perspective on defining abnormality, focusing on ways to improve and become a better person rather than dysfunction or deficit. She defined 6 features of ideal mental health and argues that deviation from these features indicates abnormality.
- Positive attitude towards oneself - characterised by high self-esteem and self-respect.
- Resistance to stress - the internal strength to cope with anxiety caused by daily life.
- Accurate perception of reality - the ability to see the world as it is without being distorted by personal biases.
- Autonomy - the ability to act independently and trust in one’s abilities.
- Self-actualisation - the ability to reach one’s potential and personal growth.
- Environmental mastery - the ability to adapt and thrive in new situations.
Weakness
Point: One major weakness of the deviation from ideal mental health definition is that Jahoda’s criteria are unrealistic for most people to consistently achieve.
Evidence: For example, it is common and natural for individuals to experience stress or sadness in response to difficult life events, such as grieving after the death of a loved one.
Justification: According to this definition, these individuals would be seen as abnormal, irrespective of the circumstances which are beyond their control, even if their reaction is appropriate to the situation and not indicative of a mental disorder.
Implication: This raises concerns about the validity and practicality of the definition, as it sets an unreasonably high standard for mental health and fails to specify how many criteria must be lacking before someone is considered abnormal
Weakness
Point: A significant issue regarding Jahoda’s definition of abnormality is that it suffers from cultural relativism.
Evidence: Some of the criteria, such as autonomy and self-actualisation, reflect Western, individualistic values that prioritise independence and personal development.
Justification: This doesn’t account for collectivist cultures, where interdependence and community are more highly valued. Therefore, these criteria may be seen as self-centred or inappropriate.
Implication: This represents an imposed etic, where a theory developed in one culture is inappropriately applied to others. Consequently, the definition is culture-bound and may unfairly label individuals from non-Western cultures as abnormal, limiting its global applicability.
Counterargument: However, some aspects of Jahoda’s criteria may still be considered universally relevant across cultures.
Evidence: For instance, features like having a positive self-attitude, coping with stress, and accurate perception of reality are generally valued across both individualistic and collectivist societies.
Justification: This suggests that while the definition may be influenced by Western values, certain elements reflect fundamental aspects of psychological well being that transcend cultural boundaries.
Implication: Therefore, the definition may still offer a useful framework for assessing mental health globally, provided it is applied with cultural sensitivity and flexibility.
Strength
Point: One strength of Jahoda’s deviation from ideal mental health definition is that it adopts a positive and holistic stance to mental health.
Evidence: Unlike other definitions that focus solely on negative or dysfunctional behaviours, Jahoda’s criteria emphasise positive aspects such as personal growth, self-esteem, and autonomy.
Justification: Moreover, it considers the whole person, acknowledging a multitude of factors that contribute to overall psychological wellbeing rather than isolated symptoms, whilst simultaneously providing solutions to such mental health disorders.
Implication: This makes the definition more comprehensive and encourages a broader understanding of mental health, which can be more beneficial when promoting wellbeing and guiding interventions.
Weakness
Point: A key limitation of Jahoda’s definition is the subjectivity involved in assessing the criteria for ideal mental health.
Evidence: Criteria such as ‘positive self-attitude’, ‘self-actualisation’, and ‘accurate perception of reality’ are subjective and difficult to measure objectively. For example, what one person considers a healthy level of self-esteem might be perceived as excessive or insufficient by someone else.
Justification: This subjectivity makes it challenging to apply the definition consistently in clinical practice, as different evaluators may interpret these criteria in varied ways, leading to inconsistent diagnoses.
Implication: As a result, the definition lacks reliability and may fail to provide a clear and standardised measure of abnormality, which could undermine its practical utility in real-world settings, such as therapy or diagnosis.
