Definition of abnomilkity eval Flashcards
Benefits versus problems
On one hand, some unusual people can clearly gain some benefit from being classed as abnormal. Take for example someone who has an IQ of below 70 and is diagnosed with intellectual disability disorder. With that diagnosis they can then access support services like a support worker who can help them with housing and daily tasks like shopping. Similarly someone with a very high BDI score is likely to benefit from psychological therapy.
On the other hand, not all statistically unusual people benefit from labels. Obviously there is no point in giving someone with a high IQ a diagnosis. But even someone with a very low IQ who lives a satisfying life and can cope with this lifestyle would not need a label like intellectual disability disorder. There is a social stigma attached to such labels, so giving a label to someone unnecessarily is a bad thing.
This means that labelling someone abnormal just because they are statistically unusual is likely to do more harm than good.
Human rights abuses
On one hand the history of using deviation from social norms to define someone as abnormal is an unpleasant one, and deviation from social norms carries with it the risk of unfair labelling and leaving people open to human rights abuses. In the past this has been the case where diagnoses like nymphomania (women’s uncontrollable or excessive sexual desire) have been used to control women and drapetomania (the irrational desire of slaves to be free) has been used to control slaves and avoid debate.
On the other hand it can be argued that we need to be able to use deviation from social norms to diagnose conditions such as antisocial personality disorder and schizotypal disorder where socially unacceptable behaviour is the defining feature of the disorders.
This means that the use of deviation from social norms to define abnormality has a history of abuse and may do more harm than good.
Real-world application staticsacal infrequency
One strength of statistical infrequency is its usefulness.
Statistical infrequency is used in clinical practice, both as part of formal diagnosis and as a way to assess the severity of an individual’s symptoms. For example a diagnosis of intèllectual disability disorder requires an IQ of below 70 (bottom 2%). An example of statistical infrequency used in an assessment tool is the Beck depression inventory (BDI). A score of 30+ (top 5% of respondents) is widely interpreted as indicating severe depression.
This shows that the value of the statistical infrequency criterion is useful in diagnostic and assessment processes.
Unusual characteristics can be positive
One limitation of statistical infrequency is that infrequent characteristics can be positive as well as negative.
For every person with an IQ below 70 there is another with an IQ above 130. Yet we would not think of someone as abnormal for having a high IQ. Similarly, we would not think of someone with a very low depression score on the BDI as abnormal. These examples show. that being unusual or at one end of a psychological spectrum does not necessarily make someone abnormal.
This means that, although statistical infrequency can form part of assessment and diagnostic procedures, it never sufficient as the sole basis for defining abnormality
Real-world application social norms
One strength of deviation from social norms is its usefulness.
Deviation from social norms is used in clinical practice. For example, the key defining characteristic of antisocial personality disorder is the failure to conform to culturally acceptable ethical behaviour i.e. recklessness, aggression, violating the rights of others and deceitfulness. These signs of the disorder are all deviations from social norms.
Such norms also play a part in the diagnosis of schizoptypal personality disorder, where the term ‘strange’ is used to characterise the thinking, behaviour and appearance of people with the disorder.
This shows that the deviation from social norms criterion has value in psychiatry.
Cultural and situational relativism
One limitation of deviation from social norms is the variability between social norms in different cultures and even different situations.
A person from one cultural group may label someone from another group as abnormal using their standards rather than the person’s standards. For example, the experience of hearing voices is the norm in some cultures (as messages from ancestors) but would be seen as a sign of abnormality in most parts of the UK. Also, even within one cultural context social norms differ from one situation to another. Aggressive and deceitful behaviour in the context of family life is more socially unacceptable than in the context of corporate deal-making.
This means that it is difficult to judge deviation from social norms across different situations and cultures.
