Definitions Of Abnormality (psychopathology) Flashcards
Statistical infrequency
We can define abnormality by looking at how often a behaviour occurs using statistics. A persons behaviour is normal if their behaviours are statistically frequent. A persons behaviour is deemed as abnormal if it is rare - statistically infrequent.
Strength of statistical infrequency
It is objective as it works out abnormality based on what is statistically frequent/ infrequent. This means that value judgements (decisions other people make about what is right or wrong) don’t play a part. Instead, this definition focuses on statistics alone to judge whether someone is abnormal or not which is less subjective than other definitions. This is a strength because it makes this definition more scientific.
Limitation of statistical infrequency
Some statistically infrequent behaviours are actually quite desirable. For instance, having a high IQ is statistically infrequent but also seen as a positive thing. By this definition, they would be branded as abnormal and perhaps then be considered for a diagnosis of mental health when actually high intelligence is desired by many. This is a limitation because it suggests that this definition alone cannot define abnormality.
Deviation from social norms
According to this definition, a person is abnormal if they deviate (go against) social norms. These norms are often set based on a collective decision grounded on society’s values. For example, it is the social norm to wear clothes to a restaurant. So, if you turned up with no clothes on, you would be deviating from this social norm and are therefore abnormal.
Strength of deviation from social norms
Unlike statistical infrequency, it distinguishes between desirable and undesirable behaviour. This means that the only behaviours deemed abnormal by this definition are those that are negative based on society’s accepted standards of behaviour. This is a strength because we are less likely to attach the stigma associated with abnormal behaviour to behaviours that are actually desirable with this definition.
Limitation of deviation from social norms
Some see this definition as a form of social control. What is deemed as desirable and undesirable is determined by society and so behaviours that society doesn’t want are labelled as abnormal and extinguished. We need people to go against the norms in society for things to change for the better (e.g Rosa Parks, suffragettes). This is a limitation of this definition as sometimes it is good to go against social norms and not an indication of mental illness.
Failure to function adequately
According to this definition a person is abnormal if they are unable to cope with day to day living. Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) - several features to indicate that a person is failing to function:
Experiencing severe personal distress
Their behaviour is maladaptive
Irrational behaviour
Behaviour does not adhere to standard interpersonal expectations
This definition is often very useful when diagnosing depression as these features can indicate some of the classic symptoms before a diagnosis is made.
Strength of failure to function adequately
It can help individuals to recognise that they need professional help. Mental health problems are occurring more frequently, with the MIND charity estimating 25% of us in the UK experience mental health problems yearly. However, many people only focus on the more severe symptoms of mental health issues to help them identify when help is needed. This definition allows individuals to identify when they are failing to cope with their day-to-day lives which can mean they seek the professional help they need to get a formal diagnosis. This is a strength because it highlights the usefulness of this definition.
Limitation of failure to function adequately
It is quite normal to show some of these behaviours at certain points. For example, personal distress is very normal in certain situations. Nearly all individuals suffer at some points in their lives. This does not make them abnormal, and certainly not mentally ill. For example, if you did not show some signs of pain following the death of a loved one, this may be a sign of abnormality in itself. This is a limitation because we might end up wrongly labelling someone abnormal because of this definition.
Deviation from ideal mental health
Deviation from ideal mental health argues that we must look at what ’normal’ is instead, and anyone who deviates from this would be abnormal as a result. Marie Jahoda (1958) put forward a criteria to define ideal mental health:
No signs of distress and can cope with stress well
Thoughts and behaviours are rational
Ability to self-actualise
Do not rely on other people and are a master of our own environment
Anyone that does not meet all of the above criteria would be deemed as abnormal.
Strength of deviation from ideal mental health
It takes a more positive view to defining mental illness. The other definitions have focused on identifying the negative behaviours needed to be labelled as abnormal. This approach takes the opposite view by listing what is desirable behaviour and then seeing whether people show this behaviour. Similarly, as the criteria list is extensive, mental health treatments can be guided around what is missing from this list. This is a strength because it highlights the value of this definition.
Limitation of deviation from ideal mental health
It is far too optimistic. This is because very few of us, if any, would meet all these criteria all of the time. For example, there are instances where stressful situations can become overwhelming for a short period of time but overcome soon after. However, we would be deemed abnormal according to this definition where we had shown signs of not coping with this stress. This is a limitation because it would make the majority of the population abnormal which seems unlikely.
