psychopathology - definitions of abnormality Flashcards
What is statistical infrequency?
Under this definition, a person’s trait, thinking or behaviour is classified as abnormal if it is rare or statistically unusual (if most people don’t do it/have the characteristic). With this definition it is necessary to be clear about how rare a trait or behaviour needs to be before we class it as abnormal. For example, a small section of the population (less than 2.2%) have an IQ of less than 70, therefore they may be described as having an abnormally low IQ (intellectual disability disorder).
Evaluate statistical infrequency - social desirability
This does not consider the desirability of behaviours or traits. For example, very high intelligence is statistically rare, but would not generally be classed as ‘abnormal’. Additionally, many rare behaviours or characteristics (e.g. left handedness) have no bearing on normality or abnormality.
Evaluate statistical infrequency - common = abnormal
Some behaviours/characteristics are regarded as abnormal even though they are statistically quite frequent. For example, depression may affect 27% of elderly people. This would make it common but that does not mean it isn’t a problem. Therefore, statistical deviation is not enough to classify someone as abnormal.
What is deviation from social norms?
Under this definition, a person’s thinking or behaviour is classified as abnormal if it violates the (unwritten) rules about what is expected or acceptable behaviour in a particular social group.
Their behaviour may be incomprehensible to others, and make others feel threatened or uncomfortable. For example, a stranger sitting next to someone on the bus when all the other seats are available.
Evaluate deviation from social norms - cultural relativism
What is normal in one culture may not be normal in another.
This leads to the problem of cultural relativism, where the behaviour needs to be judged in the context of the culture it is taking place in.
Ways of greeting, interacting, and acceptable subjects for discussion all vary so much between (and perhaps within) cultures, so the definition is too hard to apply.
Evaluate deviation from social norms - generational differences
Some groups could be unfairly labelled as abnormal by using this definition.
For example, homosexuality was seen as going against social norms, and was even classified as criminal behaviour, but is not now recognised as such.
Therefore, groups which deviate from the accepted standards of behaviour may find themselves being classified as mentally ill, unjustifiably.
Describe failure to function adequately
Under this definition, a person is considered abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life. They may be unable to perform the behaviours necessary for day-to-day living, for example self-care, holding down a job, and interacting meaningfully with others.
Rosenhan + Seligman - failure to function list
Rosenhan & Seligman (1989) suggested the following characteristics would not enable someone to function adequately:
- Suffering
- Maladaptiveness (being a danger to self)
- Unconventionality (standing out)
- Unpredictability & loss of control
- Irrationality/incomprehensibility
- Causes the observer discomfort
- Violates moral/social standards
Evaluate failure to function adequately - alternatively
Weakness is that ‘failing to function’ could just be going against a social norm (e.g. living an alternative lifestyle which involves not going to work, not living in a fixed home). Therefore, a person could be judges as not functioning when they actually are.
Evaluate failure to function adequately - depends on situation
Most people fail to function adequately at some time, but are not considered ‘abnormal’. For example, after a bereavement most people find it difficult to cope normally. Indeed, they might actually be considered more abnormal if they functioned as usual. Therefore, this definition cannot be applied in all circumstances.
What is deviation from ideal mental health?
Marie Jahoda (1958)
Suggested there were 6 criteria that needed to be fulfilled for ideal mental health (‘normality’)
6 criteria were :
- Self actualisation
- Positive attitude towards the self
- Autonomy (independence)
- Resistance to stress
- Environmental mastery
- Accurate perception of reality
Any deviation from fulfilling all of these criteria was considered by Jahoda to be abnormal.
Evaluate deviation from ideal mental health - feasibility
The criteria outlined by Jahoda makes ideal mental health (normality) practically impossible to achieve.
This means the majority of the population, using this definition, would be abnormal, which doesn’t make sense under the definition of ‘abnormal’.
Evaluate deviation from ideal mental health- ethnocentrism
The criteria of autonomy (independence) makes collectivist cultures (where people encourage working for the ‘greater good’) seem abnormal.
As most western cultures are individualistic, self actualisation and autonomy are seen as beneficial characteristics and would fit the definition, but not in some non-western cultures.
This means the definition is non-global.
Evaluate deviation from ideal mental health - subjectivity
The criteria Marie Jahoda set out are incredibly vague.
For example, how do we know if we have truly fulfilled our potential? (self actualisation). This is difficult to measure, so makes the decision as to whether someone fulfils the criteria difficult to make.
