psychopathology- definitions of abnormality Flashcards
statistical infrequency definition
sees abnormal behaviour as that which is numerically uncommon. for example, only 1% of the population will display characteristics that we associate with schizophrenic like behaviour such as delusions and hallucinations
normal distribution curve
(statistical infrequency)
what is regarded as statistically rare can be seen on a normal distribution curve. the further away the behaviour is from the mean, the less common the behaviour is. this can be linked to hoarding behaviour which effects less than 1 in 1000 people (this means its more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean)
strength of statistical infrequency
it has real world applications so it is a useful definition. statistical infrequency is used in clinical practice as part of formal diagnosis and to assess the severity of someone’s symptoms. for example, a diagnosis of intellectual disability disorder requires an IQ of less than 70 (bottom 2% on the normal distribution curve). similarly, the severity of depression can be assessed using the Beck depression inventory where the score of 30+ is widely interpreted as severe depression as only 5% tend to score so highly. this means that the use of a normal distribution curve is useful as a psychiatrist doesn’t have to use their judgment to decide on a diagnosis, they can determine this objectively by considering how frequent or infrequent this behaviour is on a normal distribution curve
limitation of statistical infrequency
a key limitation with using statistics to define abnormal behaviour is that some abnormal behaviour is not rare. the nhs estimates that since the coronavirus outbreak. 1 in 5 (21%) people have experienced moderate to severe depression. this has increased from 10% previously. this suggests depression is so common as to not be seen as abnormal under this definition.
deviation from social norms
suggests that psychological abnormality can be linked to behaviour that is not socially approved of or behaviour which moves away from how we expect people to behave in particular situations. social norms are approved and expected ways of behaving in a particular society, so any behaviour that deviates or violates social norms could suggest psychological abnormality
strength of deviation from social norms
this definition is also used in clinical settings and thus has practical value. for example, a key defining characteristic of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is failure to conform to culturally “normal” ethical behaviour. behaviours such as recklessness, aggression, violating the rights of others and deceitfullness are all charcateristics of ASPD and they are all also behaviours which are termed “strange” as thinking, behaviour and appearences od people with this disorder clearly deviates from the norm. this illustrates the usefullness of considering socially normative behaviours when considering what constitutes abnormality
limitation of deviation from social norms
norms can be very different in different cultures. this is known as cultural relativism. for example, one differences between cultures is whether it is viewed as acceptable for a person to hear voices. in some societies this may be viewed as a respected and gifted ability. in another society when someone claims to hear voices they will be referred to a psychiatrist. the problem for the deviation of social norms definition of abnormality is that there is always the risk that one cultures standards are bieng used inapropiately to judge the behaviour of someone who lives according to different cultural standards. society has mixed cultural groups and therefore accurately applying this definition of abnormality as very difficult
failure to function adequetely
considers psycholgical abnormality to be an inability to live a normal life. this means the ability to get up in the morning, go to work, engage in social relationships (and maintain close relationships) and feel a normal range of emotions. from this perspective a person may be seen as abnormal if they do not appear to be coping with the demands of normal, everyday life
rosenhan and seligman (1989) 7 features of failing to function adequately
- irrationality: this is when a persons behaviour does not make sense to others and people may find it difficult to communicate with them
- observer discomfort: this is where others might find the behaviour uncomfortable to observe (embarrassing, threatening etc)
- unpredictability: behaviour that is unexpected given the particular circumstances (suicidal tendencies)
- maladaptive behaviour: behaviour that interferes with general mental and physical well bieng such as self harming or refusing to eat despite bieng underweight
- personal distress: the behaviour causes the sufferer distress such as in the case of depression and anxiety
- violation of moral standards: displaying behaviour violating societies moral standards
- unconventiality: displaying unconventional behaviours
strength of failure to function
both observable behaviour and the patients perspective are considered. observable behaviours are evaluated, and this allows judgement by others of whether individuals are functioning properly. by recognising the importance of personal distress, the definition is quite correctly acknowledging that the patients perspective is very important
limitation of failure to function
it ignores the context of the behaviour. for example, some political prisoners go on hunger strike. starving yourself would be considered an unpredictable, irrational and maladaptive behaviour. but obviously the behaviour needs to be viewed in the context it appears. furthermore, not holding a job or having a permanent address suggests that a person is not functioning adequetly. the actual reason for this might not be a mental illness. economic conditions may be to blame. this might be the case for some groups who experience discrimination when seeking employment. their failure to gain employment is not a sign of psychological ill health but a social/ economic problem. therefore, the context of the behaviour has to be taken into account before a diagnosis of abnormality is given
deviation from mental health
identifies features of good mental health, thus a person who lacks these characteristics could be viewed as suffering from a psychological abnormality
Jahoda’s criteria for ideal mental health
- the ability to cope with stress
- the ability to grow and achieve your full potential (maslow called this “self-actualisation”)
- a positive self concept and a sense of identity
- personal autonomy
- environmental mastery: bieng competent in all aspects of life and able to meet the demands of any situation. having the flexibility to adapt to changing life circumstances
- an accurate perception of reality: having an objective and realistic view of the world
strength of ideal mental health
the definition emphasises positive achievments rather than failures and distress and stresses a positive approach to mental problems by focusing on what is desirable , not undesirable. the wide range of factors gives us a comprehensive account of mental health
limitation of ideal mental health
however, there is a problem of culture bias within some of the criteria. johada’s list of what represents “ideal” is specific to western cultures. therefore, it does not apply to many other cultures. for example. some “collectivistic” cultures or eastern cultures value dependence on others in their social group, therfore, personal autonomy is not a desirable quality. also, collectivistic cultures do not value the need to “self-actualise” prefferring instead to see the community achieve its potential. their lack of these qualities would be taken as a sign of abnormality, but its due to jahoda not considering how other cultures values are different from her own. therefore diagnoses should be amended depending on the culture you are in
