Definitions of abnormality
- Created by: Rosiem2102
- Created on: 05-02-18 11:41
View mindmap
- Definitions of Abnormality
- Statistical infrequency
- Determining whether behaviour is 'abnormal' in relation to how many other people also display it
- Example: IQ and Intellectual Disability Disorder
- 2% of people have an IQ score under 70
- Likely to be given a diagnosis of a mental disorder
- Real-life application
- The diagnosis of intellectual disability disorder
- Useful part of clinical assessment
- Unusual characteristics can be positive
- IQ scores over 130 are just as unusual as those under 70 but aren't considered worthy of treatment
- Can never be used alone to make a diagnosis
- Not everyone unusual benefits from a label
- There is no benefit of being labelled as abnormal when someone is living a happy, fulfilled life
- Labels may have a negative effect on the way others view individuals and how they view themselves
- Deviation from social norms
- Groups of people choose to define behaviour as abnormal on the basis that it offends their sense of what is 'acceptable' or the norm.
- Norms are specific to the culture we live in
- May be different for each generation and every culture
- There are relatively few behaviours that would be considered universally abnormal
- E.g. homosexuality is seen as abnormal in some cultures and was considered abnormal in our society in the past
- Example: Antisocial Personality Disorder
- A person with antisocial personality disorder is impulsive, aggressive and irresponsible
- One important symptom is an 'absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behaviour'
- We are making the social judgement that a psychopath is abnormal because they don't conform to our moral standards. Psychopathic behaviour would be considered abnormal in a wide range of cultures
- Not a sole explanation
- Has a real life application in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder
- Even in this case there are other factors to consider. For example, the distress to other people
- Cultural relativism
- Social norms vary from one generation to another and from one community to another
- This means that a person from one cultural group may label someone from another culture as behaving abnormally according to their standards rather than the standards of the person behaving that way
- Can lead to human rights abuses
- In history, some diagnoses were really there to maintain control over minority ethnic groups and women
- More radical psychologists suggest that some of our modern categories of mental disorder are really abuses of people's right to be different
- Social versus statistical norms
- Includes the issue of the desirability of a behaviour (statistical infrequency doesn't)
- Failure to function adequately
- A person may cross the line between 'normal' and 'abnormal' at the point when they can no longer cope with the demands of everyday life
- We might decide that someone is not functioning adequately when they are unable to maintain basic standards of nutrition and hygiene
- We might also consider that they are no longer functioning adequately if they can no longer hold down a job or maintain relationships with people around them
- When is someone failing to function adequately?
- When a person no longer conforms to standard interpersonal rules, for example maintaining eye contact and respecting personal space
- When a person experiences severe personal distress
- When a person's behaviour becomes irrational or dangerous to themselves or others
- Example; Intellectual disability disorder
- A diagnosis for this disorder is not made only on the basis of statistical infrequency
- The individual must also be failing to function adequately before a diagnosis would be given
- Patient's perspective
- It attempts to include the subjective experience of the individual
- It may not be an entirely satisfactory approach because it is difficult to assess distress, but at least this definition acknowledges that the experience of the patient is important
- The failure to function adequately definition captures the experience of many of the people who need help. This suggests that this is a useful criterion for assessing abnormality
- Is it simply a deviation from social norms?
- We might think that not having a job or a permanent address is a sign of failure to function adequately, but what do we say when people choose to do these things?
- Those who practise an extreme sport may be accused of behaving in maladaptive way, while those with religious or supernatural beliefs could be seen as irrational
- If we treat these behaviours as 'failures' of adequate functioning, we risk limiting personal freedom and discriminating against minority groups
- Subjective judgements
- Someone must judge whether a patient is distressed or distressing
- Some patients may say they are distressed but may be judged as not suffering
- There are methods for making such judgements as objective as possible, including checklists such as the global assessment of functioning scale
- However, the principle remains that someone has the right to make this judgement
- Labelling
- Deviation from ideal mental health
- What does mental health look like?
- We have no symptoms or distress
- We are rational and can perceive ourselves accurately
- We self-actualise (reach our potential)
- We can cope with stress
- We have a realistic view of the world
- We have good self-esteem and lack guilt
- We are independent of other people
- We can successfully work, love and enjoy our leisure
- Once we have a picture of how we should be psychologically healthy then we can begin to identify who deviates from this ideal
- There is some overlap between what we might call deviation from ideal mental health and failing to function adequately
- It is a comprehensive definition
- It covers a broads range of reasons someone would seek help from mental health services or be referred for help
- The sheer range of factors discussed in relation to Jahoda's ideal mental health make It a good tool for thinking about mental health
- Cultural relativism
- Ideas are specific to Western European and North American cultures (culture-bound)
- The emphasis on personal achievement in the concept of self-actualisation would be considered self-indulgent in much of the world because the emphasis is so much on the individual rather than the family or community
- Similarly, much of the world would see independence from other people as a bad thing. Such traits are typical of individualist cultures
- It sets an unrealistically high standard for mental health
- Few of us attain Jahoda's criteria for mental health and probably none of us achieve all of them at the same time
- This approach would se everyone as abnormal
- It makes clear the benefits of seeking treatment to improve their mental health
- Deviation from ideal mental health is probably of no value in thinking about who might benefit from treatment against their will
- What does mental health look like?
- When we make a judgement that someone is failing to cope we may end up giving them a label that can add to their problems
- For example, it would be very 'normal' to get depressed after the loss of a job, home or relationship
- Someone in this position might well benefit from psychological help. However, future employers, partners and even finance organisations may attach a permanent label to that person
- Deviation from ideal mental health
- Deviation from ideal mental health
- What does mental health look like?
- We have no symptoms or distress
- We are rational and can perceive ourselves accurately
- We self-actualise (reach our potential)
- We can cope with stress
- We have a realistic view of the world
- We have good self-esteem and lack guilt
- We are independent of other people
- We can successfully work, love and enjoy our leisure
- Once we have a picture of how we should be psychologically healthy then we can begin to identify who deviates from this ideal
- There is some overlap between what we might call deviation from ideal mental health and failing to function adequately
- It is a comprehensive definition
- It covers a broads range of reasons someone would seek help from mental health services or be referred for help
- The sheer range of factors discussed in relation to Jahoda's ideal mental health make It a good tool for thinking about mental health
- Cultural relativism
- Ideas are specific to Western European and North American cultures (culture-bound)
- The emphasis on personal achievement in the concept of self-actualisation would be considered self-indulgent in much of the world because the emphasis is so much on the individual rather than the family or community
- Similarly, much of the world would see independence from other people as a bad thing. Such traits are typical of individualist cultures
- It sets an unrealistically high standard for mental health
- Few of us attain Jahoda's criteria for mental health and probably none of us achieve all of them at the same time
- This approach would se everyone as abnormal
- It makes clear the benefits of seeking treatment to improve their mental health
- Deviation from ideal mental health is probably of no value in thinking about who might benefit from treatment against their will
- What does mental health look like?
- Statistical infrequency
Comments
No comments have yet been made