Definitions of Abnormality

Defining abnormality in terms of statistics

• One way of defining whether something as 'normal' or 'abnormal' is in terms of the number of times it is observed
• Statistics is about analysing numbers
• Any behaviour that is 'usual' or seen often can be thought of as 'normal'
• Any behaviour that is 'different' or rare is 'abnormal' i.e. a statistical infrequency

Example: IQ and intellectual disability disorder

• IQ is normally distributed
• The average IQ is 100. Most people have an IQ between 85 and 115, and 2% have a score below 70
• Those scoring below 70 are statistically unusual or 'abnormal' and diagnosed wit intellectual disability disorder

Real-life application

• All assessment of patients with mental disorders involves some comparison to statistical norms e.g. intellectual disability disorder shows how it is used
• Statistical infrequency is therefore a useful part of clinical assessment

Unusual characteristics can be positive

• If very few people display a behaviour, it doesn't mean it is a bad thing that needs treatment, for example, IQ scores over 130 are just as unusual as those below 70, but aren't viewed as needing treatment
• This means statistical infrequency should never be used alone to make a diagnosis

Not everyone benefits from a label

• When someone can live happily with something like a low IQ e.g. they are not distessed or out of work, there is no benefit to labelling them with intellectual disability disorder
• This is because it could have a negative impact on how they and others view them.

Abnormality is based on social context

• A person can be described as 'abnormal' if they behave in a way that is different from how they are expected to
• Societies and social grous make judgements on what is deemed 'correct' behaviour in a particular circumstance
• As few behaviours are considered universally abnormal, definitions are related to cultural context, including historical differences within the same society
• E.g. homosexuality is viewed as abnormal in some cultures, but not others and was considered abnormal in our society in the past

Example: Antisocial personality disorder (APD)

• One main symptom of APD is a failure to conform to 'lawful and culturally normative ethical behaviour'
• I.e. people with APD are considered abnormal because they deviate from social norms and standards

Not a sole explanation of abnormality

• APD shows there is a place for deviation fro social norms in thinking about what is abnormal, but there are other factors to consider e.g. distress to other people due to APD
• So deviation from socisl norms is never the sole reason for defining abnormality

Social norms are culturally relative

• A person may label someone from one social group as abnormal using their standards rather than the other person's e.g. hearing voices is socially acceptable in some cultures, but is seen as abnormal in the UK
• This creates problems for people from one culture living within another cultural group

The definition could lead to human rights abuses

• Reliance on deviation from social norms can lead to human rights abuse e.g. drapetomania was a diagnosis for black slaves trying to escape and was used for socal control
• This means some modern classifications could be abuses of people's rights to be different

Inability to cope with everyday living

• A person may be described as abnormal if they can't cope with the demands of everyday life
• E.g. not being able to hold a job or relationship, or maintain basic standards of hygeine and nutrition

Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) proposed signs of failure to cope

• They no longer conform to interpersonal rules e.g. maintaining personal space
• They experience personal distress
• They behave in a way that is irrational or dangerous

Example: Intellectual disability disorder

• Although low IQ is a statistical infrequency, there would have to be clear signs that a person couldn't cope with everyday living because of this in order for a diagnosis to be made
• Intellectual disability disorder could be an example of failure to function adequately

Recognises the patient's perspective

• It may not be an entirely satisfactor approach because it is difficultto assess distress, but it acknowleges that the experience of the patient is important
• It captures the experience of the people who need help and is useful for assessing abnormality

The same as deviation from social norms

• It can be hard to judge whether someone is failing to function or deviating from social norms e.g. people who live alternative lifestyles or do extreme sports could be sen as behaving maladaptively
• If we treat these as failures to function adequately, we may limit freedom

Subjective judgement

• Someone has to judge how distressed the patient is and how much the suffer because of it. There are methods to make the judgement as objective as possible e.g. checklists
• However, the principle remains whether someone has the right to make this judgement

Changing the emphasis

• You can think about what makes someone 'normal' and psychologically healthy
• You can then identify anyone who deviates from this ideal

Jahoda's criteria for ideal mental health

• No symptoms or distress
• Rational thinking and percieveing ourselves accurately
• Self-actualisation
• The ablility to cope with stress
• Realistisc views of the world
• Good self-esteem and lack guilt
• Independent of other people
• Successfully work, love and enjoy leisure

Comprehensive

• The definition covers a broad range of criteria for mental health and covers lots of the reasons why people seek help from mental health services
• This makes it a good tool for thinking about mental health

Culturally relative definition

• Some of Jahoda's ideas are specific to Western cultures e.g. the emphasis on self-actualisation may be considered self-indulgent in some parts of the world where the focus is on community
• These traits are typical of individualist cultures and are culturally specific

Unrealistically high standard for mental health

• Very few people will attain all of Jahoda's criteria for mental health, so the approach would see most of us as abnormal. However, it makes it clear to people how they can benefit from seeking mental health help
• But it is of no value in thinking about who might benefit from treatment against their will