“Definitions of abnormality.”
The first definition of abnormality is statistical infrequency. This occurs when an individual
has a less common characteristics, with any behaviour that is statistically infrequent and
unusual being classified as abnormal. Statistical infrequency in explaining abnormality is
extremely useful when dealing with characteristics that can be reliably measured. For
instance, in diagnosing intellectual disability disorder, any individuals that score below an IQ
of 70 are statistically infrequent and thus abnormal on the normal distribution curve.
One strength of statistical infrequency as a diagnostic tool for abnormality is its usefulness. It
is used in clinical practise, as part as a formal diagnosis and a way to assess the severity of an
individual’s symptoms. For instance, as discussed intellectual disability disorder requires an
IQ that is below 70. It is also used in diagnosing depression, with scores on a self-reported
scale and their weighted frequency considered. Therefore, the value of statistical infrequency
may lie in its usage in diagnostic and assessment processes.
However, one limitation of statistical infrequency is that infrequent characteristics can be
positive as well as negative. For instance, it is equally infrequent to have an extremely high
IQ, and yet this is not looked at as negatively as an extremely low IQ. Therefore, being
abnormal at one end of a spectrum may not necessarily be a bad thing- too, the diagnosis of
certain conditions such as mental retardation brings social stigmas that could’ve been
avoided. Therefore, the negative connotations of “abnormal” with statistical infrequency is a
limitation.
The second definition of abnormality is deviation from social norms. This is where a person
behaves in a way that is different from how we expect people to behave, judged by social
norms that are created by society. Social norms vary for each generation and are different in
every culture, and therefore there are relatively few behaviours that would be considered
universally abnormal on the basis that they breach social norms. An example of this is
antisocial personality disorder, where part of the diagnostic criteria considers the absence of
prosocial behaviours.
One strength of deviation from social norms is its usefulness. It is used frequently within
clinical practise, with the key defining characteristic of antisocial personality disorder the
failure to conform to culturally acceptable behaviour. Too, such norms play a part in the
diagnosis of schizophrenia. Therefore, deviation from social norms has value in psychiatry.
One limitation of deviation from social norms is the variability between social norms in
different cultures and different situations. A person from one cultural group may label
someone from another group as abnormal according to their own standards, and therefore,
this diagnosis is subject to the time and culture upon which it originated. Social norms
change over time, such as the acceptance of homosexuality within most countries as time
progresses. Therefore, deviation from social norms may be an inconsistent manner of
defining abnormality.
The third definition of abnormality is failure to function adequately. A person may cross the
line between normal and abnormal to the point where 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, or hold down a job and
maintain relationships. There are certain other situations that may apply to this- for
instance, not conforming to standard interpersonal rules, experiencing severe personal
distress or becoming irrational and dangerous.
One strength of the failure to function criterion is that it represents a suitable threshold for
, when individuals need psychological help. It tends to be at the point where we cease to
function adequately that people seek professional help or are noticed and referred to help
from others. Therefore, this criterion means that treatment and services can be targeted at
those who need them the most.
One limitation of failure to function is that it is easy to label non-standard lifestyle choices as
abnormal. Individuals that engage in maladaptive life practises could be seen as failing to
function adequately, such as practising certain religious practises or engaging in high risk
activities, whereas in reality these behaviours are made by choice. Therefore, people that
make unusual choices may be at risk of being labelled abnormal and their freedom of choice
may be restricted.
The final way to look at abnormality is to look at deviation from ideal mental health. This
occurs when someone does not meet a set of criteria for having good mental health. Certain
criteria include the ability to self-actualise, cope with stress, having a realistic view of the
world, good esteem and independence, etc.
A strength of the ideal mental health criterion is that it is highly comprehensive. The idea of
“ideal mental health” involves a wide range of criteria that help distinguish mental health
from a mental disorder. Therefore, an individual’s mental health can be discussed
meaningfully with a range of professionals. Therefore, ideal mental health provides a
checklist against which we can assess ourselves and others.
One limitation of deviation from ideal mental health as a way of defining abnormality is that
it may be culture bound. Its different elements may not be equally applicable across a range
of cultures- for instance, the idea of self-actualisation could be viewed as self-indulgent in
most of the world. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the concept of ideal mental health from
one culture to another.
The first definition of abnormality is statistical infrequency. This occurs when an individual
has a less common characteristics, with any behaviour that is statistically infrequent and
unusual being classified as abnormal. Statistical infrequency in explaining abnormality is
extremely useful when dealing with characteristics that can be reliably measured. For
instance, in diagnosing intellectual disability disorder, any individuals that score below an IQ
of 70 are statistically infrequent and thus abnormal on the normal distribution curve.
One strength of statistical infrequency as a diagnostic tool for abnormality is its usefulness. It
is used in clinical practise, as part as a formal diagnosis and a way to assess the severity of an
individual’s symptoms. For instance, as discussed intellectual disability disorder requires an
IQ that is below 70. It is also used in diagnosing depression, with scores on a self-reported
scale and their weighted frequency considered. Therefore, the value of statistical infrequency
may lie in its usage in diagnostic and assessment processes.
However, one limitation of statistical infrequency is that infrequent characteristics can be
positive as well as negative. For instance, it is equally infrequent to have an extremely high
IQ, and yet this is not looked at as negatively as an extremely low IQ. Therefore, being
abnormal at one end of a spectrum may not necessarily be a bad thing- too, the diagnosis of
certain conditions such as mental retardation brings social stigmas that could’ve been
avoided. Therefore, the negative connotations of “abnormal” with statistical infrequency is a
limitation.
The second definition of abnormality is deviation from social norms. This is where a person
behaves in a way that is different from how we expect people to behave, judged by social
norms that are created by society. Social norms vary for each generation and are different in
every culture, and therefore there are relatively few behaviours that would be considered
universally abnormal on the basis that they breach social norms. An example of this is
antisocial personality disorder, where part of the diagnostic criteria considers the absence of
prosocial behaviours.
One strength of deviation from social norms is its usefulness. It is used frequently within
clinical practise, with the key defining characteristic of antisocial personality disorder the
failure to conform to culturally acceptable behaviour. Too, such norms play a part in the
diagnosis of schizophrenia. Therefore, deviation from social norms has value in psychiatry.
One limitation of deviation from social norms is the variability between social norms in
different cultures and different situations. A person from one cultural group may label
someone from another group as abnormal according to their own standards, and therefore,
this diagnosis is subject to the time and culture upon which it originated. Social norms
change over time, such as the acceptance of homosexuality within most countries as time
progresses. Therefore, deviation from social norms may be an inconsistent manner of
defining abnormality.
The third definition of abnormality is failure to function adequately. A person may cross the
line between normal and abnormal to the point where 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, or hold down a job and
maintain relationships. There are certain other situations that may apply to this- for
instance, not conforming to standard interpersonal rules, experiencing severe personal
distress or becoming irrational and dangerous.
One strength of the failure to function criterion is that it represents a suitable threshold for
, when individuals need psychological help. It tends to be at the point where we cease to
function adequately that people seek professional help or are noticed and referred to help
from others. Therefore, this criterion means that treatment and services can be targeted at
those who need them the most.
One limitation of failure to function is that it is easy to label non-standard lifestyle choices as
abnormal. Individuals that engage in maladaptive life practises could be seen as failing to
function adequately, such as practising certain religious practises or engaging in high risk
activities, whereas in reality these behaviours are made by choice. Therefore, people that
make unusual choices may be at risk of being labelled abnormal and their freedom of choice
may be restricted.
The final way to look at abnormality is to look at deviation from ideal mental health. This
occurs when someone does not meet a set of criteria for having good mental health. Certain
criteria include the ability to self-actualise, cope with stress, having a realistic view of the
world, good esteem and independence, etc.
A strength of the ideal mental health criterion is that it is highly comprehensive. The idea of
“ideal mental health” involves a wide range of criteria that help distinguish mental health
from a mental disorder. Therefore, an individual’s mental health can be discussed
meaningfully with a range of professionals. Therefore, ideal mental health provides a
checklist against which we can assess ourselves and others.
One limitation of deviation from ideal mental health as a way of defining abnormality is that
it may be culture bound. Its different elements may not be equally applicable across a range
of cultures- for instance, the idea of self-actualisation could be viewed as self-indulgent in
most of the world. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the concept of ideal mental health from
one culture to another.
