Abnormality : What is it? (06-Mar-2003)
While on the face of it, "abnormality" sounds like an easy thing to define,
in fact there are many different techniques used by psychologists to classify
behaviour, or mental health, as "abnormal". All of these have their strengths
and weaknesses; there is no one "right" way to define abnormality. Some of
the most common are:
Statistical
In some cases it is possible to gather data in a numeric form and derive a
mean average value. We can then say that the majority of values which
are nearest to the mean are "normal", and the minority of values farthest from
the mean are "abnormal". For example, if the average height of a set of
people is five foot eight, with most values falling in the range four feet to
six foot six, then a height of less than three foot or more than eight foot
would or probably be considered "abnormal".
One problem with the statistical approach is that the decision of where to
start the "abnormal" classification is arbitrary. Typically, abnormal values
are considered to be anything with a standard deviation of greater than
2. Applying this measure to values of IQ, which have a bell-curve
distribution around a mean of 100, values of lower than 70 or greater than 130
are classified as "abnormal".
An important consideration of statistically "abnormal" values is that
"abnormal" doesn't necessarily mean undesireable. For example, someone with
an IQ of 131 is statistically abnormal, but may well be regarded as gifted.
Another problem with this method is that behaviour which is undesireable
may be statistically frequent. For example, depression is regarded as
undesireable, yet it is not uncommon enough to be classified as abnormal in
the statistical sense.
Deviation from Social Norm
A social norm is an unwritten rule which governs behaviour in a
given social context (see Conformity). Using this
definition, behaviour which breaks these rules is regarded as abnormal.
Strengths of this technique:
- it takes into account the social dimension, which is important because
the same behaviour that might be considered "abnormal" in one context could
be "normal" in another. For example, wandering around naked in the town
centre is not normal, but wandering around naked on a naturist beach is.
- takes cultural relativism (the way that social norms
change over time and between cultures) into account
- tries to avoid ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to
regard one's own culture as "normal" and consequently see different cultures
as "abnormal"
Some of the problems with this technique are :
- It's difficult to define what a "cultural context" is - cultures have
sub-cultures within them. One way to overcome this is to use laws as a
reference point - e.g. if a society has a law against murder, then that is
considered a "social norm". However, evidence shows that many, if not most,
people will admit to breaking the law, and so by this measure, they are all
"abornmal".
- It doesn't provide an objective definition of abnormality
- It makes non-conformity undesireable. E.g. suffragettes might have been
labelled "abnormal" even though they achieved positive things (by current
standards)
- can lead to discrimination/abuse of "non-conformists", for example
labelling people as mentally ill if they don't go along with the prevailing
political system
- Szasz argued that "mental illness" is a label that's used to justify
forcing treatment on people. For example, drugs are prescribed to people to
make them behave more like "normal" people do.
Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
In this context, "normal" can be taken to mean "mentally healthy", while
"abnormal" describes an undesireable state which is somehow deficient from
"mental health". This approach therefore attempts to describe the
characteristics which constitute "ideal" mental health.
This approach is characteristic of humanistic psychologists such as Maslow,
who defined his heirarchy of needs (e.g. physiological, safety, love, esteem,
self-fulfillment) as a means of assessing whereabouts an individual was on
their path to self-actualisation, which he regarded as the ideal
state. However, a problem with this approach is that very few people would be
considered "normal" by this measure, because few people achieve
self-actualisation as Maslow defines it.
In a slightly different approach, Jahoda defined six criteria by which
mental health could be measured:
- attitudes of an individual toward his own self
- growth, development, or self-actualization
- personality integration
- autonomy
- perception of reality
- environmental mastery
According to this approach, the more of these criteria are satisfied, the
healthier the individual is.
An advantage of this type of approach is that it does provide areas to
target when treating depression, and it focuses on a positive approach to the
problems. On the other hand, like Maslow's criteria, very few people are
likely to achieve all six of Jahoda's objectives, and it is also hard to
measure the extent to which an individual misses these criteria.
Another criticism of Jahoda is that some of the criteria might be seen to
be ethnocentric: for example, autonomy is seen in some cultures as an
undesireaeble trait.
Failure to Function Adequately
Using this set of criteria, behaviour is defined as abnormal if it hurts
the person himself or other people. Rosenhan & Seligman listed seven
criteria:
- distress - the person is upset or depressed
- maladaptive behaviour - which is behaviour that prevents
someone from coping with everyday situations
- Irrationality - belief or behaviour not connected with
reality
- unpredictability - reacting to a situation in a way that
could not be predicted or reasonably expected
- unconventional behaviour or statistically rare behaviour
- observer discomfort - i.e. behaviour that makes other
people feel uncomfortable
- violation of moral standards - breaking laws, taboos etc.
Strengths of this technique include:
- It provides a practical checklist
- Takes into account the social/cultural context
- Takes into account statistical influence
Weaknesses:
- Sometimes it's normal to be distressed (e.g. grieving)
- Some people may be abnormal (e.g. psychopath) and yet show no signs of
distress
- Some of the criteria are subjective - who judges what is
"unpredictable"?
Homework
Back to class notes index page