Deviation from social norms

• Social norms are the rules that a society has about what are acceptable behaviours, values and beliefs. Some of these rules are explicit e.g. drink driving. Other rules may be implicit e.g. not maintaining eye contact when talking to someone (although this differs in other cultures). Any behaviour that is different from the accepted standards of behaviour in a community or society is therefore considered as abnormal. For example, someone with psychopathy is impulsive, aggressive and irresponsible.
• According to the DSM-5, a symptom of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is an absences of prosocial internal standards that don't conform to lawful/culturally normative ethical behaviour. Thus psychopathic behaviour would be considered abnormal in a wide range of cultures as a psychopath would not conform to our moral standards.
• One major issue of using deviation from social norms to define abnormality is that it suffers from cultural relativism (the idea that the concept can only be applied in the culture it was made in). For example social norms are defined by the culture. This implies that a person from one cultural group may label another person from another culture as abnormal according to their cultural standards rather than the standards of the person behaving in that way.
• Continuing weakness: cultural relativism For example hearing voices is socially acceptable in some cultures but less so in the UK where it would be seen as a sign of mental abnormality or Schizophrenia. This clearly undermines deviation from social norms as a strong definition for abnormality as it may not be externally valid and so we should be cautious when applying it outside the culture it was created in. Thus, psychologists must be sensitive to such cultural differences when defining abnormality.
• A further limitation of the definition is that social norms vary as times change. What is socially acceptable now may have not been 50 years ago. For example, homo sexuality is acceptable today but in the past it was included under the sexual and gender identity disorders in the DSM. This clearly is a weakness of the definition as it suggests the definition may lack temporal validity unless changing social norms are taken into account.
• Continuing weakness: social norms vary overtime Therefore the definition should be used in caution, and with a more objective definition of abnormality in order to prevent defining people as abnormal simply because the definition has taken into account changing social norms.
• the deviation from social norms definition allows those to be identified and receive help. For example, typically individuals who have a mental illness are not aware that their behaviour is unusual or that they need help. This is a strength because the definition allows others to distinguish between typical and atypical behaviour and intervene in the lives of those who need it, resulting in them receiving a diagnosis and appropriate treatment
• Weakness: not a sole explanation Deviation from social norms could never be the sole explanation for defining abnormality. This is because how far an individual deviates from the norm is mediated by the degree of severity and the context. it is hard to explain deviation due to the vast amount of different contexts and severity levels. E.g. if someone topless on context of beach, is normal, not severe. if topless in a shop context, severe, abnormal. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for this definition to be credible due to how and when it should be applied. 
• Continuing weakness: not a sole explanation However certain things are severe, in every context, for example gun use. means in some cases it can be the sole explanation for defining abnormality.