eval - deviation from ideal mental health

• support

  it is a positive approach. it looks at what people should be like, rather than what they are lacking. therefore providing a more positive way of diagnosing abnormal behaviour (especially when compared to previous models)
• counter

  unrealistic criteria. can anyone achieve all of these criteria? does that make everyone abnormal? according to this most people are abnormal to some degree. so how many need to be lacking? this is not explained
• practical applications

  comprehensive - it probably covers most of the reasons that someone would either seek help for or be referred to mental health services for. the range of factors discussed in relation to jahoda’s criteria make it a good tool for thinking about mental health
• i&d

  it is relevant to individualist cultures, but not collectivist - e.g. autonomy is seen as far from ideal in other cultures. similarly the emphasis on self-attitudes would seem alien to them. as a result, using these criteria, it would be likely that those from other cultures would be more likely to be judged as abnormal
• i&d

  it is ethnocentric (evaluating other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one’s own culture.) it reflects what jahoda thought you need to be like in order to be normal. but, it is highly likely that she, as a female psychologist in the 1950s, was quite unusual