Definitions of abnormality

• statistical infrequency

  in terms of the number of times it is seen. any relatively usual, or often seen, behaviour can be thought of as normal. any behaviour that is different, or rare, is 'abnormal'.
• example of statistical infrequency

  intellectual disability disorder. average IQ is 100, most have an IQ between 85 or 115, only 2% have an IQ under 70. individuals scoring below 70 are statistically abnormal and are diagnosed with intellectual disability disorder.
• strength of statistical infrequency

  real-life application. all assessment of patients with mental disorders includes some comparison to statistical norms. intellectual disability disorder demonstrates how statistical infrequency can be used. it is thus a useful part of clinical assessment.
• limitation of statistical infrequency

  unusual characteristics can be positive. very few people can display a behaviour, making is statistically abnormal, but it doesn't mean they require treatment. IQ scores over 130 are considered abnormal but not considered as undesirable and requiring treatment. this means statistical infrequency should never be used alone to make a diagnosis.
• deviation from social norms

  when someone behaves in a way that is different than how they are expected to they may be considered abnormal. societies and social groups make collective judgements on 'correct' behaviours. relative few behaviours that could be considered universally abnormal therefore its related to cultural context, e.g. homosexuality is viewed as abnormal in some cultures but not others.
• example of deviation from social norms.

  antisocial personality disorder: failure to conform to 'lawful and culturally normative ethical behaviour'.
• limitations of deviation from social norms

  1. APD shows there is a place for deviation from social norms in considering what is abnormal. however, there are other factors to consider, e.g. distress to others due to APD. therefore it is never the sole reason for defining abnormality.
  2. culturally relative. person from one group may label someone from another as abnormal using their standards rather than the person's standards, e.g. hearing voices is acceptable in some cultures but would be seen as a sign of abnormality in the UK. this creates problems defining abnormality cross-culturally.
• failure to function adequately

  cannot deal with the demands of everyday life, e.g. not being able to hold down a job, maintain relationships or basic hygiene. they may no longer conform to interpersonal rules (e.g. respecting personal space), may experience personal distress or behave in a way that is irrational or dangerous.
• example of failure to function adequately

  intellectual disability disorder. for diagnosis, there would have to clear signs that as a result of this the person was not able to cope with the demands of everyday living. so intellectual disability disorder is an example of failure to function adequately.
• strength of failure to function adequately

  recognises patient's perspective. acknowledges that the experience of the patient (or others) is important. captures the experience of many who need help and is useful for assessing abnormality.
• limitation of failure to function adequately

  same as deviation from social norms. hard to say is someone is really failing to function or deviating from social norms. people who live alternative lifestyles or do extreme sports may be seen as behaving maladaptively. if we treat these behaviours as 'failures' to function adequately, we may limit freedom.
• deviation from ideal mental health

  what makes someone 'normal' and psychologically healthy. jahoda's criteria, e.g. realistic view of the world, can successfully work, love and enjoy our leisure and we are rational and perceive ourselves accurately.
• strength of deviation from ideal mental health

  comprehensive. covers a broad range of mental health conditions that someone may seek help from mental health services or be referred for help. range covered in jahoda's criteria makes it a good tool for thinking about mental health.
• limitation of deviation from ideal mental health

  unrealistic criteria. very few will ever meet all the criteria, meaning many would be considered abnormal. however, it makes it clear to people the ways in which they could benefit from seeking help to improve their mental health. however, there is little value in thinking about who might benefit from treatment against their will.