Definitions of abnormality II

• Failure to function adequately - inability to cope with everyday living.


  A person may cross the line between normal and abnormal at the point they cannot deal with the demands of everyday life - they fail to function adequately.

  For instance, not being able to hold down a job, maintain relationships or maintain basic standards of nutrition or hygiene.
• Failure to function adequately - proposed signs of failure to cope.


  Rosenhan and Seligman say that when someone is not coping they:

  • No longer conform to interpersonal rules.
  • They experience personal distress.
  • They behave in a way that is irrational or dangerous.
• Failure to function adequately - example: IDD


  Diagnosis of IDD would not be made on the basis of statistical infrequency alone. There would have to be clear signs that, as a result of this, the person was not able to cope with the demands of everyday living. So IDD is an example of failure to function adequately.
• Strength of failure to function adequately - recognises the patient's perspective.


  This may not be an entirely satisfactory approach because it is difficult to assess distress. However, the definition acknowledges that the experience of the patient is important. It captures the experience of many people who need help and is useful for assessing abnormality.
• Limitation of failure to function adequately - it is the same as deviation from social norms.


  It can be hard to say when someone is really failing to function or deviating from social norms. People who live alternative lifestyles or do extreme sports could be seen as behaving maladaptively. If we treat these behaviours as 'failures' of adequate functioning we may limit freedom.
• Deviation from ideal mental health - changing the emphasis.


  A different way to look at normality and abnormality is to think about what makes someone 'normal' and psychologically healthy.

  Then identify anyone who deviates from this ideal.
• Deviation from ideal mental health - Jahoda listed 8 criteria.


  Jahoda suggested the following criteria for ideal mental health:

  • We have no symtpoms of distress.
  • We are rational and perceive ourselves accurately.
  • We self-actualise.
  • We can cope with stress.
  • We have realistic view of the world.
  • We have good self-esteem and lack guilt.
  • We are independent of other people.
  • We can successfully work, love, and enjoy our leisure.
• Deviation from ideal mental health - inevitable overlap between definitions.


  Someone's inability to keep a job may be a sign of their failure to cope with the pressures of work, OR as a deviation from the ideal of successfully working.
• Strength of deviation from ideal mental health - it is comprehensive.


  The definition covers a broad range of criteria for good mental health. It probably covers most of the reasons someone would seek help from mental heath services or be referred for help. The sheer range of factors discussed in relation to Jahoda's criteria make it a good tool for thinking about mental health.
• Limitation of deviation from ideal mental health - definition may be culturally relative. 


  Some of the ideas in Jahoda's classification of ideal mental health are specific to western standards. For example the emphasis on self-actualisation would be considered indulgent in collectivist cultures. So this means that the definition only really applies to western, individualist cultures.