Specification: Definitions in the field of mental health, including deviation from ideal mental health , deviation from social/cultural norms, failure to function adequately and statistical infrequency.

Psychopathology is the study of psychological disorders. One issue with studying mental health problems is how to identify when someone is psychologically unwell. Another cause for concern is how to determine if their behaviour differs from what is considered ‘normal’ and at what point should that person be classified as ‘abnormal’? 

Consequently, psychologists and health professionals have put forward different definitions of abnormality in an attempt to understand abnormal behaviour. There are four key definitions: deviation from social norms; failure to function adequately; statistical infrequency; and deviation from ideal mental health.

Exam Hint: For each of these four key terms you are required to outline the definition, provide an example of how this could be seen in a person and evaluate the effectiveness of this as a definition of abnormality.

Deviation from ideal mental health

Jahoda (1958) took a different approach to defining abnormality, suggesting that abnormal behaviour should be defined by the absence of particular (ideal) characteristics – in other words, behaviours which move away (deviate) from ideal mental health. This is similar to the approach taken by the medical profession for measures of physical health such as having blood pressure within the normal range, standard body temperature and so on. She proposed six principles of ideal mental health:

•  Having a positive view of yourself (high self‐esteem) with a strong sense of identity

• Being capable of personal growth and self‐actualisation

• Being independent of others (autonomous) and self‐regulating

• Having an accurate view of reality

• Being able to integrate and resist stress

• Being able to master your environment (love, friendships, work, and leisure time)

Therefore, if an individual does not demonstrate one of these criteria, they would be classified as abnormal according to this definition. For example, someone suffering from depression may have a negative view of themselves and would therefore be classified as abnormal.

Evaluation of deviation from ideal mental health

One weakness of the deviation from ideal mental health definition is the unrealistic criteria proposed by Jahoda. There are times when everyone will experience stress and negativity, for example, when grieving following the death of a loved one. However, according to this definition, these people would be classified as abnormal, irrespective of the circumstances which are outside their control. With the high standards set by these criteria, how many need to be absent for diagnosis to occur must also be questioned.

However, one strength of Jahoda’s definition is that it takes a positive and holistic stance. Firstly, the definition focuses on positive and desirable behaviours, rather than considering just negative and undesirable behaviours. Secondly, the definition considers the whole person, taking into account a multitude of factors that can affect their health and well‐being. Therefore, a strength of the deviation from ideal mental health definition of abnormality is that it is comprehensive, covering a broad range of criteria.

An issue with Jahoda’s definition of abnormality is cultural relativism. Some of the criteria for ideal mental health could be considered Western in origin. For example, her emphasis on personal growth and development may be considered overly self‐centred in other countries of the world who favour community over individualism. Likewise, independence within collectivist cultures is not fostered thus making the definition culture bound. 

Deviation from social/cultural norms

A social norm is an unwritten rule about what is acceptable within a particular society. Therefore, according to this definition, a person is seen as abnormal if their thinking or behaviour violates these unwritten rules (social norms) about what is acceptable. For example, if you were to see someone walking around the streets of London practically naked, you would probably think they were abnormal. However, this same behaviour in a remote African tribe would be considered perfectly normal as part of their culture.

Evaluation of deviation from social/cultural norms

One issue with the deviation from social norms definition of abnormality is the idea of cultural relativism. Social norms differ between cultures and what is considered normal in one culture may be abnormal in another. For example, in approximately 75 countries in the world homosexuality is still illegal, and therefore considered abnormal. However, in the rest of the world homosexuality is considered normal. The result of this is that there is no global standard for defining behaviour as abnormal and therefore abnormality is not standardised.

Furthermore, social norms change over time which raises an issue known as hindsight bias. For example, homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness in the UK until 1973, often resulting in institutionalisation, but is now simply considered a variation of normal behaviour. This means that, historically, reliance on the deviation from social norm definition of abnormality may have resulted in violations of human rights where people, by today’s standards, are deemed ‘abnormal’. It could be argued that diagnoses upon these grounds may have been given as a form of social control over minority groups as a means to exclude those who do not conform from society (Szas, 1974).

How far an individual deviates from a social norm is mediated by the degree of severity and the context. For example, when someone breaks a social norm once this may not be deviant behaviour, but the persistent repetition of such behaviour could be evidence of psychological disturbance. Likewise, someone walking topless on a beach would be considered normal but, on the other hand, adopting the same attire for the office would be viewed as abnormal and possibly an indication of an underlying mental health problem. As a consequence, this definition fails to offer a complete explanation in its own right since it is related to degree and context.

Failure to function adequately

According to the Failure to Function Adequately (FFA) definition, a person is considered abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life and live independently in society. Furthermore, to be classified as abnormal, a person’s behaviour should cause personal suffering and distress because of their failure to cope. However, they may also cause distress or discomfort to other people who observe their behaviour.

For example, someone who is suffering from depression may struggle to get out of bed in the morning and go to work, or they may find it difficult to communicate with their family and friends. Consequently, they would be considered abnormal as their depression is causing an inability to cope with the demands of everyday life (going to work), while their behaviour is also causing distress and discomfort to family members and friends.

Evaluation of failure to function adequately

One weakness of the failure to function adequately definition stems from individual differences. For example, one person with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) may exhibit excessive rituals that prevent them from functioning adequately, as they constantly miss work; whereas, another person may suffer from the same excessive rituals, but find time to complete their rituals and always attend work on time. Therefore, despite the same psychological and behavioural symptoms, each person would be diagnosed differently according to this definition, thus questioning the validity of this definition.

One strength of the failure to function adequately definition is that is considers the subjective personal experiences of the patient. This definition considers the thoughts and feelings of the person experiencing the issue and does not simply make a judgement without taking the personal viewpoint of the sufferer into consideration. This suggests that the failure to function definition is a useful model for assessing psychopathological behaviour.

There is often confusion with distinguishing between failure to function adequately and deviation from social norms. On occasion, a behaviour which appears to be a failure to function adequately, such as not being able to go to work, may in fact also be a deviation from the social norm should that person be choosing to live an alternative lifestyle out of the common system for that society. It is therefore difficult to ascertain if this behaviour should be considered maladaptive. By labelling individuals who make such choices as ‘failing’, personal freedom is being quashed.

Evaluation of statistical infrequency

One problem with the statistical infrequency definition of abnormality is the issue of misdiagnosis. Certain behaviours are statistically common; for example, approximately 10% of the population will experience depression at some point making this behaviour ‘normal’, technically. On the other hand, certain behaviours – for example, high IQ – are statistically uncommon and therefore considered abnormal despite their desirable nature. This is therefore a serious drawback of adopting the statistical infrequency definition in explaining abnormality and perhaps should not be used in isolation when making a diagnosis.

A further issue with the statistical infrequency definition of abnormality is that labelling an individual as abnormal can be unhelpful. This is especially true, for example, of someone with a low IQ since they will be able to live quite happily without distress to themselves or others. Such a label may contribute to a poor self‐image or become an invitation for discrimination. This means that being labelled as statistically infrequent could cause the person more distress than the condition itself.

Some statistically infrequent behaviours labelled as abnormal could, in fact, be desirable traits. For example, having a very high IQ is very unusual, yet this characteristic could be hugely celebrated. Conversely, depression is known to be experienced by many people at some point in their lives and as such is considered common, but not desirable. Statistical infrequency as a definition of abnormality therefore needs to identify those behaviours which are both infrequent and undesirable to avoid this pitfall. 

Issues and debates

The development of criteria takes a nomothetic approach by identifying a list of factors through which to diagnose abnormal behaviour. Yet, everyone is an individual, so perhaps an idiographic approach to this area of psychology might be more fruitful.

Ethnocentricity is another issue with defining abnormality, especially regarding Jahoda’s criteria for ideal mental health. For example, ‘being independent and self‐regulating’ applies particularly to individualistic societies wherein independence is valued as a quality and is not seen as selfishness, which might be the case in collectivist societies who favour working together more.

Possible exam questions

1. Rosalee has been told by her doctor that she has ideal mental health. An example to support this claim is that she can, for example, resist stress. Identify two other criteria for ideal mental health that you could expect Rosalee to demonstrate. (2 marks)

2. Briefly explain one limitation of the failure to function adequately definition of abnormality. (2 marks)

3. Outline two definitions of abnormality. (6 marks)

4. Evaluate one or more definition of abnormality, other than deviation from social norms. (12/16 marks)