Evaluation of the Definitions of Abnormality

Statistical Infrequency

It can be argued that Statistical Infrequency collects quantitative data, and this alone is not enough to base assumptions of abnormality on. It defines only the norm for any group of people, this reflects only the typical or regular results. This type of collection usually results in a normal distribution curve, the limitation with this is that it is not reflective of individual differences that may occur because it clusters a group on people to the central, which may, within them have several individual differences and leaves out two extremes, which are then what we assume as abnormal behavior. The cut off point for deciding when a behavior is infrequent enough for us to call it abnormal are purely arbitrary. This is extremely reductionist as it reduces large amounts of people who may have individual differences within them to one norm, and show no variety in the average. Human behavior and abnormality is too complex to be narrowed down to one norm or regular. Thus, this type of definition can only provide a limited understanding. However, numerical facts support hypothesis and assumptions and validate them too. The frequency of many abnormal behaviors is highly dependent on culture, for example in some cultures the occurrence of depression is not as high as it is in North America. This is because society treats the term depression not as a mental illness but rather another overshadowing power over an individual. Many infrequent and rare behaviors or characteristics e.g left handedness have no bearing or normality or abnormality, and some characteristics are regarded as abnormal despite their high frequency. Depression affects so many individuals, this makes it common but does not mean it is not a problem. This definition is limited by a cultural bias. This shows that the unique aspects of a culture need to be considered when understanding and identifying a behavior as abnormal or normal. Another disadvantage of this definition of abnormality is that it fails to distinguish between desirable and undesirable behavior.

Deviation from Social Norms

Social norms are defined by culture. A limitation of this definition is that what may be defined as normal in one culture may be looked upon as abnormal in another, it takes cultural relativism into account. This definition does not take into account desirability, for example having an IQ of about 110 is uncommon, therefore deviating from social norms although it is

not undesirable. Social norms vary from one society to another and standards change. For example, in the Western society, it used to be considered far more abnormal to be homosexual than it is now. Until about 1980, homosexuality was looked at as having a mental disorder. Social norms and morals which societies believe is the expected and accepted behavior changes over time. Behavior that was once seen as abnormal may, given time, become acceptable and vise versa. Social deviance cannot, on its own, offer a complete definition of abnormality e.g. being rude is seen as deviant behavior but it is not evidence of mental disturbance. Some behaviors which deviate from social norms are actually statistically frequent therefore may not be seen as abnormal because of high occurrence. Through this definition of abnormality it tries to avoid ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to regard one's own culture as "normal" and consequently see different cultures as "abnormal". Behavior tends to be context specific e.g. a naked person on a nudist beach would not be considered abnormal compared to a naked person running down a street. The situation in which the behavior occurs also plays a part in defining whether or not it is abnormal. It is difficult to distinguish between behavior that is abnormal and behavior that is eccentric e.g. an artist who may act in odd ways and not follow social norms may be seen as eccentric rather than abnormal.

Failure To Function Adequately

Again, ability to function on normal daily tasks is dependant on context, for e.g. if someones relative passes away, and they are grieving and because of this grief they are unable to perform adequately. This does not make them abnormal. And it may even be turned around completely for example someone may be a psychopath but their illness may have no affect on their ability to function or show any signs of distress, this does not mean they are normal. This approach works well when we consider such conditions as alcoholism and anorexia, where it is clear that a persons health is in danger because of the way he or she is behaving . However a common limitation of this is unpredictablemaladaptiveness, for example in cases where people whose behavior is clearly not indicative of a serious disorder will sometimes engage in maladaptive or dangerous behavior. This definition does not take into account other behaviors which are classified as mental disorders but do not cause personal distress, therefore it is reductionist basing the ability to function properly on whether the person is abnormal or not. It is impossible to measure personal distress and maladaptiveness in an objective way. This definition also holds a cultural bias because a behavior which might be considered a failure to function adequately in one culture may be viewed as functioning adequately in another. In some cases, although rare, what is classified as abnormal behavior through this definition may actually be helpful and adaptive for the individual e.g. someone who suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) of repeated hand washing finds that this abnormal behavior

relieves them and makes them cheerful and happy, hence making them more able to function adequately throughout the day.

Deviation From Ideal Mental Health

The guidelines that are set out to define Ideal Mental Health are unrealistic in most terms and it is practically impossible for any individual to pertain to all conditions. The absence of even a single one of these criterions of ideal mental health hardly indicated that the indivual is suffering from a mental disorder. Jahodascriterion is root ed in a Western view of personal growth and attains to a final individualistic goal of self actualization. This point of view may not apply to collectivist cultures whose goals are to do better for/as a community. In order for this approach to work, we must assume that we can measure mental health in the same way as physical health, this is reductionist because many causes and underlying symptoms together cause mental illness whereas physical illness can be diagnosed through one of two determinants. Also, in order to judge what deviates from Ideal Mental Health, it needs to be defined first, the boundaries that stipulate what ideal mental health is are not properly defined and if Jahoadas definition is applied all individuals at some point in life deviate from IMH but this is no indication that they are abnormal. An advantage of this approach is that when treating depression clinically Jahoda provides areas to target and it focuses on a positive approach to the problems. There is no objective way to measure on what extent an individual deviates from any one of these criterions. If looked at from an opposing perspective, some individuals function better when they experience stress in their life, it may act as motivation to strive for better, in this case it cannot be seen as abnormal deviation because in some ways it is healthy for the individual.

Evaluation of the Models of Abnormality

Biological Model

In this model, it is said that healthy psychological functioning is linked to healthy physiological functioning. This is reductionist because more factors affect physiological functioning than psychological functioning and vice versa. For e.g. an individual can be psychologically healthy but have a physical ailment or vice versa. This perspective is reductionist also because it takes into consideration only genes, biochemical substances, neuro anatomy or microorganisms as causes for mental illnesses. It ignores situational hypothesis and social factors that largely affect/cause mental wellbeing. The discovery of the Medical Model is also beneficial because earlier, mental illness was blamed on demons or evil in the individual, this way the illness could not be treated. Now it is seen that mental illness is not in the hands of/control of the individual. The concept of no blame is seen as more humane. The development of this model allowed treatment to take pace of individuals suffering from mental illness through medicine. It can be further argued whether treatment through medicine is actually curing or corrupting? Does the medicine address the actual cause of the problem or does it merely alleviate symptoms from the surface? In the case of mental illnesses the symptoms are far more subjective than those of physical illness e.g. feelings of despair, social disconnect, loss of interest in life/family/work, these cannot be easily measured, so the psychiatrist must make a judgment based not entirely, but largely on experience. If thought of from an existentialist point of view, in the medical model the individual is discouraged of taking control of his/her own life because by giving into psychiatric treatment they feel as though they hand over the responsibility of their mental wellbeing to a professional.

However, it can be argued that the model is based on the well established theory and logic of science and is not just formulated from thin air. There is evidence that biochemical and genetic factors are liked with some mental illnesses e.g. schizophrenia.

Psychodynamic Model The Psychodynamic Approach to abnormality suggests that it is as a result of unresolved childhood conflicts encountered by individuals. If we are to attempt to cure abnormal behavior through this approach it is necessary to gain access to that individuals unconscious mind, this may be difficult, not possible, or the patient may lie. Freuds approach lacks objectivity and support from experimental research. Freuds methods to enter the unconscious mind i.e. dream analysis, hypnosis, and free association are very subjective and are difficult to prove or disprove. Yet another limitation is that Freud generalized a small number of case studies to the whole population. However, for some abnormalities e.g. phobias, Freuds approach has been very successful. It has also been proven that many people with psychological disturbances do recollect childhood traumas. The Psychodynamic Model offers a different approach to that of the Biological Model. Many observations of Psychodynamic therapists can be applied to everyday life and how individuals deal with situations on a day to day basis e.g. defense mechanisms. Freud encouraged a more optimistic view regarding psychological distress, giving the hope to many that psychological illness is in fact curable with a more permanent solution than what the Medicinal Approach provided. As the source of many unresolved childhood conflicts are parents, there is a tendency to place a lot of responsibility/blame on parents for the psychological

health of their children. It is unethical for parents to entertain the blame of their childs suffering because in most it is unjustified. The Psychodynamic Theory underestimates and partially ignores the role of the situation and context on a persons behavior and places too much emphasis on internal instincts and conflicts. Because great emphasis is placed on past experiences, it often happens that present experiences/circumstances are ignored even though they may entirely be the cause of the disparity the individual is feeling. In this way it could be said that it is reductionist because an individuals behavior is almost entirely reduced to possible past experiences and ignores the possibility of a recent development as the cause of the illness. Cure is also deterministic because the individuals childhood experiences cannot be altered they can only be taught to deal and overcome them to return to normal life. Data is retrospective and taken from memories, is relies on the ability of the individual to recall, therefore it is prone to error and is unreliable. Many individuals may concoct false memories in their minds and make themselves believe that it indeed happened or they may falsely recall.

Cognitive Model Cognitive aspects of psychology are those that concentrate on thinking and processing of information. Through this model it is believed that psychological disorders are caused by faulty or irrational thoughts and perceptions. It is then the job of the therapist to help the individual overcome this by replacing their faulty thoughts with more realistic ones. The Cognitive Model has been most successful in explaining and treating anxiety disorders such as phobias and stress due to irrational thinking and treating depression which is believed to be caused by negative thinking.

The major criticism tackled here is cause and effect. Are faulty thoughts or perceptions the cause of depression or merely its symptoms? Unlike other models of abnormality the Cognitive Approach puts the blame for their situation with the patient since this perspective suggest that the individual themselves have developed faulty thinking therefore they can also put it right. This is unethical and cruel if their negative perceptions are actually based on the reality of the situation that they are in. It can be argued that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy places too much emphasis on the importance of cognitive thought processes for e.g. peoples negative emotions are not maladaptive but simply a realistic interpretation of their situation. As with all approaches, the Cognitive Model is reductionist. It concentrates on behavior interpretation of environment and maladaptive thinking but does not consider biological issues such as genes or brain chemicals which have been proved to play a vital role in most psychological disorders. Unlike the behaviorist approach which argues that individuals themselves dont have absolute control over their lives and choices but rather the environment determines their behavior by making them behave in certain ways. The cognitive model allows for processes such as decision making and the freedom of choice. This ensures that the model is more acceptable to people.

Behavioral Model The behavioral model focuses on how abnormal behaviors result from different kinds of learning a person goes through in their life. It hypothesizes that psychopathology is the result of three different process of learning: Social Learning, Operant Conditioning, and Classical Conditioning. This model can be seen as reductionist, because it only focuses on external influences on behavior, i.e. the presence of a model, or consequences, or associations. It does not take into account cognitive/thought processes, brain

chemistry, genetics etc. Hence, one can say that it focuses too much on situational factors, and neglects internal processes. It doesnt leave room for the nature aspect of the nature/nurture debate. How do we know that these associations and the learning arent due to an inbuilt tendency? How do we know that cognitive aspects arent responsible for the learning? However, a strength of this model, is that it scientific, as it makes it easy to conduct research to test how reinforcement (rewards) effect behavior. Because behavior is visible, it is measurable, and therefore it is an objective way to look at not only psychopathology, but treatment as well. We can actually see if an individuals behavior changes with treatment, as opposed to figuring out if their thought processes have changed, or their anxieties have been resolved, or their brain chemistry has been re-balanced. Of all the models, it is also the first model to look at external factors, and move away from simply internal, or nature based causes of psychopathology.