Exercise

Research the answers to the following questions:

There are several different ways in which it is possible to define ‘abnormal’ as opposed to our ideas of what is ‘normal’. One way is the statistical approach which is based on the premise that abnormal behaviour is statistically rare. For example anxiety can be assessed using Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The mean score for trait anxiety is 40 and people who achieve over 55 are seen as statistically rare as only 1 in 50 score that high. Therefore those with high scores are seen as deviant from the greater majority of the population.

The statistical approach helps to address what is meant by normal in a statistical context, but it still does not helps us define the term. There are many people who have high levels of anxiety, but would still not be categorised as clinically abnormal — it is also equally true that people with very low scores on the anxiety scale are also statistically abnormal!

Social Deviance is emphasised by some psychologists as a measure of abnormal behaviour. This approach would see people who behave in a socially deviant way that makes other people uncomfortable should be regarded as abnormal. However there are problems inherent in this approach. For instance German citizens who objected to and spoke out against Nazi atrocities were seen as being socially deviant. It is also true to say that what is regarded as deviant varies from culture to culture. Kwakiutl indians burn valuable blankets in order to cast shame on their enemies, behaviour that would seem decidedly odd in Western culture.

So far both the approaches discussed only tell us a little about what we mean by ‘abnormal’. Abnormality is a complex concept that is difficult to define precisely. Abnormality can take many different forms and there is no single feature that can help us distinguish abnormality from normality. Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) propose seven major features of abnormality that appear in abnormal behaviour as opposed to normal behaviour. The more of these features that are possessed by the individual, the more likely they are to be considered abnormal.

• Suffering: Most abnormal individuals (such as those suffering with anxiety disorders) report that they are suffering. However normal people can suffer at times in their lives and some abnormal individuals, such as those with personality disorders, treat others badly but do not appear to suffer themselves
• Maladaptiveness: Maladaptive behaviour is behaviour that prevents an individual from achieving major life goals, from having fulfilling relationships with others or working effectively (for instance an agrophobic will not venture out of the house due to fear).
• Vividness and unconventionality: Vivid and unconventional behaviour is relatively unusual. It is behaviour that differs substantially from the way in which you would expect normal people to behave in similar situations. However there are many people who behave in this way that are not deemed to be abnormal.
• Unpredictability and loss of control: With most people, you normally predict what they will do in known situations. In contrast, abnormal behaviour is often highly unpredictable and uncontrolled and inappropriate for the situation.
• Irrationality and incomprehensibility: One of the characteristics of abnormal behaviour is that there appears to be no good reason why the person should choose to behave in that way.
• Observer discomfort: Our social behaviour is governed by a number of unspoken rules about behaviour, such as the way we maintain eye contact or personal space. When others break these rules we experience discomfort. But this does not necessarily indicate abnormal behaviour, for instance different cultures may well have different social rules about behaviour.
• Violation of moral and ideal standards: When moral standards are violated, this behaviour may be judged to be abnormal

One of the problems with using the seven features of abnormality is that they rely on subjective judgements and it can be quite difficult to decided which of the features are actually present in a person’s behaviour. One family may try to commit an elderly relative because of eccentric behaviour which other people may find harmless.

The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) is used by psychiatrists to help diagnose mental disorders. It tries to distinguish between social deviance or non-conformity and mental disorder or abnormality stating:

Most psychiatrists and clinical psychologists accept that abnormality exists and that those individuals who exhibit abnormal symptoms should receive a diagnosis that labels the specific abnormality. This helps determine the appropriate form of treatment. This view has had a number of critics over the years, for instance Scheff (1966) argued that this form of labelling could actually create part of the symptoms (labelling theory)

The medical model attempts to classify behaviours that are seen as abnormal, but this approach also has problems, in that while you can classify physical symptoms such as rashes or temperature, it is much harder to classify internal, mental symptoms, such as feeling depressed. Diagnostic Statistical Manual or DSM was introduced in America in order to help with classification. The original version was updated in 1968 and became DSM-II, which seemed to be unreliable as a tool for diagnosis, due to its imprecision. Once again it was updated in 1980 (DSM-III) and again in 1987 (DSM-III-R), with each version offers more precise definitions.

This approach is a general framework that argues that any mental disorder happens as a joint function of a pre-disposition towards the disorder (or diathesis) and stress. Therefore a person with a high diathesis or predisposition would need less stress to react in an abnormal way.