Abnormal Psychology

Exercise

1. What is abnormal in terms of psychology?

2. Who decides what is normal and what is not?
3. What kind of criteria are used to decide what is psychopathological?
4. What are the problems associated with these decisions?

What is Abnormality?
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.

Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features

• 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:
Neither deviant behaviour, e.g. political, religious or sexual, nor conflicts that are primarily
between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or condition is
a symptom of a dysfunction (i.e. impairment of function) in the person (p.xxii).

Categorisation of mental disorders

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

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.

The Diathesis-stress approach

This approach is a general framework that argues that any mental disorder happens as a joint
function of a pre-disposition towards the disorder and stress. Therefore a person with a high
diathesis or predisposition would need less stress to react in an abnormal way. The
diathesis-stress model combines biological and genetic factors with levels of stress. Diathesis
refers to a predisposition (innate) and the stress is environmental (nurture). This model
suggests that mental disorders are the result of an interaction between nature and nurture. A
Finnish study looking at children with an inherited predispostion to shcizophrneia revealed
that no adopted children raised in healthy family developed schizophrenia, but 11% in
severely disturbed families went on to do so. This is called a bio-psycho-social approach .