Culturally Relative. For example, in a collectivist culture, self-actualisation may not be seen as important, rather that the actualisation of the group is the priority. Evaluation – Defining Abnormality These four definitions are useful for identifying different kinds of abnormality depending on the situation and the definition that is the most suitable – the one thing that needs to be remembered is that all the definitions are culturally relative – therefore abnormality can ever only be defined in the context of how a particular culture would view that behaviour.
Statistical Frequency shows us a quantifiable way of identifying abnormality so that we can compare and contrast numbers of people who display varying levels of the abnormality. However, it doesn’t distinguish between desirable or undesirable behaviour, which means good things that are rare, are considered abnormal. The problem with this is that the word “abnormal” has negative connotations. Deviation From Social Norms shows us the viewpoint of the rest of society and how they would see the behaviour to be, according to the social “norms”. This considers other peoples’ views but it doesn’t look at the individual. It also excludes people who don’t agree with the rest of society’s “norms”.
Failure to Function Adequately looks at the abnormality on an individual level and whether the person is able to cope on their own or not according to the society they live in. This is a more personal way of looking at abnormality and from it we can help the individual more specifically during therapy. However, “functioning adequately” means different things to different people. Deviation From Ideal Mental Health takes a positive approach at identifying abnormality as it tries to identify what is desirable behaviour, rather than what is undesirable like the rest of the definitions.
However, it is difficult to achieve all of the requirements on the checklist all at once at any time, and the lists need to be modified depending on the person. Test Yourself! How well are you doing so far? Behavioural Model of Abnormality This model claims that all abnormality is learnt through classical or operant conditioning, or by Social Learning. During therapy, the therapist looks purely at the behaviour and how to change it.
Assumption about Causes: Abnormal behaviours are learned through conditioning – No behaviour (normal or abnormal) is innate, it is all learned via experience – Classical conditioning (learning by association) and operant condition (learning by rewards & punishment) Only behaviour is important! Mental illnesses do not “exist” in this model as the mind is considered an unnecessary concept.
The same laws apply to humans and animals – According to evolution, all humans and animals are made from the same basic units, with “higher” animals having more of these units hence being more complex combination. – According to behaviourists, the findings of studying rats and other animals can be generalised to humans. Assumption about Treatments: What is learned can be unlearned. Through the laws of classical conditioning, you can unlearn behaviour, e.g. systematic desensitisation (breaking the stimulus-response link)
Focus on symptoms – Useful for phobias, easting disorders, etc but they don’t look at underlying causes, only focusing on changing the behaviour – Behaviourists don’t use the DSM, but other checklists are used. Goldfried & Davidson (1976)