Personal differences affect the way people work with stress. According to Jahoda a person ought to be resistant to stress- they ought to be unaffected and have the ability to employ coping strategies. However, not everyone has a negative response to stress. Some people may be unable to cope and will develop a mental illness after a long period of stress, whilst others will thrive under the pressures of stress. It has been seen that certain people show improved performance when working under stressful conditions; they are able to work more efficiently and effectively.
So although they are not employing coping strategies, and they are letting themselves be affect by the stress, the result is positive and not negative. According to Jahoda this would be showing a high level of self-actualization and positive self-attitudes; the person is able to understand their possibilities and how they work best and are using this knowledge in order to achieve their full potential. By resisting stress they will be deviation from the 1st and 2nd criteria, but will be complying with the 3rd criterion.
By accepting stress they will be complying with the 1st and 2nd criteria, but will be deviating from the 3rd criterion. In some cases the criteria is contradictory, and so this definition is not always entirely effective. Once again, this definition is affected by the cultural issues and other biases present. Although in Western societies self-fulfilment and individuality are seen as desirable ideals, in other countries and cultures they are not. In Asian cultures it is customary for the family to plan a child’s future, including arranged marriages and career paths.
If the child were to grow up and decide to follow his own ambitions he would be deviating from social norms and would be conflicting with his culture. However, by complying he would be deviating from Jahoda’s definition of ideal mental health. Personal autonomy in the Western world is regarded highly, however in other cultures and in many circumstances a person would be expected to put the needs of others first. There is often seen to be a duty to others in the family (because of authority and respect, or the status of men and women within the culture) and so it is not possible to always put oneself first.
The historical bias present conflicts with the perception of reality over time, whilst the cultural bias conflicts with the current perception of reality. Many years ago the Earth was considered to be the centre of the universe- any thoughts otherwise would be ridiculed and the person considered abnormal. However over time and through advances in science we now know that the Earth revolves around the sun- sticking with the originally proposed theory would class one as abnormal, no longer the opposite way round. Cultural differences relating to life after death may affect the current perception of reality a person may have.
In Western culture, someone who was hearing voices or talking to a dead relative would be seen as abnormal and would be thought to have a psychological disorder. In other cultures it is normal to continually talk to those who have passed on, as they remain with the family in spirit. Deviation from ideal mental health acts as a good definition in its method of standardising what it is to be normal. However it is still subject to the same biases and cultural relativism as the previous two definitions (statistical infrequency and deviation from social norms).
It has been shown that it is difficult to achieve the six criteria suggested to indicate ideal mental health, and so many people ought to be psychologically abnormal- but through other assessments psychologists know this not to be true. The six criteria also show a certain degree of conflict with each other in certain circumstances; this suggests that the definition is not always accurate or reliable. Like with deviation from social norms, the aspect of the person judging and their opinion will affect whether an individual ought to be classified as abnormal or normal.
There will be variation between the views of different judges questioned, and it is up to the discretion of this judge as to the diagnosis. The fourth definition is failure to function adequately. Individuals known to have a psychological disorder will often display symptoms in the form of dysfunction. These may be through inability to work or socialise, not maintaining good hygiene, or difficulty with communication. As this is amongst those suffering from psychological abnormality the behaviours can be used to assist with a diagnosis of others.
The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) is used in assessments by psychologists in order to determine whether a person has a mental illness/abnormality. A poor score on the GAF combined with poor scores from other psychological and physical measures can be an indication of a psychological disorder. With other definitions of abnormality, deviating from perceived norms may not always mean a person needs psychological help- as long as they continue to function well and are not affecting themselves or others negatively.
However, with a failure to function adequately, as the name suggests, the person himself is being affected by the problem as they are unable to continue with their every day life. This strongly suggests a psychological problem, and if a mental disorder is not diagnosed there is still the need for professional help. Failure to function adequately can be used to measure the extent of an individual’s problems and the possibility that they may require appropriate help, however as Comer (2000) said, dysfunction alone is not an indication of psychological abnormality.
Some people will chose to deprive themselves of necessary items, such as food, in order to protest against something they believe to be unjust- this is not a psychological abnormality, although they are failing to function adequately according to the GAF. This shows how some low scoring assessments may simply be circumstantial. The behaviour must be seen to affect the person over a long period of time and significantly restrict their life in order for them to be classed as abnormal. There are some exceptions present under this definition of abnormality.
Once again, it may be circumstantial that a person is acting in a dysfunctional way. Under a period of intense stress, such as searching for a new job or taking exams, an individual may become highly anxious and behave inadequately. This would be regarded as normal however; as they are simply reacting to stress- it would be unusual for a person in this situation to be calm. Other people, such as sociopaths, will appear to be extremely aggressive towards others but will not be suffering personally, nor experiencing stress, or functioning inadequately.
However, their amoral attitudes would be considered abnormal and could be representative of a psychological disorder. The cultural issues facing failure to function adequately are such that some groups of people may appear to be dysfunctional, but this is just an indication of high levels of stress and inability to cope, not the presence of a mental disorder. It was suggested by Sashidharan (1995) that racism and prejudice may negatively impact psychological wellbeing.
This would be shown in the ethnic groups that have immigrated to Western countries. The way in which they are affected is not due to their cultural background, but rather the way in which they are treated in the country they have immigrated to- where they are subjected to financial problems, poor housing, and difficult working conditions. Failure to function adequately works well as a definition of psychological abnormality as the scale is specifically standardised- there is little room for the affect of a person’s opinion on the diagnosis.
There are limitation though as the GAF cannot be used alone to determine abnormality (it must be used in conjunction with other tests), cultural situations may affect the results and may lead to generalisations that certain groups are more likely to suffer from a psychological disorder than others due to culture rather than living conditions, and in some circumstances dysfunction is expected- such as during high levels of stress. Alone this definition cannot show who should be classed as abnormal and who should not. In all four of the definitions cultural relativism has featured as a limitation.
This is because each definition has some cultural specificity and cannot easily be transferred to different cultures without adaptations being required. There is no clear definition of abnormality that can be applied to the whole world, as in each culture there are different social norms and expectations, as well as different laws and perceptions of adequate functioning. Due to this it is seen as inappropriate for a diagnosis of an individual to be made by someone of a separate culture, as the cultural relativism will impair their judgement.
Within cultures there are other variations, due to subcultures. African-Caribbean immigrants in the UK will conform to the wider society norms; however aspects of their culture will be continued. For this reason the African-Caribbean immigrants are 2-7 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia that a British person, as discovered by Cochrane (1977). This may be due to their differences in communications, or their religious beliefs. Cultural changes may also affect a diagnosis- as times change, so do social norms.
In the UK, women who were unmarried and pregnant used to be sent to mental asylums as they were seen to be abnormal and the situation was socially unacceptable. Today this is very different; single mothers are accepted in society and are seen as normal by most generations. Similarly with homosexuality; this was illegal in the UK until 1967, and was considered to be a mental disorder in the USA until 1973. Once again, cultural changes mean that homosexuality is now generally accepted and is no longer illegal, although some people still hold old values or religious beliefs and refuse to tolerate this.
The definitions of abnormality offered by psychologists are subject to many biases and constrictions due to circumstances, especially being affected by cultural relativism. Each has its strengths and is applicable within separate cultures; however the limitations are also vast. Due to cultural differences not one single definition can be applied world-wide, and this is unlikely to ever be possible whilst maintaining a high level of reliability. It is important to understand the differences between cultures and the limitations of each definition so that psychologists are able to make well-informed and accurate diagnoses.
The four definitions offered show much conflict between each other, due to the way in which abnormality is measured. An individual may appear to be normal according to one definition, but abnormal in another. Because of this psychologists must look at the whole picture- the circumstances, the person’s personality, the culture, their ability to function appropriately, as well as other factors- in order to make an accurate and reliable decision of a diagnosis. A combination of aspects of each definition may be useful in doing this.