Abnormality is a term that is difficult to define due to the wide range of behaviours displayed by people. There are not a certain set of characteristics which can be directly related to abnormality, which could therefore be used to define abnormal behaviour. Because of this, each of the separate behaviours must be judged by an independent individual in order to decide whether it ought to be classed as abnormal or normal. However, the judgement made may be affected by a number of factors, most prominently cultural relativism.
In an attempt to define abnormality psychologists have put forward four key ways of determining the difference between normal behaviour and deviations from this. These are statistical infrequency, deviation from social norms, deviations from ideal mental health, and a failure to function adequately. The first of the four definitions is statistical infrequency. This method of classification uses deviation from an average in numerical form to show the boundaries of abnormality. This is a way of measuring specific characteristics statistically.
A normal distribution curve of a certain behaviour belonging to the population would be drawn, to show the population distribution- the highest percentage should be seen around the middle at the average, with decreasing percentages as the graph moves out to either side, therefore the fewest number of people ought to be at the extremes of the graph. The 2. 5% of the population at either extreme (unusually high or low scoring) are deemed to be abnormal in this particular definition. However 2.
5% is not the set boundary- this can vary depending on the characteristics displayed in the graph. This definition is a good way to show abnormality because it places behaviours into simple numerical terms to give a visual and statistical representation of what it is to be abnormal. Using this definition it is easy to class someone as either normal or abnormal- if they lie within the boundaries they are normal, however if they lie outside of the boundaries they are abnormal. However, this definition is also limiting due to a number of factors.
Statistical infrequency cannot measure abnormality, merely the characteristics that may contribute to the view and general understanding of abnormality (the behaviour must already be deemed to be abnormal). The variable being measured (such as the frequency of hearing a separate voice in one’s head, or shoe size) is taken out of context, and so must be further interpreted in order to determine whether this characteristic is linked to mental abnormality- whilst an above average shoe size would not often- in the Western world- be considered to show a mental disturbance, frequently hearing voices would be.
In order to determine whether a person is actually suffering from a psychological abnormality, the statistical infrequency must be further analysed. The characteristic measured may also be thought to be desirable in some circumstances, and therefore although classed by statistical infrequency as abnormal, it may be something that people strive for. An example of this related to the brain may be IQ, where an extremely low IQ is thought to mean retardation and is highly undesirable, whilst an extremely high IQ is thought to be representative of genius and is highly desirable.
Both categories would be seen as abnormal under this classification, however each has different applications. Physical characteristics may be similar- in Eastern countries small feet are strived for as they are seen to be beautiful not abnormal, whilst a basketball player may want to be unusually tall in order to have a height advantage- not to be abnormal. Therefore, both in mental health and physical characteristics the use of statistical infrequency is not always reliable as each variable may be viewed differently- some are desirable to be within normal ranges, whilst others are desirable if they are ‘abnormal’.
Another issue facing the use of statistical infrequency is the use of fixed boundaries. The highest and lowest 2. 5% of the population as shown on a normal distribution curve are defined as abnormal (in some, but not all, cases); however those approaching the boundaries (say at either 2. 6% or 97. 4%) are seen as normal. This makes the determination of abnormality black and white- a person is either normal or abnormal, there is no graduation between the two.
In some disorders, often thought of as psychologically abnormal, such as depression, there are different degrees of severity, so although a person may not be within the lowest or highest 2. 5% of the population they are still suffering. With this definition these people would be excluded from the term ‘abnormal’ and would be overlooked. Relating to this; there is not actually a set point beyond which people are defined as abnormal on the normal distribution curve, although it is most frequently considered to be around the highest and lowest 2. 5%.
For each characteristic this would have to be defined, which would result in further problems defining what numerical value is a suitable point- as a large range could be argued; some psychologists might believe 2. 5% to be suitable, whilst others may think up to 25%- there is a significant difference. There are some disorders which are surprisingly common, such as depression and anxiety. In 1992 Angst found that approximately 1 in 20 Americans are severely depressed, and 1 in 10 people will have a severe depressive episode at least once during the course of their life.
Further studies in 1994 by Kessler et al. discovered that 48% of people in their survey of 48 American states had already suffered from at least one psychological disorder in their lives. This shows the extremely high rates of ‘abnormality’ present in some societies. Statistical infrequency would not be an appropriate method to classify these people as their disorders are not ‘infrequent’. To have a psychological disorder would appear to be the norm, and so it would be extremely hard to distinguish between those currently classed as normal and those classed as abnormal.
Statistical frequency can only be representative of a certain population. Only people who have been formally assessed by a clinician and have given consent for their results to be included will be featured in the statistics relating to psychological disorders. Therefore the true rate of abnormality and presence of a certain disorder will not be accurate to the entire population- just those who have been assessed. It has been shown that females are more likely to approach a profession regarding their high levels on anxiety than males.
In statistics, due to this difference between the two sexes, it would seem that females have a higher rate of anxiety. This may not necessarily be true- there may be more males suffering with anxiety in the total population, however they choose not to seek professional help and so their data will not be included. These circumstances- where some people seek help and others do not- will distort the statistics, making them inaccurate and only representative of a certain population (i. e. those who have been formally assessed). This reluctance to talk to a professional about a psychological disorder is linked to culture, not only gender.
Some ethnic groups think that mentally ill (or abnormal) people are cursed. In China, Rack (1982) found that mental illness carries and undesirable stigma, and therefore only the people who are indisputably psychotic and out of contact with reality are diagnosed. Similarly although occurrence of depression in Western cultures is high, in Asian cultures it is unexpectedly low. Rack (1982) saw that actually the frequency rates of depression are roughly equal; however Asians believe that doctors are only to be approached regarding physical illness, not mental illness.
Due to the fact that Asian people live, and therefore are in much closer contact, with extended family than traditional Western people, there is a greater social support network. Asian people are able to tackle issues within the home, rather than resorting to professional help. Therefore the statistical infrequency will not be a true image of psychological disorder frequency; however it will represent the likeliness of a person to seek help in a certain culture instead.
The use of statistical infrequency as a definition of abnormality is effective when measuring a certain characteristic, however is not applicable to all behaviours. There is a wide scope for error in diagnoses as a ‘black or white’ approach is given- if a person is within a certain percentage they are normal, if not they are abnormal- this cannot be representative of an illness such as depression which has a range of severities. It has been shown through studies that the occurrence of mental illness is not necessarily ‘infrequent’ either, so statistical infrequency may not be the right definition to adopt.
Differences between cultures- the way they view abnormality as socially acceptable or not- and differences between genders- reluctance to seek professional help- contributes to the overall inaccuracies in statistical infrequency. This is not showing an accurate sample of the population; only those who are assessed. Statistical infrequency is also more representative of the number of people willing to seek help, rather than the prevalence of psychological abnormality.