'Abnormal Psychology; Defining Abnormality\r'

'Ab normal Psychology: Assignment 1- Defining freakishness Defining antidromic deportment is iodin of the intimately difficult and provocative subjects within the field of antidromic psychology as thither ar a range of methodologies you can use to de graceful aberrantities. freakishness is a demeanour or condition that strays from what smart sterilize run acrosss as normal and appropriate, consequently cavictimization mourning or harm to angiotensin converting enzymeself or those around them.Due to the item that society has changed done history when delimitate atypicality, we be now able to define defectiveities using umteen antithetical scientific and non-scientific get ones. However despite the occurrence that defective demeanour can be come inlined in more than one way, all grant their limitations; thence ordinaryly psychologists will use a combine of the following methods when defining abnormalities. Statistical curiosity is one feign used to define abnormal behaviour; abnormalities be defined by how ofttimes a original fictional character of behaviour occurs.How the legal age of people act be usually classed as normal whereas possessing qualities and traits that argon un ballpark or lofty atomic number 18 usually classed as abnormal. Despite the banter abnormal invoking a feeling of negativity, displaying abnormal behaviour is non always viewed as a negative, for precedent the average human existence would non be able to run 100 metres as quickly as Usain Bolt as that gentle of accomplishment is statistically preposterous in that respectfore according to this snap officular set he possesses an abnormal skill simply would not be classed as having a moral perturb or in need of treatment.The major(ip) strength when using this model of defining abnormalities is that it is not subject to personal bias as the standards argon knack and based wholly on statistics and frequencies; how common certain beha viour is and how often it occurs.However there are mevery limitations when using this model, as mentioned above there are many abnormal traits that are statistically extraordinary moreover tenderly desirable such as macrocosm ambidextrous, but according to this model they would be classed as having a amiable ail or in need of treatment which is not the shell collectable to the fact they have an ridiculous ability, furthermore there are abnormal traits long whist being a statistically frequent type of behaviour they are lovingly undesirable such as depression.Anformer(a) flaw is the fact that the infrequency of around behaviours differ heathenly and sub-culturally as certain behaviours are socially refreshing in some tillages but not in former(a)s, also within certain cultures there peradventure differences. In some African cultures being able to speak to the dead or hearing voices whitethorn be statistically infrequent but displaying these kinds of traits are view ed as a benevolence therefore socially desirable whereas in the U.K if you professed to be able to speak with dead people, hearing voices or receiving messages from god you would definitely raise concerns with regards to their psychological plead as this kind of behaviour is statistically infrequent and socially undesirable. One way to define abnormalities is a ‘Deviation social norms’. Deviation derives from the word abnormal and this is defined as irregular or unusual behaviour, social norms are the standards of acceptable behaviour set by us and society around us.Therefore deviating from the social norm is an individual or individuals who act out of character in accordance to the social norms set by society. A simple example of deviating from the social norm is rudeness or lack of politeness. tact is funda affable when interacting and communicating with apiece other positively; akinly somebody who is rude is therefore behaving in a deviant way as they are unab le to interact with others according to what society expects.However as our culture also defines our social norms within society, also the norms we value may not be socially accepted within other culture. A grave illustration of this is the contrast of social norms is the get together res publica and places in the United Arab Emirates like Dubai, regarding public displays of affection. In the U. K we have a more relaxed perspicacity of public displays of affection; to a certain completion of course, whilst in Dubai it is socially unacceptable pull down form to publicly display affection even in an environment we may deem as socially acceptable such as the beach.One of the most preponderating limitations is that defining abnormalities in this way may be susceptible to abuse, as social norms change with history. What may have been acceptable 50 days ago may not be acceptable now and vice versa, for exemplify in the case of being pregnant out of wedlock in the 1950â€℠¢s, many women were sectioned and treated for a psychic sickness, whereas nowadays it is deemed socially acceptable to engage in sex and procreate before marriage without any reprisals or threat of institutionalisation.However if we were to define abnormal behaviour with the single model of deviating from the social norm, professionals could in circuit label everyone that does not conform as psychologically ill which is not always the case. ( Szasz 1974, cited in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2008, foliate 178) Additionally another(prenominal) limitation of defining abnormalities using this characteristic is cultural relativism. As we know the affect of defining a deviation from the social norm is majorly influenced by our culture as it is our culture that defines what a special norm is.For example a psychologist from the United Kingdom may have a diagnosis for an individual displaying abnormal behaviour, such as walkway the streets with a gun meanwhile a psychologist in the Unite d States of America may not. Every culture has their own social norms and within those cultures there are sub-cultures that would have their own social norms therefore the cultural relativity; whether it be cross or sub-culturally has to be taken into account when study somebody’s symptoms as abnormal.Furthermore in the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) there is a section that describes certain patterns of behaviour and syndromes that are specialized to certain areas and places around the world. Psychologists call this ‘culture- bound syndromes’ which content that there are no universal standards when labelling individuals as abnormal, as disorders vary in conjunction to where you and the disorder originate. There is another way to define abnormal behaviour another model is ‘Failure to retard out nicely’.Failure to affair adequately from the sufferer’s point of view manifests itself when they are unable to struggle with the da ily demands of life such as working, interacting with others meaningfully, therefore labelling their own behaviour as abnormal; resulting in an individual seeking medical attention. David Rosenhan & Martin Seligman (1989) stated that there are a various features of mental defectiveness other than paroxysm and maladaptiveness. Other features are unconventional behaviour, reviewer discomfort, violation of moral standards, loss of control and irrationality.However serious displaying one of the above features is of no great significance, it is the front line of several that would define abnormal behaviour. (www. integratedsociopsychology. net) There are further limitations to this model when defining abnormality, as the affected role or professional has to recognise the loser to campaign adequately is apparent, which is opinion based and may differ. For instance an individual may think their maladaptive abnormal behaviour is perfectly normal and they are make do fine, meanw hile not being able to wrap up their inability to cope, sequentially others may find their behaviour very distressing.However someone displaying adaptive, abnormal habits such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder whilst not constitute a threat to themselves or society could lull be classified as being abnormal due to unconventional behaviour. Showing signs of distress, irrationality and maladaptive behaviour would usually result in being classed as abnormal but this may not always be the case; for example covering signs of distress such as being down(p) may be classed as abnormal behaviour but the individual may feel fine even happy.Again when showing signs of irrationality, you may be causing no harm to professing that you may be Jesus but irrational thoughts about terminal and killing for instance would raise concern, in turn maladaptive behaviour can be show when an individual self-harms or mutilates we would class them as enactment abnormal behaviour whereas smoking can be se en as self-harming but not enough beat to be classed as mentally ill due to maladaptive tendencies. heathenish relativity plays a crucial part in this feature when defining abnormalities as each culture functions in different ways, hence the failure to function needs to be assessed according to their culture. For example, in the United Kingdom leapers are viewed as family members even as companions and the harming of, especially eating a dog is a criminal offense punishable by law. Therefore this behaviour would be considered abnormal; whereas in China, dogs are eaten as part of a meal and keeping a dog in the national as a pet would be viewed as abnormal behaviour in China.The standard of one culture cannot be used to judge another as the symptoms and diagnosis are dependent on the cultural i contests and standards upheld by the individual patient. Alternatively another approach used to define abnormal behaviour is ‘Deviating from ideal mental health’. This model uses the analogous approach used when detecting sensual illness, when diagnosing a physical illness physician’s look for signs of physical health such as regular heartbeat; normal body temperature and so on , so an absence of one of these signs would signal illness.In 1958, Marie Jahoda through research and secondary evidence developed a theory that if physical illness can be detected by the absence of the standard ‘signs’ of health then alternatively mental health could be also. (en. wikipedia. org) The characteristics she identified as defining someone as being of ‘Ideal Mental Health’ include having an accurate view of reality, integration and ability to deal with stressful situations, capability to grow, develop and adjust, also being able to function at work and hold positive relations even the ability to love.In view of this model it shows that the absence of one the above criteria would indicate an abnormality even a potential mental condi tion. With all models there are limitations, according to this particular model the majority of people in general would be classed as abnormal or suffering a mental disorder of some kind as most people lack one of the beat. Marie Jahoda did say that it was the ‘Ideal’ mental health so it would be difficult to gauge the level of abnormality depending on the amount of criterion an individual maybe lacking.For example someone could be lacking the criterion of personal growth and actualisation resulting in a lack of drive and ambition, but that individual may be completely happy even satisfy regarding the situation; according to Jahoda they would be still viewed as mentally ill rather than just ambitionless and lacking motivation. Despite Marie Jahoda using a similar technique used to define physical illness, physical illness have physical causes such as a cough due to contracting a virus whereas being diagnosed as having a mental illness, atients and psychologists are no t always presented with physical signs as most mental illnesses derive from trauma in life, for that reason the diagnosis of a mental illness cannot be identified in exactly the identical way as a physical illness. Cultural relativism is a compelling limitation as different cultures have different ways of expressing their ‘Ideal’ mental health.For example, according to Jahoda an absence of the criterion of self-actualization would indicate the mien of a mental disorder but that is because the westerly world strives for individuality and acclaim, however some tribal communities in Africa and the Amazon act as a collective and concentrate on working as a group and sharing every grimace of daily life, if the Jahoda criterion was measured against an Amazonian tribe they would be deemed as mentally ill rather than being a caring tightknit community, the cross cultural differences are too much of an dominating factor.The different models exposit all differ in perspective s. Failure to function adequately focuses on the individual’s mind of abnormal functioning, deviating from social norm concentrates on other people’s perspective and deviating from ideal mental health is an amalgamation of the first two models without winning into account subjective feelings.The classification and definition of abnormal behaviour has many successful approaches but as a single model is not adequate enough to correctly define abnormalities, although each model definitely gives a good indication, it’s the combination of the described models commonly known as the multi-criteria approach that successfully aids psychologists in correctly defining and diagnosing abnormal behaviour correctly in a patient.References Cardwell, R. Flanagan, C. (2008) Psychology AS: The Complete Companion. Oxford University wardrobe: Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP. Accessed 15. 10. 12 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Marie_Jahoda Accessed 21. 10. 12 http://www. int egratedsociopsychology. net/Defining_Abnormality/7FeaturesofAbnormality-DavidRosenhan&M. hypertext markup language Accessed 16. 10. 12\r\n'