Tom Fell

Blair Carter - Psychology

Defining Abnormal Behaviour

Abnormal psychological behaviour is considered as any behaviour that isn’t regarded to or de-
fined as being normal. Abnormal psychology is a branch of psychology that defines such behav-
iour, it aids in establishing criteria to distinguish the abnormal from that of normal behaviour.
Psychologists working with abnormal psychology have developed and modified many different
classification systems to define abnormal behaviour. This report will evaluate three of the more
prominent and widely used classification systems, those being, the deviation from social norms
(an approach that provides a simple way of identifying abnormal behaviour through cultural rela-
tivism); the mental health criterion (an approach put forward by Marie Jahoda in 1958 that sug-
gested there were 6 criteria that needed to be fulfilled for psychological normality); the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual (issued in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association, it offers symp-
toms and related information about widely accepted psychological disorders) along with the Inter-
national Classification of Diseases (much like DSM it is a standard diagnostic manual established
by the World Health Organization) (Sifers, 2006).

One way of defining abnormal behaviour is through the Deviation from Social Norms approach.
It is well understood that when people converge and live together, they create similar behaviours,
and from this, social norms are created. These normalities are man-made and heavily influence
what we consider to be normal, since everyone is brought up with different climate and geography
it creates a large variety of differing cultures. One thing that may be considered as being normal
behaviour may drastically be differently viewed in another culture or society as being abnormal.
As mentioned in the introduction the Deviation from Social Norms approach uses cultural rela-
tivism to identify abnormal psychological behaviour. By this definition, any behaviour that differs
from that of the way others in the same society or culture behave, the behaviour is then consid-
ered abnormal (Bell, 2014). An example of this would be general manners when engaging with
other people within a society. If you approach people and treat others with respect (as most peo-
ple in societies do) you’re far more likely to be accepted largely by others in that society, whereas
if someone was to act or treat others in a disrespectful way (such as damaging someone’s prop-
erty) the majority of people would not wish to associate themselves with such behaviour that devi-
ates from the social normality of being respectful to one another. The fact that social normalities
are based on what the society at the time deems to be acceptable offers a whole range of variables
and outcomes across history. For example, homosexuality, something that was formerly consid-
ered an abnormality, was placed alongside sexual and gender identity disorders and was heavily
considered as not being acceptable by a large majority of people, is now overwhelmingly accepted
across the world’s progressive societies. This is but one advantage of using the Deviation from So-
cial Norms approach when defining abnormal behaviour, because it is culturally specific. Mean-
ing abnormal and normal behaviour can defined on a per culture basis. This ultimately benefits
progressive societies as they go through constant social changes (Comer, 2012).
1
Whilst this approach does an effective job of outlining abnormal behaviour through a cultural
and social point of view, it does little to determine whether there are cultures that have abnormal
behaviour due to pathological reasons. A prime example of this is post World War II Germany,
after Germany (at the time a sick society that disregarded basic human rights) went through such a
drastic and sudden social and cultural change post war, did that then mean those who previously
conformed to the now condemned Nazi Germany abnormal although being considered in that
society as normal at the time? And if so, did that then make those who expressed deviant and re-
sistive behaviour from the norm in Germany at the time now normal? Furthermore, another
downfall of the deviation from the social norm approach poses is the question of if there are any
types of abnormal behaviour that hold observable symptoms across all cultures (Sifers, 2006). Eu-
gen Bleuler (1934) found that mental illnesses such as depression, sociopathy (fixed patterns of
antisocial behaviour) and schizophrenia were universal disorders that could be found in all cul-
tures and societies (Bleuler, 1934). These downfalls that some would consider to be rather con-
siderable downfalls at that, lead psychologists to question the usefulness of social acceptability as a
meaningful criterion for defining abnormal behaviour from normal behaviour (Sifers, 2006).

The ideal mental health criterion put forward by Marie Jahoda (1958) (who believed that mental
health was an individual and personal matter) presents six characteristics of ideal mental health.
Rather than defining what is abnormal through negative means, this approach outlines what is to
be considered normal and healthy first and foremost, if a person was then not to fit the descrip-
tion they’d be defined as being abnormal. The 6 characteristics of ideal mental health are as fol-
lows; positive attitudes toward oneself such as self-respect and self-confidence; self-actualisation of
one’s potential which ties into the above mentioned positive attitudes towards oneself; integration,
the ability to cope with stress; personal autonomy, a mentally healthy person would be self-reliant
and responsible for their own actions; accurate perception of reality, the need to have a realistic
outlook on life and finally adapting to and mastering the environment, which entails the ability to
change to suit the conditions that one finds themselves in. This approach views normality only
being obtainable by fulfilling all the criteria stated. Because of this strict and structured approach,
one advantage of using Jahoda’s approach is how it lays out a clear and identifiable way to achieve
normal behaviour. Jahoda herself acknowledges this identifiability, when discussing the criteria
for ideal mental health she states, “One value in American culture compatible with most ap-
proaches to a definition of positive mental health appears to be this: An individual should be able
to stand on his own two feet without making undue demands or impositions on others” (Jahoda,
1958, p. 10). This easy to identify and understand classification system allows those who may not
meet all the criteria and would therefore be considered abnormal, a clear and simple path to-
wards normality (Jahoda, 1958).

Jahoda’s mental health criteria whilst offering both an identifiable and clear-cut definition for nor-
mal behaviour and ideal mental health fails to take into considerations some important factors
when defining normality. The approach doesn’t account for what might be acceptable or be seen

2
as normal in cultures or societies, specifically the personal autonomy characteristic falters here. It
is quite apparent that you can never truly be self-reliant, everyone relies on one another to some
degree. For example, perfectly mentally healthy people depend on various methods of transport
to get them from one place to another, just as students also rely on teachers to provide the
knowledge they need to go further in life. By this approaches definition anybody who has ever
had an education would therefore be abnormal because of their reliant on others (Cross, 1974).
It is without question that the approach given to define abnormal behaviour by Jahoda is severely
restrictive and is far too exclusive to be considered a viable approach for defining abnormal be-
haviour. The simplicity of the approach that makes it so identifiable and understandable is the
very same simplicity that brings its downfalls. This is further highlighted in Jahoda’s book ‘Cur-
rent Concepts of Positive Mental Health’ which suggests in response to her ideal mental health
criteria that some people could content that someone who had suffered a brain injury who then
recovered with few neurological disturbances could with proper rehabilitation still have good
mental health (Jahoda, 1958).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the International Classification of Diseases are stand-
ards for identifying and diagnosing disorders and diseases both physical and mental according to
the number of criteria symptoms. The DSM, originally issued in 1952 by the American Psychiat-
ric Association (APA), lists the symptoms and other related information about widely accepted
psychological disorders. Unlike the other classification systems, it provides an effective way of
classifying all recognized psychological disorders to define abnormal behaviour. Much like
Jahoda’s approach the DSM classification system refers to mental disorders as the product of dys-
functions that reside in individuals and not groups. Abnormal behaviour as it stands in the 5th edi-
tion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, is generally defined as behaviour that violates nor-
malities of society, does not conform to situations and is causing the person distress in their daily
life. Because the DSM is used on a national it can afford to be more specific when defining disor-
ders. One example of this is its acknowledgement of the tolerance thresholds for specific symp-
toms or behaviours due to social settings. This provides the DSM the ability to consider social
factors when defining disorders (APA, 2013). Just as the DSM provides symptoms and related
information about disorders, so does the ICD, but on an international scale. The majority of the
world’s countries use the ICD to define mental disorders and from that then define what is to be
considered abnormal behaviour. Unlike the DSM which is a nationally used standard, the ICD,
published by the World Health Organization (WHO), is as mentioned, used internationally
meaning it can’t afford to be specific with the likes of social settings effecting how disorders are
defined, so you’ll often find that ICD definitions of disorders are far more all-encompassing and
general than those produced by the DSM. This tends to make things easier when defining disor-
ders on a global scale but does mean the ICD falters when looking at specifics of individuals men-
tal disorders (WHO, 1996).

A limitation of using the DSM and ICD to define abnormal behaviour is their lack of reference
to the causes of mental disorders and abnormal behaviour. Because of this they fundamentally do

3
not offer any explanation as to why abnormal behaviour occurs (Sifers, 2006). There also exists
certain discrepancies between the DSM and the ICD criteria when making diagnosis, therefore
diagnoses depending on the system being used can vary greatly, which can further lead to incon-
sistencies and contradictions in psychiatric research. The DSM and ICD have proven to be
somewhat unreliable through adaptations and or removal of disorders because of social changes
and attitudes towards them. One such example is the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in
1987, which up until that point had been listed as a mental disorder. Meanwhile, homosexuality
was only removed from the ICD by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1992 (Burton,
2015). Of course, from a social point of view this could be seen as a positive for the use of manu-
als such as these, however purely from a realistic standpoint it does beg to question how reliable
and accurate these diagnostics of abnormality can be because of this.

Each classification system discussed have their own unique ways of defining what is considered
normal, most of which share similarities, but none however provide any certainties as to what can
be considered normal. Social views of normality change constantly over time and if you are ever
to truly understand what defines abnormal behaviour it is necessary to understand the many fac-
tors that need to be considered when doing so. It is without doubt however that the Deviation
from Social Norms approach provides a clear progressive advantage over the other classification
systems. Because of its heavy reliance on cultural subjectivity, it allows a fluid definition of what is
considered abnormal. As time progresses and views on normality changes, so will the cultural def-
initions of normality.

4
Bibliography

Bell, J. (2014). Applied Psychology: Practical Guide to the Human Mind. JB Publishing Co.

Bleuler, E. (1934). Textbook of Psychiatry. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Burton, N. (2015). When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder. [online] Psychol-
ogy Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-
homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder [Accessed 15 Nov. 2018].

Comer, R. (2012). Abnormal Psychology. 8th ed. Worth Publishers.

Cross, G. (1974). The Psychology of Learning: An Introduction for Students of Education. Else-
vier Science.

American Psychiatric Publishing. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
5th ed.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. New York: Basic Books.

Sifers, S. (2006). Abnormal Psychology. HarperCollins.

The World Health Organization. (1996). The ICD Classification of Mental and Behavioural Dis-
orders. 10th ed. Geneva