Introduction
In contrast to members of a certain society, individuals who are abnormal or atypical are studied in the field of abnormal psychology. Although the notion of abnormality is rather straightforward, it might be challenging to apply in the field of psychology. I instantly considered what is normal, whose norm it is, and for what age or culture, when we initially started the study and were given the label “literature”.
The term “abnormality” is imprecise and difficult to define. Various forms and functions can be exhibited by examples of abnormality, leading to initially reasonable classifications that prove problematic. The abnormal can be characterized in a variety of ways other than according to our notions of what is normal. I realized that each of these definitions includes both logical and irrational aspects while studying abnormal psychology for this course.
Abnormality Definitions
Statistical
Statistical oddity is one definition of abnormality that I can categorically reject from the list of possible definitions. This definition of abnormality holds that if a person exhibits rare or statistically unusual traits in their cognition, behavior, or character, they are considered abnormal (Raskin, 2020). According to this definition, before we can declare a character or behavior abnormal, we must ascertain how uncommon it should be.
I removed this interpretation after the course because it does not allow us to differentiate between desired and unwanted conduct. For instance, although obesity is statistically normal, it is not linked to desired or healthy lifestyles. A high IQ, on the other hand, is statistically atypical even though it could be highly desired.
Numerous uncommon traits or behaviors are unrelated to normalcy or abnormality. Furthermore, this definition suggests that anomalous conduct in people must be extremely uncommon or statistically exceptional, which is untrue (Raskin, 2020). Instead, while a specific aberrant behavior might be uncommon, people frequently display protracted aberrant behavior at some point in their lives, and mental illnesses like depression are really rather statistically common.
Social
The first definition that I thought of, and for which I have sufficient feelings, was the definition of abnormality as a violation of social norms. According to this definition, a person’s thinking or behavior is classified as abnormal if it violates unwritten rules about what is expected or acceptable in a particular social group (Raskin, 2020). Their behavior may be incomprehensible to others or make others feel threatened or uncomfortable. Every culture has certain standards of acceptable behavior and social norms. Norms are the expected ways of behavior in society, in accordance with the majority, and those members of society who do not think and behave like everyone else are often defined as abnormal.
The most obvious problem with defining abnormality by social norms is that there is no universal agreement on them. Social norms are culturally specific — they can differ significantly from one generation to another and between different ethnic, regional, and socio-economic groups (Raskin, 2020). Social norms also exist over time and therefore change.
Behavior that was once considered abnormal may, given time, become acceptable and vice versa. For example, alcohol consumption was once considered acceptable, but now it is considered socially unacceptable, whereas homosexuality has gone the other way. Therefore, after completing the course, I revised my view of abnormality as not corresponding to social norms, as it is often an extremely subjective position.
Psychological
I identify most with the psychological definition of abnormality among all the ones we’ve examined this semester. It states that a departure from optimal mental health is an anomaly (Raskin, 2020). This means that psychologists determine what is normal and optimal mental health rather than what is wrong, and anything that deviates from this is labeled abnormal. This means we have to decide which qualities we consider essential for mental wellness.
I wholeheartedly agree with the textbook’s set of standards for measuring mental wellness. These include having a positive self-image, being able to change and advance, having a clear understanding of reality, and having supportive friendships and relationships (Raskin, 2020). This method holds that a person is healthier the more these requirements are satisfied. These feel like incredibly healthy standards that demonstrate how highly functioning a person is.
On the other hand, I am aware that it is nearly impossible for someone to consistently own every perfect quality. For instance, one cannot be content with their circumstances while simultaneously controlling their surroundings. It seems unlikely that one has a mental illness, given the absence of this standard of perfect mental health. To determine an abnormality score, I believe it is vital to consider the outcomes of all these criteria together rather than individually.
Behavioral
Behaviorists hold that life events, rather than underlying disease or unconscious forces, primarily govern human behavior. Thus, the emergence of behaviors deemed maladaptive for an individual is regarded as an oddity. The psychological definition mentioned earlier seems to match this one, as, in my opinion, all the standards for psychological health listed there are standard practices.
According to behaviorism, all behavior is taught by its surroundings (Raskin, 2020). The behavioral approach places a strong emphasis on the environment and the processes of social learning, operant conditioning, and classical conditioning that underlie the acquisition of abnormal behavior. It seems to me that this is true, and when observing abnormal behavior, I always think about what might be causing it.
For instance, the behaviorist course’s theory provides a good explanation for how phobias arise. An intimidating object has historically caused worry or terror (Raskin, 2020). The conditioned stimulus then triggers a strong fear response, characterized by avoidance of a potentially dangerous object and fear whenever it is seen.
Thus, the information I received during the course helped me to reconsider what is normal and abnormal in my own behavior. For example, following a statistical approach, I thought my fear of heights was normal. However, according to the psychological approach, it is abnormal because it prevents me from doing what I want, for example, going to an amusement park with friends, which negatively affects my relationship with them. It is also a learned behavior and is caused by childhood fright, which fits the description of the behaviorist approach to abnormal behavior.
Biological
According to the medical model of psychopathology, diseases have a biological or physical origin. This method focuses on biochemistry, neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and genetics (Raskin, 2020). I also strongly support this approach because, unlike others, it is not abstract or subjective but is supported by evidence from medical exams.
For instance, the dopamine hypothesis, which comes from a biochemistry standpoint, claims that symptoms of schizophrenia are linked to high dopamine levels (Raskin, 2020). According to this method, mental illnesses are linked to the anatomy and physiology of the brain. For instance, the brain anatomy of those who suffer from schizophrenia differs, showing anomalies in the frontal and prefrontal cortex as well as larger ventricles (Raskin, 2020). However, it seems to me that this approach can be used, but it is not universal. Sometimes a person’s physical indicators may be normal, but an abnormal emotional state may be present, so for me, this approach is the most narrowly applicable.
Cognitive
The cognitive approach to abnormality is the one that I have found most challenging to comprehend. According to it, a person’s actions are a direct result of their thinking. The model addresses how the brain processes information and how that processing influences behavior (Raskin, 2020). The cognitive approach holds that incorrect and illogical cognitions are the root cause of maladaptive behavior. To accomplish this, though, I must identify which cognitions are the result of incorrect and irrational reasoning, which is again quite abstract to me.
It is possible to identify some common signs of mental illness based on the criteria listed in the textbook. Among them are uncritical attitudes towards one’s own condition, that is, inadequate self-esteem, and pathological personality changes manifested by characteristic pathological symptoms (Raskin, 2020). However, they are part of the psychological definition of abnormality and not the social one.
According to the method, mental illnesses can be overcome by teaching people how to use more relevant information (Raskin, 2020). I have not, however, come across a precise explanation of which information is more pertinent. Since it is difficult for me to determine which is more appropriate, I will probably decline to employ this strategy.
An individual processes information actively. It is a person’s perception, anticipation, and assessment of events, not the events themselves, that will influence conduct (Raskin, 2020). Generally speaking, this is seen as an automated process — that is, we do not really think about it. These negative mental processes and erroneous cognition are common in people with psychiatric issues. People view things differently as a result of this knowledge, but I find it hard to tell whether or not my own knowledge is warped. For me, the primary disadvantage of the cognitive approach is that it requires an external observer with precise knowledge, which can be time-consuming to verify.
Conclusion
Thus, the analysis of the approaches in the course gave me reason to believe that the concepts of norm and pathology are highly relative. This means that, firstly, the concepts of mental norm and pathology differ across historical periods, socio-psychological groups, and cultural strata. Secondly, that in modern psychology and psychiatry there is no integral concept of mental norm and pathology, and that, perhaps, a solution to this problem in the form of a single general definite opinion is in principle impossible, and may not be necessary. Personally, after completing the course, I noted that I would refer to various definitions of abnormality depending on the context, whether social or medical. This will help me address the problem in a professional way that is most relevant to the particular situation.
Reference
Raskin, J. B. (2019). Abnormal psychology: Contrasting perspectives (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.