The psychodynamic model of abnomality

This model suggests that the cause of mental disorders arise from unresolved unconscious conflicts and traumas of early childhood and in problems with personality development.

 Whilst this model has offered insights into anxiety disorders and changed the perception f mental illness, it has been criticized in that:

      -It is difficult to disprove and thus has been criticized for being unscientific.

      -It may focus too much on the past, rather than the preset.

      -It may focus too much on sexual problems rather than interpersonal and social issues.

      -It raises ethical concerns about the problems of false memory syndrome, sexism and parental blame. 

The biological model of abnormality

This model suggests that the causes of mental disorders resemble those of physical illnesses.

 Clusters of symptoms can be identified and a diagnosis made, followed by suitable treatment.

 There is some evidence that the following may account for mental disorders:
   -genetics,

-       -biochemistry,

         -neuroanatomy,

         - infections.

 While this approach has received some scientific support and has contributed to treatment it has been criticized in that:
-It focuses on symptoms rather than the person’s thoughts and feeling.

      -It is less appropriate for disorders wit psychological symptoms such as eating disorders.

      -There is some debate as to whether mental disorders are the same as physical illnesses.

      -The treatments based on the medical model (e.g. drugs, ECT, and psychosurgery) may have unpleasant side effects and their efficacy has been challenged.

Deviation from ideal mental bealth

 Another approach suggests that abnormality can be defined in terms of deviation from ideal mental health.

 Humanistic psychologists consider the factors that may be important for normal development such as an ultimate goal.

However, this approach has been criticised as follows:

-       The approach is based on abstract and culturally relative ideals, not shared by collectivist societies. There are cultural variations in how to identify psychological health.

-       Unlike physical health, it is difficult to measure psychological health.

 Limitations with all these approaches

 Cultural relativism is a problem in all four of the approaches described. The definitions inevitably refer to some subjective, culturally viewed as abnormal and undesirable.

 However, there are also cultural universals – behaviors such as anti-social behavior or chronic depression are universally viewed as abnormal and undesirable.

 The resolution may lie in using a combined approach that focuses on which features are more likely to be associated with abnormality.

Failure to function adequately

The third approach suggests that abnormality can be defined in terms of an inability to function adequately in day-to-day life and social interactions.

 An absence of distress and the ability to function are standards normal.

 This approach has the benefit of taking the individual’s experience into account. However it has been criticized as follows:

-       How do we determine whether a person is functioning adequately?

-       Not all those with mental disorders are aware of their own distress or dysfunction.

-       The definition raises concerns about cultural bias and subjectivity as judgments by others on their behalf may be biased.

-       Rosenhan and Seligman have extended the “failure to function” model to cover seven features associated with abnormality, but these again rely on making subjective judgments.

Deviation from social norms

 This is another way of defining abnormality. Social groups have norms of what is considered to be socially acceptable behavior. Deviation from these is abnormal and undesirable.

 This approach has been criticised as follows:

- The perception of deviance may change over historical time and what is socially deviant varies across cultures with ethnic or religions differences.

- The definition ignores the role of social context. In some cases it may be desirable to be socially deviant.

- The concept of social deviance could lead to an abuse of human rights.

The statistical infrequency approach

This is one way of defining abnormality. According to this approach abnormality can be defined in terms of behavior or beliefs that are statistically rare in a population.

The normal distribution is one way to describe a statistical distribution.

While this approach suffers less from value judgments than the other approach it has been criticized as follows:

-       It does not distinguish between desirable deviation and undesirable deviation.

-       It doesn’t define at what level or percentage statistical deviancy is decided.

-       It doesn’t allow for cultural and sub-cultural differences.