‘The role of context’ is another limitation of Deviation from Social Norms. Much of our behaviour is context specific, and when it is placed out of context it may seem bizarre. For example, if you were walking through the park and someone sitting on a bench suddenly jumped up and started singing and dancing you would think it’s odd. However, if there was a film crew you would think they were probably an actor. Another example is, leaping up and down and yelling encouragement is socially acceptable at a football or Tennis match, but would be abnormal in the context of a classical music concert or when shopping in a supermarket.
‘Changes in time’ is a limitation for this definition of abnormality. In the early 20th century, unmarried women in the UK who became pregnant were sometimes sent to mental institutions. The babies were taken away for adoption in many cases. Some were in their early teens when they became pregnant and remained in mental institutions for the rest of their lives. Also, in recent centuries homosexuality has been regarded as a deviation from social norms. In the UK homosexual acts was a criminal offence even among consenting adults until 1967. In the USA in 1973, American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The ‘Risk of abuse’ is another limitation. The risk that those who deviate from the norm are ‘mad’ and are treated accordingly. One psychologist, Cohen (1988) took a study out in Japan. Japan had a big drive for industrial success. ‘Looney bins’ are required for those unwilling to conform to the demands of industry.
‘Cultural Issues’ is another big limitation. Western societies assume that the behaviour of the white population is the norm and that and any deviation by another ethnic group indicates psychological abnormality. However, what is abnormal in one country maybe acceptable in another. For example, talking to an invisible person is normal in African and Indian cultures following bereavement, where people believe it is possible to remain in contact briefly with a lost loved one.
Failure to function adequately is another definition of abnormality. This is when a person in considered abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life. Also, this is when people may be unable to perform the behaviours necessary for day to day living. For example, self-care, hold down a job, interact meaningfully with others, make themselves understood etc…
Rosenhan & Seligman (1989) suggest characteristics of behaviour that in some ways can be describes at ‘over the top’. These characteristics are:
Suffering – self-explanatory.
Maladaptiveness - self-harms.
Vividness and unconventionality - attaining satisfactory goods.
Unpredictability and loss of control – randomly shouting out every so often.
Irrationality/incomprehensibility – behaviour cannot be explained in a rational way.
Causes observer discomfort – causes distress or discomfort to others.
Violates moral/social standards – doesn’t fit with social standards (e.g wearing a bikini to work)
Again, this definition of abnormality has many limitations to it as well. The Global Assessment of functioning scale (GAF) is a scale that psychologists would use to make an assessment of a persons ability to cope. Comer (2005) studied psychological abnormality and found that this scale was not necessarily indicated by dysfunction alone. People protest against social injustice by depriving themselves of necessities, such as food. Whereas abnormal is where a person loses the ability to cope for themselves.
The exception to the rule, where a student experiencing stress from exams, may cause that student to behave uncharacteristically, this is not regarded as abnormal. People with anti social might exhibit violent or aggressive behaviour, but are unlikely to experience personal suffering or stress. This shows a moral attitude.
Another limitation for this definition of abnormality is more cultural issues. Racism and prejudice have an effect on psychological wellbeing.
By
Chloe Howard
