This article throws light upon the seven main concepts of abnormality. The concepts are: 1. Qualitative Concept 2. Inadequate Response to a Stimulus 3. Inappropriateness to Social Standard 4. Statistical Criterion 5. Pathological Criterion 6. Personality Adjustment 7. Socially Unacceptable Behaviour of Abnormality.
Concept # 1. Qualitative Concept:
According to the qualitative concept, normality and abnormality differ in quality and not in quantity. These two concepts are separated from each other by water tight compartments by this older conception. Not long ago, the insane, criminals and mentally deficient were considered to form a special group below the normal group, just as the gifted were considered to constitute a special group above the normal group.
It was also accepted that the insane, delinquent and genius were governed by distinctly different laws. Thus, according to the qualitative concept, the insane and genius have no similarity with the normal people in any respect. This popular conception of the distribution of human personality is represented below diagrammatically which aptly suggests a qualitative difference between the insane, normal and genius.
To indicate the difference between the abnormal, the normal and the superior each group has been described as a separate entity.
The older people say that the insane and the genius have no similarity with the normal people in any respect. But this concept of abnormality is unacceptable as it has already been established that the normal and abnormal do not differ in kind but in quantity. In fact, no sharp dividing line can be drawn between the two behaviours as it does not exist in reality.
The only difference between the two groups lies in the capacity to adjust. It is viewed that normal people adjust more successfully with their surrounding than the abnormal people. The maladaptive behaviour of an abnormal is slightly exaggerated from the normal.
In fact one cannot find a single normal individual who does not show some sort of out of the way or maladaptive behaviour at sometime or other in his life-time. Therefore to distinguish the normal, abnormal and gifted into separate category would be erroneous. In fact, maximum people are well adjusted to a moderate degree.
They are called normal. A small percentage is not able to adjust at all as a result of which they show maladaptive behaviour. At the other extreme of the scale there are a few who are very well adjusted, extremely happy and lead efficient and useful lives.
They are superior people. The success in adjustment being the most important criterion of normality, amount of adjustment depends upon the environment. It also varies with the situation.
Concept # 2. Inadequate Response to a Stimulus:
This is another concept of abnormality which is also not acceptable. It is inadequate response to a stimulus. According to this concept when a person shows a response to a stimulus which is not adequate, he is said to be insane, for instance, when one screams at a rope in the broad day light taking it as a snake, it is said to be an abnormal behaviour.
When a man cries at the sight of a flower being overshadowed by pessimism, he is called abnormal. When somebody is extremely anxious for his examination result, does not sleep, does not take his meals for several days and withdraws himself completely from social surroundings, locks up himself inside a room, he is said to be abnormal.
Thus, a list of types of behaviour inadequate to the stimulus is prepared and if one comes within the specifications of the list, he is called abnormal.
However, if this criterion of abnormality is accepted every individual in the society will be branded as abnormal as everyone in his life span shows such behaviour incidentally. In fact, everybody becomes sorry, angry, moody, depressed and shows uncommon behaviour when circumstances arise. Therefore, this concept of abnormality is totally crude and unscientific.
Concept # 3. Inappropriateness to Social Standard:
It is another false concept of abnormality which suggests that if one’s behaviour is not appropriate to the norm and social standard he is called abnormal. But such a concept of abnormality leads to a lot of confusions.
As normality and abnormality are relative, if social appropriateness is taken as a criterion of abnormality one cannot decide who is normal and who is abnormal. It is true that the culture, tradition, and way of living of people differ from society to society. Hence the reaction of a person in a particular society will be different from the reactions of a person in another society.
The man eaters of Savo appear quite abnormal to the Indians and other civilized societies though they are considered completely normal in their own culture. An Indian male when takes out his hat (if he has one) as a mark of respect to a lady every one present considers it to be an uncommon and maladaptive behaviour.
But this is considered as a normal and accepted behaviour of an American. Hence as standard of appropriateness varies from society to society, we cannot have such an universal criterion, i.e., inappropriateness to social standard.
If any deviation from the normal behaviour is considered as abnormal, geniuses and mentally retarded persons would also be called abnormal and maladjusted. But this concept is incorrect as we aim to give a definition of abnormal behaviour which can be applied in different cultures and societies.
Therefore, such a criterion should be developed and accepted which can distinguish between desirable and undesirable deviations.
Concept # 4. Statistical Criterion:
Here abnormality is primarily equated with infrequency model of behaviour in a population. According to the statistical criterion normality and abnormality only differ in degree. Thus, abnormality and superior merely represent quantitative deviations from the normal or average. Individuals who possess an average amount of intelligence, personality stability and social adaptability are considered normal.
Those who possess considerably less than this is abnormal and those who possess considerably more are superior. Therefore, according to this criterion most of the people are normal. The superior is slightly intelligent than the normal and the abnormal shows slightly more maladaptive behaviour than the normal.
The above bell shaped curve shows a relative distribution of abnormal, normal and superior individuals in the general population. The distribution is continuous with no gap between the groups rather than discontinuous as held by the qualitative criterion of abnormality.
Thus, according to the statistical criterion there is no watertight compartment between normality and abnormality, but a complete passage between the two. The difference between the three is only in degree and not in kind.
The statistical criterion of abnormality represents a continuous curve. Out of the 100 persons in the population, 80 per cent come under the normal category, 10 per cent under the superior category and 10 per cent under the abnormal category. But there is no gap between these three categories.
The statistical criterion advocates that all the three categories of people have a common cause. Some are better intelligent and better adjustable, some are less intelligent or less adjustable than the normal.
Hence, by and large, the statistical concept of abnormality seems to be most acceptable as it indicates that the normality and abnormality arc relative since all the abnormal go from the normal and difference in them is only in degree but not in kind.
The question however, arises: can all human variations be expressed as qualitative deviations? In-fact, though most of the traits and qualities of human personality are expected to be distributed according to the statistical criterion, there are many exceptions.
As Dr. Page opines, “with respect to certain physical conditions there is no continuity between health and disease. The different diseases are categorized under different groups. More-over, difference between the affected and unaffected “is qualitative rather than quantitative.”
Moreover, many experts in the area have raised doubts regarding the applicability of the statistical criterion for measuring emotion, motivation and personality. The statistical model also fails to discriminate between good and bad behaviour. An overall analysis of statistical criterion indicates that normality and abnormality are quantitatively distributed across the same continuum.
Abnormality and superiority merely represent quantitative deviations from the normal or average. Normal, abnormal and superiors are not three different types, but they differ only in degree.
In-spite of the limitations, the statistical concept of abnormality has a preference over the other criterions because it shows that normality and abnormality are relative since all the abnormal go from the normal and the difference in them is only in degree but not in kind.
Concept # 5. Pathological Criterion:
Some psychologists have attempted to distinguish the normality from abnormality according to the pathological criterion. The view that difference between the affected and unaffected has been qualitative rather than quantitative is supported by the pathological criterion.
The pathological criterion of abnormality supports certain forms of mental disorders. Page views that normal people do not appear to have the same kind of emotion and thought disturbances that are observed in some mental patients and they do not possess even in mild form, the characteristic physical features of Mongolian imbeciles.
Page further adds, the pathological criterion does not differentiate the normal from the superior group, but it is not improbable that qualitative differences also exist between these two groups. In this case, the statistical and pathological criterions have been tried to be combined.
The pathological criterion makes an attempt to interrelate the abnormal, normal and superior groups in such a way as to combine the statistical and pathological criteria.
Concept # 6. Personality Adjustment:
According to Meyer (1948), adjustment to the environment is taken as the measuring rod of the difference between normality and abnormality. Thus, the difference between normality and abnormality lies only in personality adjustment. This concept, therefore, holds that the less one can adjust the less normal he is.
Abnormality is a faulty adjustment to one’s environment. According to this theory geniuses are also considered abnormal as they sometimes become unable to adjust with the society because of their over intelligence and rigidity.
Life proceeds with the process of adjustment and it is only through continuous adjustment, one tries to meet the demands of life. A person who successfully adjusts with himself and the society is said to be well adjusted and hence normal.
On the contrary, when a man has many problems and he is not able to solve them successfully, he has serious mental troubles like excessive worry, depression, anxiety, unhappiness. He is not able to maintain a balance between his Id and super ego. He is said to be not adjusted.
This is a very popular criterion of abnormality as it has the advantage of being applicable equally to biological and psychological levels of adjustment.
But it has got several limitations. As Coleman (1981) views, it makes no reference to self actualization, i.e., the extent to which the individual develops and utilizes his potentialities. But a genius who is content to spend all his time on routine task is not showing healthy behaviour from either a personal or social view point.
In addition, personal adjustment makes no reference to the individual’s role in the group. A person may be very well adjusted, successful in society and happy. But when his role in a group or society is concerned, he is not adjustable. Thus, the welfare of the group as well as that of the individual must be considered.
Concept # 7. Socially Unacceptable Behaviour of Abnormality:
The cultural-situational model:
According to this model, it is not the statistical infrequency, but the society and culture that defines abnormality. A particular behaviour which as such is not considered abnormal, but are said to be abnormal on the basis of where and under what socio-cultural circumstances they occur.
For example, wearing a woollen suit as such is not an abnormal behaviour, but wearing a woollen suit in the hot summer months in India is considered an abnormal behaviour.
The cultural situational model attempts to avoid several of the limitations of the statistical model. The cultural situational model allows for differences among social groups whereas the statistical model fails to do so. But nevertheless, the cultural social model does not sufficiently explain what makes a particular pattern of behaviour abnormal.