AQA Syllabus focus:
'Definitions in the field of mental health, including deviation from ideal mental health.'
This approach defines abnormality by asking what psychologically healthy functioning should look like. A person is judged abnormal when they fall short of a set of positive criteria for mental wellbeing.
The basic idea
The term deviation from ideal mental health is linked to psychologist Marie Jahoda (1958). Instead of starting with symptoms or problems, Jahoda described what ideal mental health would look like. If someone does not show these features, they are said to deviate from ideal mental health and may be classed as abnormal.
Deviation from ideal mental health means defining abnormality by the absence of criteria associated with optimal psychological wellbeing.
This is a positive definition because it focuses on healthy functioning rather than illness alone. It treats mental health as more than simply the absence of distress. The approach assumes that psychologists can identify features that represent good mental health and use them as a standard.
Jahoda’s criteria for ideal mental health
Jahoda suggested six main characteristics of ideal mental health. One of these is self-actualization, an important idea in humanistic psychology.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs arranged as a pyramid, showing self-actualization at the top as a “higher-order” growth need. This supports Jahoda’s emphasis on self-actualization by situating it within a classic humanistic framework of motivation and development. Source
Self-actualization means developing one’s abilities, seeking personal growth, and moving toward one’s full potential.
According to Jahoda, a mentally healthy person should show:
Positive attitude toward the self: having self-respect, realistic self-esteem, and an accepting view of personal strengths and weaknesses.
Self-actualization: continuing to grow psychologically rather than becoming stuck or hopeless.
Resistance to stress: coping effectively with pressure and recovering from challenges without severe breakdown.
Autonomy: being independent, self-regulating, and not overly dependent on others for decisions or emotional stability.
Accurate perception of reality: seeing oneself and the world in a reasonably realistic way rather than through major distortions.
Environmental mastery: being able to work effectively, build relationships, adapt to changing circumstances, and manage everyday demands.
The definition assumes that the further a person is from these criteria, the more abnormal their functioning is likely to be. A person does not have to fail in every area to be seen as deviating from the ideal. However, the more criteria that are missing, the stronger the suggestion of poor mental health.
Strengths of the definition
A major strength is that it offers a broad and holistic picture of mental health. Jahoda included emotional strength, realistic thinking, independence, and successful everyday living. This makes the definition richer than one that focuses only on obvious distress.
It is also useful because it highlights that mental health has positive features. Good mental health involves more than “not being ill.” Ideas such as coping with stress, personal growth, and realistic thinking can be helpful when psychologists think about wellbeing or therapeutic goals.
Another strength is that some criteria appear personally meaningful. Features like self-esteem, accurate thinking, and coping with stress match many people’s common-sense understanding of psychological health. This can make the definition memorable and accessible.
Limitations of the definition
The main criticism is that the criteria are often unrealistically high. Very few people achieve all six characteristics all the time. For example, many psychologically healthy people struggle with stress during exams, grief, unemployment, or illness. If the standard is too demanding, large numbers of normal people could be labeled abnormal.
A second limitation is cultural bias.
Ideas such as autonomy and independence may be valued more strongly in individualist cultures. In more collectivist cultures, dependence on family and group decision-making may be seen as healthy rather than problematic. This means the definition may reflect the values of a particular culture rather than a universal standard.
A third issue is subjectivity. Some criteria are difficult to measure precisely. Terms such as “accurate perception of reality” or “positive attitude toward the self” require judgment, and different psychologists might disagree about whether a person meets them. This can reduce reliability.
The approach can also be influenced by life circumstances rather than mental disorder. Someone facing bereavement, poverty, discrimination, or chronic stress may temporarily show low self-esteem or reduced environmental mastery. Their deviation from the ideal may reflect a difficult situation rather than a psychological abnormality.
Finally, the definition can blur the line between being less than ideal and being genuinely abnormal. Not reaching one’s full potential does not automatically mean a person has a mental health problem. Because ideal mental health is an aspirational standard, it may be better viewed as a guide to excellent wellbeing than as a strict test of abnormality.
Practice Questions
Outline two characteristics of ideal mental health according to Jahoda. (2 marks)
1 mark for each correctly outlined characteristic, up to 2 marks.
Accept any two of the following with brief detail:
positive attitude toward the self
self-actualization
resistance to stress
autonomy
accurate perception of reality
environmental mastery
Discuss deviation from ideal mental health as a definition of abnormality. (6 marks)
AO1: 2 marks
1 mark for identifying that abnormality is judged by the absence of ideal mental health criteria.
1 mark for accurate description of Jahoda’s approach, such as reference to one or more of the six criteria.
AO3: 4 marks
1 mark for each relevant evaluative point, up to 2 marks.
1 additional mark for development of each evaluative point, up to 2 marks.
Credit evaluation such as:
it gives a positive, holistic view of mental health
the criteria are unrealistically high
the definition may be culturally biased
some criteria are subjective and hard to measure
life circumstances may affect whether someone appears to meet the criteria
FAQ
Not really. Jahoda’s model is better understood as a framework for thinking about positive mental health than as a rigid test.
In practice, psychologists would need much more specific behavioral evidence before using the criteria in any formal assessment. The model is strongest as a conceptual guide rather than a precise diagnostic tool.
Yes. A person may do well at school or work and still show problems in areas such as:
self-esteem
accurate perception of reality
coping with stress
personal growth
This is one reason the model is interesting: it suggests that outward success does not always equal strong mental health.
Yes. Expectations about autonomy, stress resistance, and environmental mastery can change across life stages.
For example, teenagers are still developing independence, and older adults may face health or social changes that affect everyday functioning. This means judgments about “ideal” mental health may need to take age-related context into account.
Because people can show the six criteria to different degrees. Mental health is rarely perfectly present or completely absent.
Someone might have realistic thinking and good relationships but low stress resistance during a difficult period. This makes the idea of a continuum more realistic than a simple healthy/unhealthy split.
Criteria linked to everyday behavior, such as environmental mastery, are often easier to observe because they can be seen in work, relationships, and daily routines.
Criteria such as accurate perception of reality or positive attitude toward the self are harder to judge directly. They often depend on interviews, self-report, and interpretation, which can make assessment less straightforward.
