issues and debates in psychology

gender and culture in psychology: gender bias

universality, what threatens it and its limits it 

any human characteristic that can be applied to all, despite differences of experience has universality. any research bias threatens and undermines it, as theories lean towards a subjective view that doesnt reflect the objective reality.

gender bias

alpha bias

research that exaggerates differences (typically fixed) between men and women

-alpha-bias studies devalue women compared to men; men’s behaviour is the default/norm (where norms have been set using all male samples) and women’s is seen as a deviation from social norms (abnormal)

e.g. freuds psychodynamic stages.

gender bias

beta bias

research that ignores or underestimates differences; research findings applied to both men and women, where women have been excluded from the research process

example: fight/flight response research. biological research generally uses male animals as female behaviour is affected by regular hormonal changes. this assumption ignores any possible influences of hormonal changes on the fight or flight reaction. taylor et al (2000) shows women inhibit fight/flight and have a ‘tend/befriend’ response due to higher oxytocin production.

this illustrates how minimising gender differences results in a misinterpretation of womens behaviour

gender bias

androcentrism

causes alpha and beta-bias; male-dominated version of the world (only 6/100 top influential APA studies conducted by women). this suggests psychology has typically been a subject produced by men, for men, about men.

womens behaviour, if considered, is misunderstood, and at worst pathologised. (brescoll and uhlmann 2008) male anger is generally categorised as a rational responses to external pressures, where female anger is medicalised by PMS

gender bias

evaluation: limitations

gender differences often presented as fixed or enduring: maccoby and jacklin (1974) concluded women have superior verbal ability and men better spatial ability (hardwired into the brain), where joel et al (2015) brain scanning showed no difference in structure or processing, suggests we accept research findings as biological facts that are better explained by social stereotypes

counter: ingalhalikar et al (2014) suggests stereotype that women are better at multitasking has biological truth, as women’s’ brains has better hemispheric connections

creates misleading assumptions, plays into negative stereotypes and validates discrimination on the basis of scientific results. walkerde (1990) showed 1930s study said intellectual activity (uni) shrinks ovaries and inhibits fertility. in the domains where men set the standard, women are made to feel abnormal (tavris 1993).

women underrepresented in science = most lecturers are men (murphy et al 2014), low female research representation = men interpretation bias (may expect women to be irrational and unable (nicolson 1995)); institutional sexism (denmark 1988).

gender bias in psychological research isnt taken as seriously as other biases: formanowicz (2018) found research on gender bias is less funded and published less by prestigious journals; fewer scholars become aware of it to apply it to their work.

gender and culture in psychology

culture bias

henrich et al (2010) found, in leading psychology journals, 68% p’s from US, and 96% from industrialised nations. arnett (2008) 80% p’s were psychology undergraduates.

suggests our understanding of human behaviour has strong cultural bias; mostly from Westernised Educated people from Industrialised Rich Democracies (WEIRD). behaviour form non-westernised, less educated, agricultural and poorer countries is inevitably seen as abnormal, or inferior.

culture bias

ethnocentrism

belief in superiority of one’s own cultural group (judging other cultures by the values of own culture, may lead to prejudice and discrimination).

strange situation (1970) - criticised for only reflecting western norms, suggesting ideal attachment type was secure, misrepresenting child rearing practices of ‘deviating’ cultures (japanese infants more likely to be classed as insecure; considerable seperation distress (takahashi 1986)).

lefley and pedersen (1986) argue western ideas about mentally healthy creiteria aren’t necessarily shared by other cultures.

culture bias

cultural relativism

berry (1969) etic (looks at behaviour inside a given culture and describes findings as universal) vs emic (functions from inside a culture and identifies behaviour that are specific to that culture) approaches.

argues psychology has often been guilty of imposed etic - arguing theories are universal when they came about through emic research inside a single culture. researchers should be mindful of their cultural relativism: the things they discover may only make sense from the perspective of the culture within which they were discovered - this can be used to avoid cultural bias.

strange situation is example of imposed etic (studied behaviour in one culture and assumed their ideal attachment type could be applied universally)

culture bias

evaluation: strengths

emergence of cultural psychology (how people shape and are shaped by cultural experience) strives to avoid ethnocentric assumptions using emic approaches along local researchers using culturally based techniques. modern psychologists are mindful of culture bias dangers and are actively taking steps to avoid it (cohen 2017)

culture bias

evaluation: limitations

most influential psychological studies are culturally biased. social influence studies conducted exclusively with US (mostly white, middle class) p’s. replications in different countries produced different results: collectivist cultures found significantly higher conformity rates than original study; social influence topics can only be applied to individualist cultures (smith and bond 1993).

counterpoint: increased media globalisation argues individualist-collectivist distinction no longer applies. takano and osaka (1999) found 14/15 studies compared US and Japan found no evidence of either, suggesting culture bias may be less of an issue in recent psychological research.

WW1 IQ test led to eugenic social policies in the US due to ethnocentric questions (US president names); europeans + africans got lower scores. seen as genetic inferiority ‘mentally-unfit’ ‘feeble-minded’ compared to the US majority. (gould 1981). culture bais to justify prejudice and discrimination towards other cultural and ethnic groups.

free will v determinism

do we decide our behaviour or are we the product of internal and external influences that determine who we are and what we do?

free will

belief that humans are essentially self determining and can choose thoughts and actions. doesn’t deny biological and environmental forces that influence behaviour; we can reject these if we wish due to control of our thoughts/behaviour (humanistic approach).

determinism

proposes we have no choice in our thoughts and actions.

-hard determinism: all behaviour and thought is dictated by internal or external forces of which we have no control over, making free will impossible.

-soft determinism: all behaviour has determining factors with some room for choice (eg the cognitive approach) - what determines behaviour is proposed, but we have freedom to make conscious choices in everyday situations.

types of determinism: biological

hard determinism

all behaviour is innate and determined by genes, brain physiology and biochemistry that influence behaviour, not under our conscious control. emphasises role of biology in behaviour

types of determinism: environmental

hard determinism

skinner described free will as an ‘illusion’ and argued all behaviour is the sum total of our conditioning and reinforcement history. behaviour is shaped by environmental events and socialising agents (parents, teachers etc)

types of determinism: psychic

freud believed free will was an ‘illusion’ but emphasises the influence of biological drives and instincts. saw behaviour as determined by unconscious conflicts, repressed in childhood. believed no such accidents; parapraxes.

the scientific emphasis on causal explanations

a basic principle of science is that every event in the universe has a cause that can be explained using general laws (hard determinism).

free will and determinism debate

evaluation: free will

practical value: roberts et al (2000) adolescents with strong belief in fatalism at significantly greater risk of depression; external locus of control = less likely to be optimistic. believing we have choice has a positive impact on mind and mental health.

legal system supports free will: hard determinism believes individual choice is not the cause of behaviour, but offenders in a court of law are held accountable for their actions. in the real world, determinist arguments may not work.

can liberate people who come from crime or mental illness backgrounds.

free will and determinism debate

evaluation: determinism

libet et al (1983) p’s chose random moment to flick their wrists and said when they felt the conscious will to move. brain activity showed unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision to move came 0.5s before p said. means basic experiences are determined by our brain before we are aware.

counterpoint: findings show the brain is involved in decision making, just as we’d expect. shows the decision to act took time to reach consciousness, suggests this isn’t an appropriate challenge of free will.

determinist approach helped establish psychology as a science and hard determinism (biological and behaviourist approach) has produced many effective real world applications.

the nature nurture debate

interactionist approach

is behaviour more influenced by nature (inherited biological factors) or nurture (the environment and experiences)? all characteristics arise from a combination of both so debate is about each relative contribution.

the diathesis-stress

meehl (1960)

suggests behaviour is caused by a biological vulnerability (diathesis), which is only expressed when coupled with an environmental trigger (stressor)

(stronger diathesis means less of a stressor is required to bring about change)

epigenetics

change in genetic activity (the way genes will be expressed) without change to the genes themselves from interaction with the environment (eg why smoking has long term effects after you stop)

epigenetic changes can influence the genetic codes of our descendants, and influence a third element into the nature-nurture debate (the life experience of previous generations)

nature

inherited influences/heredity. descartes (1596-1660) argued all human characteristics are innate. psychological characteristics (like intelligence or personality) are determined by biological factors, just as eye color and height.

heritability coefficient (0-1) tells how likely a characteristic is genetically inherited (eg intelligence heritability is 0.5 (plomin 1994)

nurture

influence of experience and the environment. locke (1632-1704) argues ‘the mind is a blank slate at birth’, shaped by the environment (behaviourist approach). lerner (1986) identified different levels of the environment, including prenatal environment (smoking etc). more generally social and cultural contexts (postnatally).

the nature-nurture debate

evaluation: strengths

-adoption studies separate the competing influences of nature and nature. adoptive children found to be more similar to their adoptive parents suggests the environment is the bigger influence vice versa. a meta analysis (rhee and waldman (2002)) found genetics accounted for 41% of aggression variance.

susser and lin (1992) found women pregnant during famine had low birth weight babies, 2x more likely to develop schizophrenia compared to typical population rates supporting epigenetic markers interfere with offspring health.

real world application: OCD is a highly heritable mental disorder- nestadt et al (2010) heritability rate as 0.76. informs genetic counselling showing debate isn’t just theoretical.

the nature-nurture debate

evaluation: limitations

counterpoint of adoption studies: misguided as nature and nurture aren’t entities that can be simply pulled apart. plomin 1994 suggests people create their own nurture by actively selecting environments appropriate for the nature. a naturally aggressive child is likely to feel more comfortable with children who show similar behaviours, reinforcing their development: niche picking. adoption studies may not be useful

(implications of the debate) nativists (nature believers) suggest anatomy is destiny with little environmental input. this extreme determinist stance can lead to controversy such as linking ethnicity, genetics and intelligence to the application of eugenic policies —

contrastly, empiricists (nurture) suggest any behaviour can be change by altering environmental conditions (behaviour shaping) is used in therapy where desirable behaviours are reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished.

holism and reductionism debate

concerned with the levels at which its appropriate to study human behaviour. there is no continuum between the two, and so is more about a preference for better understandings.

holism

-looks at a system as a whole (sees the whole as greater than the sum of its parts). focuses on experience, which cant be broken into parts.

-humanistic psychology

-knowing about the parts (eg characteristics someone may have) doesnt help to understand the essence of that person.

reductionism

analyses behaviour by breaking it down into its constituent parts on the basis of parsimony: all phenomona should be explained using the simplest principles.

levels of explaining: idea that there are several ways to explain behaviour. eg OCD can be understood at a: socio-cultural level, psychological level, physical level, environmental/behavioural level, physiological level and, neurochemical level

biological reductionism

-focus is on the neurochemical and physiological levels, with evolutionary and genetic influences; based on the premise that all behaviour is at some level biological.

-assumes understanding on a biological level = can be treated on a biological level (SSRIs for depression)

environmental (stimulus-response) reductionism

(behaviourist appraoch and social learning theory)

proposes all behaviour is learned and acquired through interaction with the environment, reducing behaviour to stimulus-response links

(eg learning theory of attachment reduces idea of love between mother and baby to learned association for the baby between the person feeding and food)

holism

evaluation

holistic approaches of behaviour become harder to use with increasing complexity. (if we accept there are multiple factors to contribute to someone’s depression, it becomes difficult to know which is the most influential, and which to prioritise tackling in treatment. lacks practical value.

there are social behaviours that emerge within a group context and cant be understood at individual levels. suggests sometimes only a holistic approach can provide a more valid account.

(having all the pieces of a puzzle interact can help explain image more accurately and meaningfully as a whole)

reductionism

evaluation

often forms the basis of scientific research as allows operationalised variables, and target behaviours to be broken and measured, to conduct well-controlled valid research. increases empirical validity and credibility.

-oversimplifying complex phenomena can lead to variables being overlooked and loss of validity (eg explanations at a biological level dont include the social context of behaviour. pointing finger is always the same physiologically, but context and reason may differ (pointing at object, display of aggression)). suggests reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation, not the whole picture.

idiographic and nomothetic approaches

the idiographic approach to psychological investigation

understanding behaviour through individual cases; captures richness of human individuality

small sample, often single person, group or institution, with the main focus on detail to understand the individual

qualitative data (eg first hand accounts from unstructured interviews or diary) to gather experience and thoughts

-humanistic (carl rogers understanding through therapy) and psychodynamic approach (theory based on little hans to explain phobia formation)

the nomothetic approach to psychological investigation

studies large varied groups to make general principles and universal laws (establishes norms).

samples are assessed using scientific methods, numerical data produced is analysed for its statistical significance.

behaviourist approach (skinner studied animals to develop general laws of learning) and biological approach (sperrys split brain research formed basis for understanding hemispheric lateralisation).

objective vs subjective

idiographic approach: believe objectivity in psychological research isn’t possible- it’s people’s individual experience of their unique context that is important

nomothetic approach: laws of behaviour are only possible if methods are standardised and objective, ensuring true replication across all samples and removing bias.

idiographic approach

evaluation

contributes to the nomothetic approach with in-depth qualitative description that can add to nomothetic general laws or challenge them (patient HM - pebble that starts avalanche). reveals important insights that contribute to overall understanding

meaningful generalisations can’t be made without nomothetic approach. less scientific methods: subjective conclusions open to bias; no practical value by itself.

nomothetic approaches

evaluation

-loses the individual as a whole as preoccupied with general laws and prediction. eg knowing 1% chance of schizophrenia tells us little about life living with schizophrenia: understanding the subjective experience can help others. approach can sometimes fail to relate to experience.

nomothetic and idiographic approach

dual evaluation

nomothetic approach research establishes objectivity through standardisation, control and statistical testing

idiographic approach objectifies their methods (triangulation) and reflect upon their own biases and preconceptions in the research process.

they both fit the aims of science, therefore both approaches raise psychology as a science.

million and davis (1996) suggest research should start with nomothetic approach and once laws are produced, they can focus on idiographic understanding. shows both approaches are beneficial when used together.

ethical implications of research studies and theories