Issues and Debates

Paper 3

Define free will, soft determinism and hard determinism

Free will

• The notion that humans can make choices and their behaviour/thoughts are not determined by outside forces

• Humans are essentially self-determining, and are free to choose their own behaviour, thoughts and actions. 

• We can reject influences because we are in control of our own behaviour

Hard determinism

• All human behaviour has a cause (either internal or external).

• These causes can be identified and their effect on behaviour understood

• Free will is an illusion

Soft determinism

• Behaviour is predictable, due to internal or external causes.

• There is room for personal choice, but from a restricted range of options.

• There is no true free will. 

• James (1980) - The Cognitive Approach

Define biological and environmental determinism

Biological determinism

• The belief that behaviour is controlled by biological influences we cannot control

• This includes genetic influences, the role of hormones, evolution and the role of the ANS

• Research Support by Brunner et al supports this. It is said the low activity variant of the MAOA gene is linked to high levels of aggression. He studied 26 Dutch men who were repeatedly involved in rape, attempted murder and physical assault. These men had abnormally low levels of the low activity variant of the MAOA gene, which supports biological determinism because it is their genes that have caused them to behave the way they do (very aggressive).

Environmental determinism

• The belief that behaviour is caused by features of the environment that we cannot control

• This considers societal influences, conditioning by reward and punishment, lifetime experiences and learning

• Free will is an illusion because we are really acting as a result of reinforcement that has taken place throughout our lives 

• E.g. Skinners’ rats were conditioned by rewards (food when press lever) and punishment (electric shock)

Define psychic determinism

• The belief that behaviour is caused by unconscious psychodynamic forces that we cannot control

• This considers the influence of psychological drives like the id, ego and superego, how we are motivated by our unconscious, repressed desires and the need to resolve conflicts from childhood

Does the law agree or disagree with determinism? Why?

The legal system is incompatible with the ideas of determinism. According to the US Supreme Court, free will is a “universal and persistent foundation for our system of law”. So it is actually the opposite of determinist 

Usually, it is free will that sentences offenders to prisons, but in some cases they may be let off responsibility for their actions due to determinism, like they may have been determined to commit thatbact, like a mental illness

Explain why science is determinist. Refer to the features of science in your answer (8)

Write a good answer

Evaluation of free will vs determinism

• One limitation of determinism (strength of free will) is the legal systems’ view on responsibility. The law disagrees with determinism as it thinks people’s own actions are in their control and that they have responsibility for them. This is how we reduce crime. This is why people go to prison for their actions, because they cannot blame it on external factors (except in some cases with mental issues like schizophrenia). The main principle of our legal system is that a criminal exercised free will in commuting the crime. This suggests that in the real world, determinism does not work

• One strength of free will is its practical value in our everyday lives. The common sense view, is that we exercise free will in our daily choices.Even if we don’t, thinking we do causes us to have better mental health as we may think we are in control of our future. A study by Rebecca Roberts looked at adolescents who believed in fatalism and had an external locus of control (that life events were predetermined). She found them to have a significantly greater risk of developing depression because they felt no matter what they did, the outcome would always be the same, which is probably demoralising to most people. This suggests that even if we don’t have free will, thinking we do may have a positive impact on our mind and behaviour

• Limitation of free will is contradictory brain scan evidence against it. Libet et al instructed participants to choose a random moment to flick their wrists whilst he measured brain activity. They had to say when they felt the conscious will to move. Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision to move came around half a second before the participants consciously felt they had decided to move. This may be interpreted as meaning even our most basic experiences of free will are actually determined by our brain before we are aware of them. E.g. a thought that could keep you awake at night if you dwell on it). However, just because the action comes before the conscious awareness of the decision to act, doesn’t mean there was no decision to act, just that the decision to act took time to reach our consciousness. This suggests this evidence is not a challenge to free will, however overall, Libet’s research supports determinism

Outline what nature and nurture is with an example of each

Concerned with the extent to which aspects of behaviour are a product of inherited or acquired characteristics

Nature - inherited influences of heredity (the genetic transmission of mental and physical characteristics from one generation to another). Descartes argued that all human characteristics, even some aspects of knowledge, are innate. Psychological characteristics like personality and intelligence are determined by biological factors 

One example is twin studies that show the genetically closer the two are, the more likely they’ll develop the same behaviours.Concordance rates for schizophrenia for MZ twins are 40%, and only 7% for DZ twins. This shows its genetics and their difference in shared genotype that develops their chances of developing schizophrenia. (Genetic explanation).

Nurture - influence of experience and environment. Locke argued the mind is a blank slate at birth, which is then shaped by the environment. (Became important view in the behaviourist approach). Lerner identified different levels of the environment. This included prenatal factors like how physical influences (smoking) or psychological influences (music) affects a foetus. It also includes postnatal factors, like social conditions a child grows up in. 

One example is the behaviourist approach, they assume all behaviour can be explained in terms of experience alone. Skinner uses classical/ operant conditioning to explain learning

What is a correlation coefficient

Correlation coefficient - the degree to which 2 people are similar on a particular trait (called concordance). It provides an estimate about the extent to which a trait is inherited (called heritability, the proportion of differences between individuals, with regard to a particular trait, that is due to genetic variation). 0.1 or 1% means genes contribute barely anything, but 1.0 or 100% means genes are the only reason for individual differences 

What is the interactionist approach

Interactionist approach - behaviour arises from a combination of nature and nurture. E.g. eye colour is 0.8 heritable. E.g. Bowlby claimed a baby’s attachment type is determined by the warmth and continuity of parental love, but Kagan said a baby’s innate personality affects attachment. So it’s environment and heredity

For this reason, psychologists are likely to ask what the relative contribution of each influence is. So this debate becomes more about discussing rather than picking a side.

It involves the diathesis stress model, which suggests behaviour is caused by a biological or environmental vulnerability, which is only expressed when there’s a bio/env trigger. E.g. a person with genetic vulnerability for OCD may not develop it if it's not combined with a psychological trigger like a traumatic experience.

Evaluation for nature vs nurture

One strength is adoption studies. Adoption studies are useful as separate competing influences of nature and nurture. If adopted children are seen to be more similar to their adoptive parents, this suggests the environment is the bigger influence. Whereas if adopted children are more similar to their biological parents, then genetic factors are presumed to dominate (they have no influence on their environment). A meta analysis of adoption studies by Rhee and Waldman found that genetic influences accounted for 41% of the variance in aggression. This shows how research can separate the influences of nature and nurture. However, other research shows this approach may be misguided and that nature and nurture cannot be pulled apart. According to Plomin, people create their own ‘nurture’ by actively selecting the environments that are appropriate for their ‘nurture’. Thus, a naturally aggressive child is likely to feel more comfortable with children who show similar behaviours and will ‘choose’ their environment accordingly. Then, their chosen friends further influence their development. Plominn refers to this as niche-picking (as children grow older they seek out experiences and environments that suit their genes). This suggests that it doesn't make sense to look at evidence of either nature or nurture

A strength of this debate is that it supports epigenetics. It refers to a change in our genetic activity without changing the genes themselves. It's a lifelong process caused by interaction with the environment like smoking, diet, trauma or war, which can leave marks on our DNA and switch genes on and off, which change the way they are expressed. These changes then go on and influence the genetic codes of our children and their children. An example of this happening because of war is this: in 1944 the Nazi’s blocked food supply to the Dutch people, at 22,000 people died of starvation. Susser and Lin reported that women who became pregnant during the famine went on to have low birth weight babies, and these babies were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia when they grew up compared to typical population rates. This supports epigenetics because it shows how life events like war have change how a mothers genes were expressed, and how this has been passed through to the next generation and affected her babies genetic codes. It shows how life experiences of previous generations can leave epigenetic ‘markers’ that influence the health of their offspring

One limitation of the nature vs nurture debate is that it’s difficult to fully separate these influences, even when studying siblings. Although siblings grow up in the same family, they don’t necessarily experience the same environment. For example, one sibling might get more attention from parents, or have a different group of friends, meaning their experiences can shape them differently. This makes it hard to pinpoint how much of a person’s development is due to nurture (their environment). Similarly, MZ twins, who share the exact same genes, still don’t show 100% concordance rates for traits like intelligence or mental health conditions. If nature (genetics) were the only factor, we’d expect twins to be identical in these areas. Since they’re not, this suggests that nurture also plays a role. However, even twins raised together can experience small differences in their environment, like slightly different peer groups or illnesses. This creates a limitation in the debate because it’s tough to say exactly how much nature or nurture influences development when even people who seem to share the same genes and environment are still affected differently. It shows that the two factors are deeply intertwined, making it hard to isolate the impact of one over the other

Define holism and reductionism

Holism - an argument or theory that proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system rather than its component parts. Attempts to understand human behaviour only done through analysing the person as a whole. Considers the whole persons experience (looking at ALL of the following: cognitive, emotional, developmental, social, environmental, economic etc)

Reductionism- the belief that human behaviour is best understood by studying the smaller component parts. It is based around the scientific principle of parsimony. All behaviour should be explained using the most basic principles. Considers the major systems involved (like only biological or environmental)

What are the levels of explanation?

Levels of explanation - the idea that there are several ways (levels) that can be used to explain behaviour. The lowest level considers biological/physiological explanations. Middle level considers psychological explanations of behaviour. The highest level considers social and cultural explanations

Define biological and environmental reductionism

Biological reductionism - a form of reductionism which attempts to explain behaviour at the lowest biological level (in terms of the actions of genes/hormones etc)

Environmental reductionism-  the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus - response links that have been learned through experience and society 

Define experimental reductionism and parsimony

Experimental reductionism - reducing behaviour to isolated variables, which is useful for conducting controlled research. Underlying principle of the experimental approach where behaviours are reduces to operationalised variables that can be manipulated and measured to determine causal relationships 

Parsimony - the concept that the most complex phenomena should be explained by the simplest underlying principle, e.g. genetics. The simplest explanation is the correct one

Evaluation for holism vs reductionism

• Limitation of holism is that it lacks practical value, especially when looking at specific psychological issues like depression. Holistic explanations of human behaviour, whilst comprehensive, are typically hard to use as they become more complex. If we accept, from a humanistic perspective, that there are many different factors that contribute to depression (the person’s past, their present relationships, their job and family circumstances), then it becomes difficult to know which is most influential. It is then difficult to know which to prioritise as the basis of therapy, for instance, leading to less effective treatment outcomes. This suggests that holistic accounts may lack practical value when they fail to provide clear, actionable insights into the root causes of disorders like depression. Moreover, holism struggles to be tested scientifically. The broad and often vague nature of holistic explanations makes them difficult to quantify or falsify, reducing their scientific credibility. In contrast, reductionist approaches, such as biological explanations, are more easily testable and empirically grounded, allowing for more direct interventions in real-world problems like depression. This implies that while holism offers a rich perspective, lower-level, reductionist explanations may be more useful in practical and clinical settings, where targeted treatments are required

• Reductionist explanations have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to reduced validity. This is because explanations that only look at biological factors for example, don’t analyse the social context in which the behaviour occurs, and this is where the behaviour could get its meaning from. These contexts often provide essential meaning behind actions, and ignoring them can result in an incomplete or even misguided understanding, making attempting to explain behaviour pointless if the main explanation is completely missed or ignored. For instance, explaining aggression purely in terms of genetics without considering social influences like peer pressure or cultural norms may overlook crucial contributing factors. As a result, reductionist explanations may fail to capture the full picture and offer a limited, fragmented view of behaviour. This means that reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation and must be integrated with broader perspectives to offer a more comprehensive understanding of complex psychological phenomena

• A strength of reductionism is that biological reductionism has led to the development of drug therapies. These treatments have significantly reduced the need for long-term institutionalisation since the 1950s by offering patients a way to manage symptoms of mental illnesses outside of asylums and hospitals. This also reduces the strain on the NHS who wouldn't have to deal with so many patients, but allow them to live a more free life whilst the NHS can focus on other important issues. They are also a more humane approach to treating mental illnesses. They avoid placing blame on the individual for their mental illness, instead attributing it to biological causes beyond their control. This shift in perspective may also foster greater societal tolerance and empathy for individuals with mental health disorders. On the other hand, drug therapies are not always successful. By reducing complex mental health conditions to biological factors alone, important social, psychological, and environmental influences are often overlooked. This narrow focus ignores the broader context in which behaviours. While drug treatments can be effective in managing symptoms, they often fail to address underlying causes of disorders. While drug therapies have a role in treating symptoms, psychological explanations consider many factors like CBT and have produced many successful therapies

What does idiographic mean?

Uniqueness of individuals. An approach to research that focuses more on the individual case as a means of understanding behaviour. Individual people's behaviour in lots of detail so we can understand human behaviour better. Not concerned with formulating laws of behaviour that apply to everyone. Humanistic / psychodynamic psychologists unique experiences. Interviews or questionnaires on a single person to gain insight into their subjective experiences (it's subjective). E.g. a case study, Clive Wearings 

Most idiographic research is qualitative like a case study, as it delves deeply into the life experiences of one person and analyses it. E.g. The psychodynamic approach, Rogers explained the process of self-development by including unconditional positive regard , derived from in depth conversations with therapists. E.g. Freud’s careful observations of an individual were the basis of his explanation of human behaviour, e.g. Little Hans case study to was used to explain how a phobia might develop

Nomothetic meaning

Nomothetic: trying to establish universal rules for everyone rather than focusing on indiv cases. Interviews with large groups of people to generate theories to apply to everyone. Removing any variables and is controlled so it's replicable (its objective). E.g. Asch's study results on conformity applied to the population

Most nomothetic research is quantitative,  numerical data is produced for analysis of its statistical significance, hypotheses are made and there are samples of people. E.g. Skinner developed universal laws of learning

Objective as laws of behaviour are only possible if methods of assessment are standardised, to ensure replication occurs across samples of behaviour and removes the influence of bias

Idiographic vs nomothetic approaches evaluation

• A strength of the idiographic approach is that it contributes to the nomothetic approach to make a complete account. The idiographic approach uses in depth, qualitative methods of investigation and this provides a global description of one individual. Even though it focuses on fewer people, the insights gained from studying one person in detail can sometimes help us understand general behaviours or even challenge existing general ideas.  E.g. the case of Clive Wearings opened the door to future nomothetic research about the different brain parts being responsible for different kinds of memory. Another example, the case of HM revealed important insights about functioning which may contribute to our overall understanding of how memory works for everyone. This means the idiographic approach can still help contribute to broader, more general "laws" of behaviour. Counterpoint: That said, we should acknowledge the narrow and restricted nature of that work. It's hard to generalise conclusions from a single case to everyone else unless more examples are studied. In addition, methods of the idiographic approach, such as case studies, tend to be the least scientific as conclusions often rely on subjective interpretation of the researcher. It may be less scientific because the researcher may give personal interpretation, which could be biased. Therefore, it can be hard to develop solid, general theories about human behaviour without also considering the nomothetic approach (which looks for patterns in larger groups of people)

• One strength of both approaches is that it fits with the aims of science. Processes used in nomothetic research are similar to that of natural sciences, for example, establishing objectivity through standardisation so all participants are treated in the same way to avoid bias, control and statistical testing to ensure conclusions aren’t just based on personal interpretation. Even though the idiographic approach focuses on individuals rather than large groups, it can still be scientific and use objective methods. Researchers using this approach try to make their findings as objective and valid as possible. One method they use is triangulation, where they compare the results from multiple studies using different methods (e.g., interviews, case studies) to strengthen their conclusions. This helps ensure that the findings are not just the result of one study or one method. In modern research, idiographic psychologists are also careful to reflect on their own biases - that is, they think about how their own personal views or assumptions might affect their interpretation of the data and try to account for that. This means that the idiographic approach is also striving for scientific rigour, even though its methods differ from those of the nomothetic approach. This suggests that both the nomothetic and idiographic approaches raise psychology’s reputation as a science

• A limitation of the nomothetic approach is loss of understanding of the individual. The nomothetic approach is focused on creating general laws and principles that apply to large groups of people. The fact this approach is preoccupied with general laws, prediction and controlling variables to find broad patterns in behaviour, means it has been accused of ‘losing the whole person’ within psychology. It overlooks the personal, subjective experience of individuals. In other words, it can lose sight of the unique aspects of a person’s life. For example, knowing that 1% of the population is at risk of developing schizophrenia is useful for making predictions, but it doesn’t tell us much about the actual experience of someone living with the condition. It doesn’t explain what it feels like or how it affects their daily life. This individual understanding is important because it could help develop better, more personalised treatment options. If we understand how schizophrenia is experienced on a personal level, we might be able to offer more appropriate support or therapies. While the nomothetic approach is useful for identifying broad trends, it can miss out on the deeper understanding of what it's like to live with a particular condition. This means it may not always provide the full picture when it comes to human experience

Define universality

The aim to develop theories that apply to all people, which may include real differences. Any underlying characteristic of human beings that is capable of being applied To all, despite differences of experience and upbringing. Gender bias and culture bias threaten the universality of findings in psychology 

Define gender, alpha and beta bias

Gender bias - bias is the tendency to treat one a different way from others. The different treatment or representation of men or women based on stereotypes rather than real differences, shown in research or theories

Alpha bias - research that focuses on, or  the tendency to exaggerate differences between men and women. The consequence is that theories devalue one gender in comparison to the other. Could heighten the value of men, and devalue women. E.g. Freud’s psychodynamic theory suggests women are inferior and have penis envy 

Beta bias - the tendency to ignore or minimise the differences between men and women. Such theories tend to either ignore questions about the lives of women, or assume that insights derived from studies of men will apply equally well to women. Research focuses on similarities between men and women, ignoring differences, what is true for one gender is true for the other

Define androcentrism

Possible content:

• male-centred or male-biased view of the world

• male behaviour and masculine traits are judged to be the norm/acceptable/desirable

• female behaviour/feminine traits are judged to be abnormal/less acceptable/less desirable

Centered or focused on men, often to the neglect or exclusion of women. Presenting a male-ominated version of the world. ‘Normal’ behaviour is judged according to a male standard, so any behaviour that is not done by most men (i.e women) is seen as abnormal. This comes as a consequence of beta bias. This leads to female behaviour being misunderstood (at best) or pathologised and seen as mentally ill (at worst)

Evaluation for gender and culture bias

A limitation of gender bias is that it is often seen as fixed and enduring when it’s not. Maccoby and Jacklin have shown an explanation for gender bias. Their findings from multiple gender studies showed that girls have superior verbal ability and boys have better spatial ability. They suggested these differences are ‘hardwired’ into the brain before birth. These suggestions became seen as facts, when they weren’t facts at all but only opinions. They used brain scans which actually showed no differences in brain structure or processing, so whilst having no substantial evidence to support their findings have been accepted as a biological explanation and a fact, just because they fit within the stereotypes of today's society. It is possible that their findings became popular as it fitted in with pre-existing stereotypes that girls were ‘speakers’ and boys were ‘doers’. This suggests we should be wary of accepting research findings as biological facts when they might be better explained as social stereotypes. Counterpoint: however, this doesn’t mean psychologists should avoid studying possible gender differences in the brain. E.g. Ingalhalikar et al showed some biological truth to gender bias. She showed that the stereotype of women being better at multitasking may have some biological truth to it. They found evidence that women might be better at multitasking due to enhanced connections between the brain’s right and left hemispheres than men, supporting the popular stereotype that women can juggle tasks better than men. This suggests that gender differences in the brain may exist, but their influence is likely complex and intertwined with social factors. Gender bias is sometimes accepted as biological fact rather than being recognised as influenced by social stereotypes. It also implies there may be biological differences - but we should still be wary of exaggerating the effect they may have on behaviour

A limitation is that gender bias promotes sexism in the research process. Women remain underrepresented in university departments, particularly in science.Murphy et al said that although psychology undergraduate intake is mainly women, lecturers in psychology departments are more likely to be men, leading to potential bias in research design, interpretation and conclusions. This means more research is likely to be conducted by men and this may inadvertently disadvantage participants who are women because these studies may only reflect perspectives and assumptions of men. Nicolson suggested that a male researcher may expect women to be irrational and unable to complete complex tasks, and such expectations are likely to mean that women  underperform in research studies, not because of inherent differences but because of the environment or expectations placed on them. This means that methods of psychology and institutionalised structures like universities may produce findings that are gender-biassed because favouring one gender over the other can produce skewed findings. Thus affecting generalisability of findings if it does not represent both genders equally

What are ethical issues and ethical implications?

The impact / consequences research has on the population presented in the research (society), or the effect on individual participants in the study.

.

6 ethical issues: confidentiality, deception, consent, debrief, right to withdraw and protection from harm

.
Arise because of the conflict between gaining valuable research and the rights and dignity of participants

.

Ethical guidelines made to protect participants and guide researchers

.

Ethical issues fall under ethical implications. Ethical implications include socially sensitive research  

.

Ethical implications may highlight social issues, leading to certain groups being stigmatised, or even lead to laws being passed that put some people at a disadvantage. This sort of research is known as socially sensitive research and findings may have ethical implications. Some areas of research have greater social sensitivity than others

Must know ethical implications of a research study (imp on pps) and a theory (imp on ppl in society)

• Milgram.

  • Ethical implications include deception, pps didn’t know aims of study

  • Right to withdraw, not there as 4 prompts made pps continue as much as possible

  • Protection from harm not there, psychologically as thought were harming others, and physically as 3 pps had seizures

• Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment.

  • This theory could make mothers stressed if they don’t spend enough time with their kids

  • Pressured to stay home from work, or guilty if don’t

  • Pressure on dad if don’t make enough money to supply the fam if only one working

  • Reinforces patriarchal society

  • States child will develop abnormally as ‘maternally deprived’, but modern society suggests different as wider range of families (homosexual parents)

  • Stigmatise father only families

What is social sensitivity?

Studies in which there are potential consequences or implications, either directly for the participants or for the class of individuals represented by the research (Sieber & Stanley)

Ethical issues in socially sensitive research

• The research question. Must consider research question carefully. Whether its leading, how its phrased, language used, whether groups misrepresented in title. E.g. ‘there are racial differences in IQ’ may be damaging to particular groups 

• The methodology used. Must control ethical issues, e.g. participants aware of aims when consenting to the research. Includes confidentiality and anonymity 

• The institutional context. Who is funding the research and why, which institution/ organisation. E.g. the NHS versus an unreliable private organisation who’s more likely to be in it for the money 

• Interpretation and application of findings. How the research is interpreted by the public, misrepresentation by organisations, how findings used for public policy, legislation and law changes. E.g. in the 50s, the southern states of the US did research into racial differences in IQ. They found that black people had a lower IQ than white people, and this led to forced sterilisation of black people. Another example is in the 40s, immigrants came from Europe to Ellis Island NY and were given American IQ tests with questions like ‘what is crisco?’. If wrong, sent back to Europe as couldn’t contribute to the economy

Evaluation for socially sensitivity and ethical implications

A strength of socially sensitive research is that it promotes underrepresented groups in society.

• Promote greater sensitivity and understanding

• Reduce prejudice → communities become closer

• Sieber and Stanley - ignoring SS topics can be irresponsible, some topics are likely to become even more ‘taboo’

• SS research plays a valuable role in society

A limitation of socially sensitive research is that Sieber and Stanley warn that how the research questions are phrased may influence how they’re interpreted.

• Research into so-called ‘alternative relationships’ were compared to ‘normal relationships’ → guilty of heterosexual bias within which homosexual relationships were compared and judged against heterosexual ones, which were seen as the ‘norm’.

• Investigators approach research too much of an open mind

• Unintentionally allow own preconceptions or societal norms to shape their investigations, rather than approaching the topic with genuine neutrality

• → Research may fail to challenge existing misconceptions

• Reinforce stereotypes and stigmatize certain groups by positioning them as deviant or inferior

Socially sensitive research can have real world issues: E.g. 40s - Ellis Island - immigrants from Europe arrived in Ellis Island, and were given American IQ tests with questions like ‘what is crisco’?, which is a question that only Americans would typically know the answer to. If they got these wrong, they were sent straight back to Europe despite the war going on. This is because they thought these peoples wouldn’t be able to contribute to the economy enough, so regarded them as useless. This is an example of psychological research that was misused to justify discrimination and exclusion, highlighting how biased methods and culturally inappropriate measures can have devastating real-world consequences, such as reinforcing prejudice and denying individuals basic rights or safety. This suggests that socially sensitive research should not be conducted as it has ethical implications causing significant harm to already vulnerable groups