scientific status of psychology

what is empiricism?

knowledge only comes from sense data

what is falsification?

when it is proposed that theories should be able to be proved wrong

what is reductionism?

the belief that every single process in nature can be broken down into its constituent parts and can be described scientifically

what is replicability?

researchers should be able to replicate a study in exactly the same way with high levels of control using a standardised procedure

what is reliability?

achieved when a method is replicated and consistency of results is achieved

what are controls?

designed to minimise the effects of variables other than the independent variable

what is validity?

data is true to real-life and represents what it claims to represent

what is internal validity?

the degree that we are successful in eliminating confounding variables within the study itself

what is ecological validity?

the degree that the behaviours observed or recorded in a study reflect the behaviours that actually occur in a natural setting

what is predictive validity?

testing a group of participants for a certain construct and then comparing them with results obtained at some point in the future

what is hypothesis testing?

making predictions within the scientific method about behaviour under certain conditions

what is science best thought of as?

a cluster concept that does not have clear boundaries, and cannot be defined as in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions

what did Wittgenstein suggest about concepts?

even a straightforward concept cannot clearly be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions

what are the two aspects to the issue of the scientific status of psychology?

whether psychology can be properly classed as a science and whether it should aspire to be a science

how are controlled observations a feature of science?

experiments often involve observing the effects of some specific manipulation whilst keeping other factors constant, allowing casual relationships to be inferred

how is objectivity a feature of science?

it is important for data to be collected in a way as close to objective as possible, even if total objectivity is impossible

how is testing theoretical predictions a feature of science?

scientific experiments are generally carried out to test the prediction of a theory

how is falsifiability a feature of science?

scientific theories can potentially be disproved by evidence, and science should proceed by attempting to falsify theories rather than by trying to find supporting evidence

how is paradigm a feature of science?

there is a generally accepted theoretic orientation within a science, assumptions and ideas of what should be observed, what can be asked and how questions should be answered

how is replicability a feature of science?

findings obtained by researchers need to be replicable, it would be difficult to base a science on inconsistent findings

what does science aim for?

prediction, understanding and control

what is meant by predictions in science?

scientists put forward theories which can be used to generate hypotheses, these can be tested which will prove or disprove support to a theory

what is meant by understanding in science?

using results from predictions to gain an understanding of the phenomena being investigated, though even a number of accurate predictions may still not give a full understanding of what is happening

what is meant by control in science?

it may be possible to move onto control after prediction and understanding have been achieved, where knowledge gained is used to actually alter some aspect of the world

how is the agency theory an argument for the social approach as a science?

issues are testable and measurable using scientific means, with the theory suggesting societies have evolved to have authority figures

how are methods of the social approach an argument for it being a science?

questionnaires are used for quantitative data that can be statistically analysed, hypotheses are tested and theories can be developed

what are arguments against the social approach as a science?

prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination can't be observed and tested directly, as they are to study in isolation from confounding variables and scientific control

how are biological principles an argument for the cognitive approach as a science?

includes memory and brain processing, such as which parts of the brain perform specific functions, like the hippocampus for transfer of STM into LTM

how are lab experiments an argument for the cognitive approach as a science?

hypotheses can be tested and results can be statistically analysed due to the generation of quantitative data, such as Tulving and Baddeley's studies

what are arguments against the cognitive approach as a science?

case studies of brain damaged patients are less scientific, and internal mental processes involve inferences

how are stimuli and responses an argument for the learning approach as a science?

they can be controlled for observations and measurements, behaviour is reduced to constituent parts such as a rat pressing a lever for a food reward or to avoid electric shocks

how are lab experiments and animal studies an argument for the learning approach as a science?

nomothetic principles are established

how are unobservable measures an argument against the learning approach as a science?

motivation and the affect of memory on behaviour cannot be observed, Bandura moved away from initially well-controlled observable methods with the bobo doll experiment

how are subjective elements an argument against the learning approach as a science?

it is more difficult to interpret and measure objectively and scientifically

how are research methods an argument for the biological approach as a science?

brain scanning, lab experiments, lesioning, etc. are highly controlled for confounding variables and replicability

what does the biological approach investigate which may lead to it being considered a science?

the role of genes, hormones, neurotransmitters, etc.

how are variables an argument for the biological approach as a science?

they can be clearly operationalised and hypotheses can be tested to confirm or refute a theory

what are arguments against the biological approach as a science?

can have subjective interpretations of biological data, such as differences in researches perspectives of what a specific brain scan means