P2 Approaches- analysis + evaluation

behaviourism- classical conditioning: 3 points

* weight of highly replicated evidence
* beneficial real life applications
* too reductive

Behaviourism- classical conditioning: point 1: weight of evidence

* Pavlov’s highly replicated findings that dogs could be taught to produce an autonomic response of salivation to the noise of a bell by pairing it with the presentation of food
* strengthened by (ethically dubious) little Albert study by Watson and Raynor- showed Pavlov’s findings were also generalisable to humans
* Salvation and fear are usually innate responses to innate, unconditioned stimuli - we would not expect an animal to drool when food is not present; nor would we expect an infant to fear white, fluffy objects.
* The subjects of these experiments were shown not to have these responses before the experimental condition in which the neutral stimuli were paired with unconditioned stimuli that would naturally provoke the responses.
* The fact that they did have these responses to the previously neutral stimuli after the pairing strongly suggests that classical conditioning is the reason for the newly exhibited behaviours.

Behaviourism- classical conditioning: point 2: real life applications

* A key strength of this theory is that is has very beneficial real life applications.
* research into systematic desensitisation- McGraph to cure phobias, provides strong evidence to support the theory- about 75% of treatment being effective.
* As Wolpes method is based on the ideas set out by classical conditioning, the fact that patients overwhelmingly experience positive results when dissociating the conditioned stimulus with the conditioned response when using this real life application, strengthens the idea of the theory overall as is unlikely the therapy method would be effective if there was no truth being the theory.

Behaviourism- classical conditioning: point 3: too reductionist

* can be seen to be weak, as it is simply too reductive an explanation to account for human behaviour.
* By focusing only on stimulus-response links gained through the association of neutral with unconditioned stimuli, the theory ignores the role of the mind in directing human actions and so fails to be able to explain some aspects of why we behave as we do.
* eg. it lacks the explanatory power of the psychodynamic approach when dealing with why an individual might ignore unmistakeable truths - denial - or when they might lash out at a loved one who has done nothing wrong - displacement.
* With no role given to the mind, conscious or unconscious, in classical conditioning, human behaviour becomes mechanistic; merely a passive response rather than something we can impact and control.
* de Maat’s (2009) meta-analysis of the positive impact of psychoanalysis on disorders like depression suggests this is far from the case.
* If our thoughts could not impact our actions, a ‘talking cure’ like this would not work - so the emphasis on stimuli-response links at the expense of the mind in classical conditioning seems to be a considerable flaw.

behaviourism- operant conditioning: 3 points

1. weight of highly replicated evidence
2. undermined by problem of extrapolation
3. beneficial real life applications

Behaviourism- operant conditioning: strength 1: weight of evidence

weight of highly replicated evidence by Skinner

- rats taught to push a lever to gain food or avoid electric shock
- clearly shows actions do become associated with rewarding consequences- encourages repetition of behaviour
- exactly what the theory predicts- positive + negative reinforcement
- so, operant conditioning has well evidenced explanatory power

Behaviourism- operant conditioning: weakness 1: problem of extrapolation

operant conditioning is undermined because it is so heavily based upon skinners research which suffers from the problem of extrapolation

- skinners subjects \= rats and pigeons
- significant physiological differences between these animals + humans eg. complexity of brain
- highly likely idea of rats behaviours being learned through association of actions and consequences wont apply to humans who have more advanced cognitive abilities
- (Bandura + Walter (1963) showed importance of cognitive processing in the way humans act, might not be the case with lower animals)
- operant conditioning \= overly reductionist explanation for human behaviour.

Behaviourism: operant conditioning- strength 1- real life applications

real life applications eg studies into token economies showing how the reward system can cause a reduction in negative symptoms for schizophrenia patients

- Ayllon + Azrin (1968) - if schizophrenia patients are rewarded for their good actions by being given tokens in exchange for privileges- more likely to repeat good behaviour
- decrease in negative behaviours due to positive reinforcement
- if the theory wasn't based on fact it is unlikely the behaviour management technique based on it would be effective
- fact that token economies remain the standard approach to managing schizophrenia strengthens theory- more likely what it outlines is reliable.

neo-behaviourism: social learning theory- 3 points

1. weight of well replicated evidence
2. failure to acknowledge complexity of influences on human behaviour
3. explanatory power- gender development

neo-behaviourism: social learning theory: strength 1: weight of well replicated evidence

weight of well replicated evidence by Bandura

- children exposed to aggressive role-models display similar behaviours- particularly if they identify with the role model on a key characteristics eg sex
- repetition of behaviours rarely seen in control group
- supports predictions of SLT- exactly what we would expect to see if theory was correct
- further support- Bandura + Walters (1963)- vicarious reinforcement + role of mediational processes

neo-behaviourism: social learning theory: weakness 1: failure to acknowledge complexity of influences on human behaviour

failure to acknowledge complexity of competing influences on human behaviour

- Bandura focuses solely on- learning from role models + direct reinforcement
- improvement on behaviourism as it recognises importance of cognition on behaviour BUT ignores role of personality factors and biology
- Shown in Bandura's own research where males experienced higher levels of aggression than with females-children
- suggest a biological basis for aggression
supported by Dolan et al (2001) higher testosterone levels correlated with increased aggression
by not accounting for these factors- Bandura leaves SLT as an incomplete account of how behaviours are learnt

neo-behaviourism: social learning theory: strength 1: explanatory power in explaining gender development

explanatory power when explaining gender development

- Fagot (1978) - children are subject to social learning when having traditionally 'gender appropriate' behaviours eg. boys punished for playing with dolls
- provides a way to account for and understand the fact that gender roles differ between countries as shown by the (coss-cultural gender differences found in New Guinea by Mead (1935))
- explains how gender fluidity has become more prominent in countries such as the UK as traditional gender roles have become less enforced in society
- its ability to offer insight into contemporary issues is a considerable strength of SLT

Cognitive approach- strength 1: highly scientific research methodology

highly scientific research methodology with objective, replicable + falsifiable experiments

- built on lots of evidence from studies such as those by Peterson + Peterson- strong well controlled
- lots of studies \= more reliable in depth knowledge
- seen by VMM being replaced by simple STN and MSM models
- would be difficult to make well accepted progress if based on subjective methods

Cognitive approach- weakness 1: lack of mundane realism

highly scientific method means it lacks mundane realism and has low ecological validity so we cant be sure it is applicable people in real life settings

- experiments must be tightly controlled in order to have high internal validity but this in tern lowers the ecological validity
- eg. Peterson + Peterson study into duration of STM- memorising useless information
- task is not likely to be one people conduct in real life- this is necessary to stop people from drawing upon their LTM but is highly artificial as it doesn't reflect how people normally remember things

Cognitive approach- strength 2: beneficial real life applications

successful real life applications indicate its strong explanation for human behaviour

- models based on cog approach have been used to develop successful therapies
- eg. CBT by Ellis (1957) 90% effective and March et al (2007) 81% effective
time frame between these studies suggests doesn't suffer from temporal validity
- if cognitive approach didn't accurately explain how people think it is unlikely therapies based on it would be have such positive outcomes
- explains human behaviour well

Cognitive approach- weakness 2: suffers from machine reductionism

ignores the involvement of emotions and motivation on human behaviour

- basis of cognitive approach is that the way humans process information is analogous to that of a computer
- suffers from machine reductionism
- Freud + Bandura show human feeling are key in how we process experiences
- we also make mistakes in our processing eg. forgetting things- computers don't so this
- treating human processing as the same as computer processing makes it too simplistic that it cant explain how we think
the fact that the fundamental assumption of the cognitive approach is so highly flawed significantly weakens how far we can trust it as an explanation for human behaviour

biological approach: essay K + U

* all human behaviour stems from our biology
* neurochemistry changes physiological activity + behaviour - levels of serotonin + dopamine linked to OCD symptoms
* endocrine system said to influence behaviour
* studies in multiple different ways- animal studies (Bard + Mountcastle 1937) and correlational studies - family + twin studies

biological approach: A + E point 1- scientific methodology

* objective measures of behaviour + biological factors - great reliability and validity
* can assume sound + generalisable
* studies- fMRI’s + post mortem to identify abnormalities in brain matter that effect behaviour
* twin studies- effect of genetics
* replicable + falsifiable
* approach based on well evidence research strengthen s approach overall

biological approach: A + E point 2- reductionist

* approach explains complex behaviour through simple means - eg genes, neurotransmitters + hormones
* too reductionist
* those components aren’t enough to explain behaviour fully
* eg. arguments that OCD is polygenic (Taylor 2013)- not explained by approach
* development of OCD may also be down to environmental factors
* therapies based on conditioning shown to be effective (Albucher et al 1998)
* over simplified- ignores other important factors if used in isolation.

biological approach: A + E point 3- real life applications

* vital real life application that help people in need
* drug therapies for anxiety + depression as the fastest + most effective
* antidepressants March et al (2007) 81% effective
* Soomoro et al (2008) OCD symptoms treated more effectively with drugs than placebo
* improvement aren’t just because patients expect to get better
* helpful for society as people get better- less pressure on institutions and health services.
* importance of findings from the approach cannot be overlooked.

Biological approach A + E 3 points

* scientific methodology
* reductionist
* real life applications - March (2007) + Soomoro (2008)