AP PSYCH 1.1 Introducing Psychology

What is Psychology?

  • Defined as the study of the mind or soul
    • Well, what is the mind? What is thinking? What is a soul?
    • This definition is not actually very helpful
  • Do you have a mind? Are you the mind? Is a mind something that can be possessed?
  • These kinds of questions led to the birth of psychology, with roots in philosophy
  • Psychology cannot be approached like other sciences
    • It is a relatively new science
    • There is no method to concretely study it
    • Only parts of psychology can be tangibly observed and tested
    • Every single person is unique
    • Our ideas and concepts surrounding psychology are always changing
  • There are many approaches, or perspectives, to psychology

Early Psychology

  • Functionalism and structuralism are two of the earliest approaches
  • Wilhelm Wundt is the father of psychology and founded a laboratory in 1879, the first time psychology had been studied as an independent science
  • Edward Titchener, one of Wundt’s students, takes many of his ideas to the United States and founds Structuralism
  • Structuralism is studying the mind by looking at what it is made of
    • Not literally, like the brain and its parts
    • This method used introspection, looking within oneself, as the basis of its data collection
    • The problem with this is that it relied on subjective accounts of people’s own minds and was very unreliable
    • This approach asks ‘what?’
  • Functionalism is studying the mind through what it does, or its function
    • Whereas Wundt created the first lab, William James wrote the first textbook
    • All traits, physical or not, serve a function; that was the basis of this approach
    • This approach asks ‘what function does ____ serve?’ and ‘why?’
    • Related to ideas of the theory of evolution, another later approach
  • Structuralism vs. Functionalism
    • Wundt and James were rivals, each trying to prove their approach’s validity

What is the Mind and How Should We Study it?

  • The mind is very difficult to examine scientifically
  • There are eight billion minds on the planet, each changing every second
  • Wundt, Titchener, and James all have different approaches to studying the mind
  • There are many more approaches, developing to this day
  • Psychology is a new science and therefore our understanding of it evolves all the time
  • All of these approaches can answer many questions, but no single approach can answer all questions well

Modern Approaches

Psychodynamic Approach

  • One of the older approaches still used today
  • Founded by Sigmund Freud, originally called psychoanalytic
  • Was the only approach to psychology for a long time
  • Focuses heavily on the unconscious: desires, hidden messages, hypnosis, dream analysis, etc.
  • Flexible and can’t necessarily be proven wrong
  • Isn’t very scientific, can’t be empirical
    • Attempting to study something that is literally hidden/impossible to access

Behavioralism Approach

  • Developed as a rejection of the psychodynamic approach
  • Was looking for more empiricism in psychology, so this approach focuses only on tangible, observable behaviors
  • Started by Ivan Pavlov inadvertently
    • He discovered that dogs would salivate at a bell once they learned it meant they would be fed
    • This proved the formerly denied idea that physical responses could be triggered
    • He called this reflexive conditioning; today, we call it classic conditioning
  • This may be a way to explain odd reactions, like strong fear or relaxation from objects or sounds
  • B.F. Skinner is known for operant conditioning
    • Relates to the idea of positive reinforcement
    • Subjects presented with positive rewards for a behavior are more likely to do it
    • Punished behaviors are less likely to occur
    • Every second, we are doing behaviors and receive responses in someway
    • We learn from these responses and behave accordingly
    • We quickly learn that not blinking is associated with discomfort, therefore we blink to avoid that feeling
  • Classical conditioning can be measured but things such as creativity and thoughts cannot be trained in this way
  • Operant conditioning can also be observed easily, but people are more complex than punishments and rewards
    • Selfless acts that harm the one doing them and feelings like love aren’t explained by this

Cognitive Approach

  • Focuses on thoughts, which are almost impossible to study
  • Everything is related to thoughts, because everything we think has constructed perceptions around it, no matter what
  • Nothing we think is completely free of influence
  • Many of our thinking processes are flawed by emotions, shortcuts, limited experience, or natural shortcomings of the brain.
  • This is a flexible approach that allows for individual differences and complexity
  • Focuses on thoughts which are extremely difficult to faithfully study
    • Often requires introspection, which is flawed

Biological Approach

  • Focuses on the idea that ‘the mind is what the brain does’
    • Connects to the whole body, actually, as all bodily systems are connected to the mind
  • Approaches psychology by observing the literal electrical and chemical activities happening within the body and brain
  • A very empirical theory, so very reliable
  • This theory is too simplistic in our current state of science
    • This theory cannot explain things like love and the human condition

Humanistic Approach

  • Looks at the unique and special facets of people and their strengths
  • A very positive theory, celebrating differences
  • A rejection of the pessimistic ideas in psychology
  • Behaviors are observed in context of a person’s whole life
  • Allows for, and encourages, differences
  • Not based on science and cannot be observed

Sociocultural Approach

  • References where people’s personalities come from
    • Nature vs. Nurture
    • The cultures, communities, and individuals that shape us
  • Proposes that all interactions shape us at least a little bit
  • Our likes and dislikes are influenced by the many things we’ve been exposed to
  • Works well when observing group behaviors and thoughts
  • Not so good at being applied to individuals, as it can be stereotyping
  • Culture is also hard to measure

\