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