issues and debates
Nature vs. nurture
Nature:
Nativist position, characteristics are a product of evolution and differences are due to unique genetic code
Behaviour is the product of biological and genetic factors, such as heredity (the passing of traits from one generation to another) and may be ‘wired in’ but show up later in life as a product of maturation
Examples:
Bowlby -- biological programming to form attachments, through genetic programming. This is supported by Lorenz and Harlow’s research
Gottesman -- 48% concordance rate for szn emphasises genetics on behaviour
Nurture:
Environmentalist/empiricist position, view behaviour as a product of environmental influences, as we are a blank slate that is filled by experiences
Characteristics and differences are as a result of learning
Examples:
Attachment -- classical conditioning causes attachments to develop, through learning and associations
Schizophrenia -- the family dysfunction theory including double bind allows szn to manifest
Bandura’s bobo doll, little Albert, Pavlov and Skinner. Phobias or depression explanations and treatments
Interactionism -- disorders are a result of both nature and nurture interacting with each other, including the diathesis-stress model that suggests genetic vulnerabilities and stress of life experiences can cause a disorder
Evaluations
It’s too simplistic to consider nature and nurture in isolation, thus the interactionist approach suggests behaviour is best explained by their interaction. For example, in psychopathology, diathesis-stress model is used to explain development of disorders and protective factors that prevent them
Nature can affect nurture, which can be demonstrated in the diathesis-stress model. For example, Tienari found there was an interaction between genetics and dysfunctional families in the result of developing szn. This gives strong evidence that szn can be best explained by looking at the interaction of nature and nurture
Nature and nurture can be combined to explain neural plasticity through their interaction. Neuroplasticity is the changing of brain structures through life experiences. For example, Maguire found the hippocampus of taxi drivers was larger than non-taxi drivers, due to the interaction of learning the street names leading to changes in anatomy of the brain
Free will vs. determinism
Determinism:
Determinism suggests free will is an illusion and our behaviour is controlled by internal (e.g biological) or external factors (e.g role of parents)
Behaviour always has a cause which is one of the basic principles of science, meaning deterministic psychologists predict behaviour using experiments to observe cause-effect relationships through manipulation of independent variables and control of extraneous variables
Hard determinism suggest we have zero control over our behaviour, this includes:
Biological -- behaviour is innate, such as Gottesman finding 48% concordance rate for szn
Environmental -- external causes like experience and learning through conditioning, such as Watson and Rayner’s Little Albert experiment
Physic -- behaviour is the result of innate drives and unconscious conflicts of id, ego and superego, such as Freud’s theory of the psychosexual stages and Little Hans case study
Soft determinism -- behaviour is constrained by environment but there is an element of free will as our behaviour is predictable but we can choose our behaviour, such as Bandura’s mediational processes
Aspects of soft determinism in biological approach includes drug treatments for disorder management and neural plasticity which can be achieved through rehab and speech therapy that regenerates brain (which causes behaviour)
Aspects of soft determinism in behaviourism includes systematic desensitisation and idea of positive reinforcement only making behaviours more likely instead of guaranteeing them
The case study of Phineas Gage could be hard determinism, as his behaviour was changed via biology, but due to neural plasticity there is a chance for soft determinism being at play
Free will:
Free will suggests behaviour is self-determined and that people have complete choice on how they behave, despite outside forces contributing to behaviour
The only complete free will approach is humanists, who use client-centred therapy and with Rogers and Maslow believing people have control over their behaviour and achievement of personal growth
Evaluations
The deterministic viewpoint is consistent with the features of science, as it allows for psychologists to adopt an objective approach by using the manipulation of variables to find cause-effect relationships that predict future behaviour. However, this approach is criticised for discounting the important of extraneous variables that may not have been controlled, hard determinism makes sweeping generalisations about behaviour and doesn’t consider other influences because there are so many possible variables influencing behaviour that it is arguably impossible to identify a single cause. As well as this, physic determinism is NOT scientific
Determinism is incompatible with conventional views of morality and the legal system, leading many psychologists to not favour the viewpoint. If accepting that external and internal influences control behaviour, this can be used as an excuse by offenders in court, such as the MAOA and other genes being used to mitigate liability and suggest they had no control over their behaviour. This means using determinism is undesirable due to the implication in society and legal issues
Free will is a more appropriate approach to understanding behaviour because it is viewed as intuitively correct/desirable due to our subjective experience feeling that we are in control of our behaviour. This is supported by humanism, which has had a positive effect on society through therapy and counselling methods used today. Therefore, there is value in recognising free will as a positive and useful approach to explaining human behaviour.
Free will is considered an illusion by psychologists like Skinner. Research has suggested that motor regions are activated in our brains before we consciously decide on actions ourselves, supporting biological determinism. The concept of free will is difficult to test as it is an unobservable and unquantifiable concept that cannot be falsified and psychology is a science, leading people to argue that things that aren’t measurable don’t exist. However, this is based on research that measured conscious decision-making through participants articulation as thoughts cannot be measured, which means that it’s possible that we do make decisions before our motor cortex is activated but these thoughts aren’t observable so have been discounted in research.
reductionism vs. holism
Reductionism:
Reductionism is the view that behaviour can be explained by breaking it down into the simplest parts, which aligns with the scientific assumption of parsimony (everything should be explained in the simplest terms possible)
Biological reductionism reduces behaviour to single biological components such as genetics and NTs -- explanations of psychological illnesses highlighting a biological cause are biologically reductionist, such as dopamine causing szn
Environmental/stimulus-response reductionism -- classical conditioning as a behaviourist concept assumes behaviour can be reduced to a stimulus-response due to behaviour being learnt through associations. For example, attachment is explained as an association of caregiver and pleasure
Holism:
Holism suggests behaviour is too complex to be broken down into parts and the ‘whole’ individual and their experiences should be considered when discussing their behaviour
Humanists use qualitative methods to support their holistic investigations and experiments, Maslow proposed his ‘hierarchy of needs’ which considers all contributors to human behaviour (including physiological/biological, esteem/psychological and belonging/social and cultural)
Rose proposed that there is a hierarchy of different levels of explanations of behaviours, with biological explanations being the lowest and most reductionist; psychological explanations being middle level and social and cultural explanations being the highest
Evaluations
Reductionism supports a scientific approach, as breaking down behaviour allows for experimental research to take place through manipulation and control of isolated parts/variables in a laboratory setting, allowing for the measuring of their contribution to behaviour. Experimental research has produced empirical support for theories such as the role of biology in psychological illnesses, including szn being caused by dopamine
Biological reductionism ignores the complexity of human behaviour because reducing behaviour to smallest parts may result in other variables being overlooked and leading to a incomplete understanding of behaviour. For example, it’s problematic and dangerous to isolate a single biological cause for psychological illnesses like szn, because there are a variety of factors involved and people won’t be treated if those aren’t considered, which is expensive and amoral, and ignores the complexity of behaviour. Whereas, adopting the more holistic approach of interactionism has been more effective in explaining conditions like szn
Holism considers all levels of explanations as it aims to provide a complete understanding of human behaviour. Such as humanists advocating that human subjective experience can’t be investigated through reductionism and can only be fully understood by considering the whole person, their free will and motivations. However, this is difficult to evidence as aspects considered like free will are untestable and theories can’t be objectively evidenced, especially considering that humanists who are psychologists taking the holistic approach are expressly anti-science. As well, reductionism allows for the testing of concepts but also supports the need to study the whole person, through breaking down behaviours.
Idiographic vs. nomothetic
Reductionism supports a scientific approach, as breaking down behaviour allows for experimental research to take place through manipulation and control of isolated parts/variables in a laboratory setting, allowing for the measuring of their contribution to behaviour. Experimental research has produced empirical support for theories such as the role of biology in psychological illnesses, including szn being caused by dopamine
Biological reductionism ignores the complexity of human behaviour because reducing behaviour to smallest parts may result in other variables being overlooked and leading to a incomplete understanding of behaviour. For example, it’s problematic and dangerous to isolate a single biological cause for psychological illnesses like szn, because there are a variety of factors involved and people won’t be treated if those aren’t considered, which is expensive and amoral, and ignores the complexity of behaviour. Whereas, adopting the more holistic approach of interactionism has been more effective in explaining conditions like szn
Holism considers all levels of explanations as it aims to provide a complete understanding of human behaviour. Such as humanists advocating that human subjective experience can’t be investigated through reductionism and can only be fully understood by considering the whole person, their free will and motivations. However, this is difficult to evidence as aspects considered like free will are untestable and theories can’t be objectively evidenced, especially considering that humanists who are psychologists taking the holistic approach are expressly anti-science. As well, reductionism allows for the testing of concepts but also supports the need to study the whole person, through breaking down behaviours.
Evaluations
The nomothetic approach is considered scientific as it adopts quantitative experimental methods, whereas the qualitative methods used by idiographic approach is criticized for unscientific nature, subjectivity and inability to create general laws or predict behaviours. This limits the usefulness of idiographic approach, particularly in application with treatments of psychological disorders. However, supports of the approach argue that psychologists can only predict behaviour through understanding each individual first, and that in-depth analysis increases validity of its findings
Nomothetic approaches are useful for adopting the laws of science through controlling and predicting behaviour, leading to useful applications. The biological approach’s explanation of disorders has lead to drug therapies that have been beneficial to treating patients. However, some psychologists argue that alternate treatments like CBT and other therapies are more suitable due to having a more individual and person-centred approach that reflects idiographic principles
Idiographic and nomothetic methods are argued as best in combination. Idiographic methods like case studies often have results that prompt further research using nomothetic methods, due to the depth and detail inspiring new research ideas or challenging previous theories from nomothetic research. This suggest both methods have value and a mixed method is best due to their complementation of each other. For example, approaches like the cognitive approach use nomothetic approach to create general laws but idiographic methods to explore topics in more depth (e.g KF case study for memory). Eysenck’s theory of personality also explains uniqueness in individuals by drawing on general laws around personality. Therefore, the idiographic and nomothetic distinction could be argued to be a false separation.