Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ISSUES AND DEBATES PSYCHOLOGY (Ethical implications (socially sensitive…
ISSUES AND DEBATES PSYCHOLOGY
Nomothetic vs. idiographic
Nomothetic
objective
quantitative
universal laws of behaviour
FREUD: universal behaviours
psychosexual stages
id, ego, super ego
brain scans, localisation
hypotheses
statistical significance
reductionist / determinist
Evaluation
strengths
standardised procedure
scientific
Controls, IV, DV
empirical
credible
norms of 'typical' behaviours
locate abnormal
e.g mental illness
weaknesses
'losing the whole person'
memory
scores rather than people
subjective experiences ignored
human experience
Idiographic
subjective
unique
qualitative
FREUD: case studies
Little Hans
humanist psychology
Rogers and Maslow
Hierarchy of needs
"anti-scientific"
Evaluation
strengths
indepth accounts of human
single cases = hypotheses
HM
important insights
Phineas Gage
weaknesses
Generalisations
Little Hans
less scientific
BIAS (researcher or otherwise)
Evaluation
determinism vs. free will
Determinism
set outcomes
regardless of individual
mental illness = set outcomes
approaches
biological
ANS
hormones
genes
no conscious control
physiological function
Envionmental
BF Skinner
Free will = illusion
Behaviour as a result of conditioning
environmental events
agents of socialisation
Hard
compatible with the aims of science
predictable
fatalistic
CAUSE
Soft
cognitive approach
room for conscious thought
mental processes
not all observable
weaknesses
unfalsifiable
causes of behaviour not always there
clashes with legal system
not own choices
cant help being criminal?
implications on sentance
'get out of jail free' card
Free will
own choices
self determining
unique
HUMANISTIC APPROACH
high internal locus of control
face validity
Weaknesses
studies show
processes happen in the brain before we are aware
brain determines
No one chooses to have mental illness
fatalistic adolescents
at more risk of depression
Nature vs. Nurture
Nature
impact of biology
hormones // physiology
genes
inheritability coefficiency
e.g intelligence = 0.5 genetic
Rene descartes
characteristics = inheritable
Nurture
SLT
Bandura
environmental influences
John Locke
'blank slate'
classical /operant conditioning
Pavlov / Skinner
Behaviourists
Lerner 1986
levels of environment
e.g historical context
e.g post-natal experiences
Evaluation
shared, unshared
siblings/twins = shared environment
treated differently
different experiences
similar genetics
weakness of twin/family studies
Epigenetics
environment leaves a mark
'highlights' code
lasting effects
inheritable
Constructivism
character influences environment
interplay with one another
environment influences biological
Relative implications of heredity / environment
N vs. N = impossible
influences from birth
interactionist
innate temperament
affects response
Belsky and Ronnie
nature creates nurture
diathesis stress model
genes + environment
Gender / Culture bias
Gender
alpha bias
huge differences
devaluing one gender over another
sociobiological theory
Wilson (1975)
male genetic traits = sexual promiscuity
against female nature ?
beta bias
no differences
androcentric
female behaviours turn abnormal
or inferior
assumes there was an equality
Evaluation
institutional sexism
more male research
denies women oppertunities
for being different
Culture
'universality' and bias
only generalised to group studied
Psychology mainly westernised
Wundt 1830s
assumes can be generalised worldwide
E.g Asch study of conformity
e.g Milgram's study of compliance to authority
abnormal = inferior
Ethnocentrism
superiority over another group
Ainsworth - a strange situation
types of attachment varied
groups other than american = inferior
interms of rearing children
American IQ tests
ethnocentric to america
other groups under performed
superior race
Evaluation
collectivist vs individualist
blurred distinctions
cultural bias less of an issue
not all psychology specific cultures
universal traits
interactional synchrony (Ainsworth)
less developed scientific basis
demand characteristics in LEDCs
Cultural relitivism
ainsworth = imposed etic
mindful of cultural unique traits
not generalisable
Holism vs. reductionism
Holism
Gesalt psychologists
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
Levels of explanations
different ways of viewing.
Evaluation
strengths
can explain social behaviours
conformity, deindividualisation
Stanford prison x.
Global understanding/scale
weaknesses
vague , speculative
Humanist - lack of empirical evidence
credibility??
influential factors??
Reductionism
humanistic reductionism
prisimony
Biological reductionism
physiological structures and processes
behaviour is biological to some level
explanation of OCD, depression...
environmental reductionsim
Behaviourist approach
observable behaviours
LAB
Physical NOT cognitive
mind as a black box
irrelevant for behaviour
Skinner (?)
Evaluation
strengths
operationalised variables
reliable
replicable
credible
simplified
weaknesses
oversimplification of complex phenomena
loss of validity
no social contexts
only individual
behaviours derive meaning
Interactionist approach
different levels of explanation
E.g diathesis stress model
Genetic inheritance for abnormalities
with environmental triggers
Ethical implications
socially sensitive
impacts the range of investigation
e.g one race = higher IQ
homosexuality
Taboo topics
Ethical guidelines
protect dignity and rights
control over selection and treatment
of participants
representations of media
change perception of group
Ethical issues
implications
discrimination of group
validity
Fraudulent activities
Cyril Burt
research into IQ
lead to 11+
issues with SFP
uses / policy
wrongly used?
Evaluation
strengths
studies of underrepresented groups
reducing discrimination
encouraging it to become acceptable
valueble to society
eyewitness testimony = unreliable
Scarr (1988)
weakness
Questions are phrased
influences findings/ interpretation
E.g Kitzinger and Coyle
'alternative relationships'
heterosexual bias
