1. Debates Flashcards
3 key debates
Free will v Determinism
Reductionism v Holism
Idiographic v Nomothetic
free will debate
the view that we have the ability to consciously control and make our own choices regarding our thoughts and behaviour
free will: strengths
- compatible with the legal system
- can feel empowered to change
- people who feel like they have free will are less likely to conform, avoids self-fulfilling prophecy
- gives individual autonomy
free will: limitations
- can be seen as victim-blaming (eg mental illness)
- unscientific: causal explanations cant be established
determinism debate
the view that we do not have any conscious control over our behaviour and that our thoughts and actions are controlled by internal and/or external factors acting upon us
types of determinism
(1) soft determinism
the middle ground between free will and determinism which believes we are influenced by internal and external factors to some degree but we do ultimately have some control over our actions
(2) hard determinism
the view that everything we think/do is controlled by factors beyond our control
- biological determinism
our thoughts/bahavious are controlled by internal factors such as genes, neurotransmitters in the brain and hormones which we can’t control - environmental determinism
our thoughts/bahavious are controlled by experiences in our environment such as family, school, friends, culture, media, etc - psychic determinism
our thoughts/bahavious are controlled by the unconscious mind
determinism: strengths
- scientific approach as you can create operationalised variables and establish cause and effect relationships
- removed blame from patients suffering with mental illness
- practical applications: development of therapy
determinism: limitations
- incompatible with the legal system
- may lead to self-fulfilling prophecy for mental illness
- can lead to a negative spiral if you have no control over behaviour
- removes individual autonomy
reductionism debate
involves reducing human behaviours down to the activity of specific variables interacting with each other
breaking down complex behaviour into more single components
types of reductionism
(1) biological reductionism
explaining behaviour at the lowest level in terms on the brain matter or structure, neurochemistry, hormones, and genes
(2) environmental reductionism
explaining behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links or associations that have been learned through experience
(3) machine reductionism
likening human behaviour and the brain to the working of a machine or computer
reductionism: strengths
- scientific approach as you can create operationalised variables and establish cause and effect relationships
- makes it easier to investigate by breaking down complex behaviour/processes into smaller parts
- practical applications: focus on a specific problem and treat it
reductionism limitations
- cannot provide a complete understanding of all behaviours
- ignores the complex explanations
- may be seen as dehumanising and not inclusive
holism debate
perceiving complex behaviour as a whole including all it’s parts interacting as one
holism: strengths
- can explain some behaviours that reductionism cannot (eg social influence, interactionist models)
- inclusive
- practical applications eg client centred counselling
holism: limitations
- unscientific: cant create operationalised variables and cant establish cause and effect
- vague explanations
- cant generalise theories
idiographic debate
focuses on individuals.
each individual is considered as a unique case, each with their own subjective experiences, values and motivations
there may be no attempt made to compare these to a larger group, stand or norm
idiographic: research methods
produce qualitative data such as case studies, unstructured interviews, self report, maybe observations
idiographic: research examples
- Clive Wearing memory case study
- KF memory case study
- HM memory case study
- Genie attachment case study
- Czech twins attachment case study
idiographic debate: strengths
- in depth understanding/analysis of human behaviour (qualitative data)
- you can treat people for their specific condition based on insightful information
- can research cases where nomothetic approach would be inappropriate eg rare individuals
idiographic debate: limitations
cant generalise to wider population - due to the small samples collected eg little hans so cant create general theories of behaviour
you cant predict behaviour so you cant prevent it
unscientific and may be biased towards researchers aim - decreases validity and reliability
nomothetic debate
aims to formulate general (universal) laws or human behaviour
these then provide a standard (benchmark) against which peoples behaviour can be measured
nomothetic: research methods
meta analysis, questionnaire, experiments
‘scientific’ methods that produce quantitative data
studying large samples of people, producing measures of central tendency and dispersion: allows norms to be established and behaviour to be compared
nomothetic: research examples
- Milgram (obedience experiment)
- Loftus & Palmer (memory/EWT experiment)
- Ainsworth (attachment observation)
nomothetic debate: strengths
can generalise to wider population - due to the large samples collected eg Ainsworth so can create general theories of behaviour
practical applications: you can predict behaviour so you can prevent it eg Milgram
scientific and unbiased increases validity and reliability, establish cause and effect
nomothetic debate: limitations
- not as in depth understanding/analysis of human behaviour (quantitative data)
- doesn’t take into account subjective experiences
- cant research cases where idiographic can eg rare individuals
