1. Debates

Question 1

3 key debates

Answer 1

Free will v Determinism

Reductionism v Holism

Idiographic v Nomothetic

Question 2

free will debate

Answer 2

the view that we have the ability to consciously control and make our own choices regarding our thoughts and behaviour

Question 3

free will: strengths

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

free will: limitations

Answer 4

• can be seen as victim-blaming (eg mental illness)
• unscientific: causal explanations cant be established

Question 5

determinism debate

Answer 5

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

Question 6

types of determinism

Answer 6

(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

Question 7

determinism: strengths

Answer 7

• scientific: allows causal explanations to be established
• removed blame from patients suffering with mental illness
• practical applications: development of therapy

Question 8

determinism: limitations

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

reductionism debate

Answer 9

involves reducing human behaviours down to the activity of specific variables interacting with each other

breaking down complex behaviour into more single components

Question 10

types of reductionism

Answer 10

(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

Question 11

reductionism: strengths

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

reductionism limitations

Answer 12

• cannot provide a complete understanding of all behaviours
• ignores the complex explanations
• may be seen as dehumanising and not inclusive

Question 13

holism debate

Answer 13

perceiving complex behaviour as a whole including all it’s parts interacting as one

Question 14

holism: strengths

Answer 14

• can explain some behaviours that reductionism cannot (eg social influence)
• inclusive
• practical applications eg client centred counselling

Question 15

holism: limitations

Answer 15

• unscientific: cant create operationalised variables and cant establish cause and effect
• vague explanations
• cant generalise theories

Question 16

idiographic debate

Answer 16

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

Question 17

idiographic: research methods

Answer 17

produce qualitative data such as case studies, unstructured interviews, self report, maybe observations

Question 18

idiographic: research examples

Answer 18

• Clive Wearing memory case study
• KF memory case study
• HM memory case study
• Genie attachment case study
• Czech twins attachment case study

Question 19

idiographic debate: strengths

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

idiographic debate: limitations

Answer 20

cant generalise to wider population - due to the small samples collected eg little hans

you cant predict behaviour so you cant prevent it

unscientific and may be biased towards researchers aim - decreases validity and reliability

Question 21

nomothetic debate

Answer 21

aims to formulate general (universal) laws or human behaviour

these then provide a standard (benchmark) against which peoples behaviour can be measured

Question 22

nomothetic: research methods

Answer 22

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

Question 23

nomothetic: research examples

Answer 23

• Milgram (obedience experiment)
• Loftus & Palmer (memory/EWT experiment)
• Ainsworth (attachment observation)

Question 24

nomothetic debate: strengths

Answer 24

can generalise to wider population - due to the large samples collected eg Ainsworth

you can predict behaviour so you can prevent it eg Milgram

scientific and unbiased increases validity and reliability, establish cause and effect

Question 25

nomothetic debate: limitations

Answer 25

• 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