2.4: Holism and reductionism

Question 1

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.

Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks)

Answer 1

A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole

Question 2

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism

Answer 2

Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach)

Question 3

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism

Answer 3

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts

Question 4

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism

Answer 4

Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect)

Question 5

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus,

Answer 5

Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences

Question 6

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This

Answer 6

This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology

Question 7

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
Example

Answer 7

For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level

Question 8

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism

Answer 8

Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience

Question 9

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.

Answer 9

The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory

Question 10

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.

Answer 10

The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour

Question 11

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 11

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument

Question 12

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
Example

Answer 12

For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’

Question 13

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.

Answer 13

There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration

Question 14

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.

Answer 14

Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument

Question 15

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this,

Answer 15

As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members

Question 16

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
Example

Answer 16

For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person

Question 17

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
What does this show?

Answer 17

This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches

Question 18

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 18

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex

Question 19

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
Example

Answer 19

For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts

Question 20

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations

Answer 20

Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example

Question 21

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
What does this suggest?

Answer 21

This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate

Question 22

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 22

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research

Question 23

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.

Answer 23

In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts

Question 24

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
What does this do?

Answer 24

This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable

Question 25

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this,

Answer 25

As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory

Question 26

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
What does this do?

Answer 26

This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy

Question 27

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
What does this show?

Answer 27

This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations

Question 28

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 28

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity

Question 29

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
Example

Answer 29

For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual

Question 30

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore,

Answer 30

Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation

Question 31

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However,

Answer 31

However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs

Question 32

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
O

Answer 32

Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress

Question 33

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition,

Answer 33

In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment

Question 34

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
What did he say?

Answer 34

He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual

Question 35

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus,

Answer 35

Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone

Question 36

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone.
What does this show?

Answer 36

This shows that reductionist explanations are not very beneficial to society and holsitic explanations are better

Question 37

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone.
This shows that reductionist explanations are not very beneficial to society and holsitic explanations are better.

Fifth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 37

The fifth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an alternative to both holism and reductionism is interactionism, which considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact

Question 38

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone.
This shows that reductionist explanations are not very beneficial to society and holsitic explanations are better.

The fifth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an alternative to both holism and reductionism is interactionism, which considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact.
An example of this

Answer 38

An example of this is the diathesis-stress model which has been used to explain the onset of mental disorders such as depression and schizophrenia

Question 39

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone.
This shows that reductionist explanations are not very beneficial to society and holsitic explanations are better.

The fifth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an alternative to both holism and reductionism is interactionism, which considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact.
An example of this is the diathesis-stress model which has been used to explain the onset of mental disorders such as depression and schizophrenia.
What does the model suggest?

Answer 39

This model suggests that the individual has a biological (genetic) predisposition, which is then ‘triggered’ by an environmental factor (stressor) to cause the illness

Question 40

Discuss the holism-reductionism debate.
Refer to one topic you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
A group of German researchers working in the 1920s and 1930s, known collectively as Gestalt psychologists, famously declared that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’
The view is the basis of holism in psychology - the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate, as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole.
Holism is an argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system, rather than its constituent parts (which is the reductionist approach).

Reductionism is the belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.
Biological reductionism is a form of reductionism that attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, ect).
Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences.
This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology.
For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders such as OCD, depression and schizophrenia at a biochemical level.
Environmental reductionism is the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism.
Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and, in doing so, break down complex learning into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory.
The mind is regarded as a ‘black box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour.
The process of thought itself was seen by the early behaviourist John Watson as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the holism argument.
For example, Wolfgang Kohler (1925) set hungry chimpanzees a puzzle.
A banana and stick were placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage with the stick positioned within reach, but the banana was out of reach.
Typically, the chimpanzee first tried to grasp the banana and failed.
There was then a pause in activity and shortly afterwards, the chimpanzee, using a seemingly planned and coordinated sequence of actions, grabbed the stick and use it to rake in the banana.
It was as if, in leaving the scene momentarily, the chimpanzee had a ‘eureka’ moment in which the solution to the problem had become clear ‘in a flash’.
There are examples of this in the human world when the solution to a puzzle, problem or issue suddenly appears to us in a flash of inspiration.
Such insight learning can only occur when all the elements of a problem and the inter-relationship between them are understood as meaningful whole, so the holism argument is valid and better than the reductionism argument.
As well as this, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members.
For example, to understand conformity to social roles and deindividuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, it was necessary to consider the behaviour of the groups.
By considering meaningful behaviour within its real-life context, holism has more validity than reductionist theories, as it suggests that experience is subjective and can only be understood by considering the whole person.
This shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, holistic explanations in psychology tend not to involve rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.
For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level (holistic) explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use as a basis for therapy, for example.
This suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real worl problems, lower level (reductionist) explanations are more appropriate.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.
In order to create operationalised variables, it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts.
This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.
As well as this, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the laboratory.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
This shows that reductionist explanations are more scientific and therefore better for the status of psychology than holistic explanations.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to a loss of validity.
For example, the biological approach’s dopamine hypothesis explains the causes of schizophrenia in terms of a chemical imbalance, which R.D. Laing (1965) sees as limiting, because it ignores the social context of the disorder and the distress experienced by the individual.
Therefore, reductionist theories are only ever one part of an explanation.
However, by focusing on the scientific explanation of the cause, it allows us to treat the chemical imbalance with antipsychotic drugs.
Occam’s Razor also argues that the simplest explanation is often the best, because it is falsifiable, unlike subjective accounts of individual distress.
In addition, Laing argued that the generalisation of reductionist explanations of schizophrenia has led to the increased use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of treatment.
He said that this is not appropriate, as treatments will only be successful if they are tailored to the individual.
Thus, it is difficult to investigate the many differing types and levels of behaviour, as an individual can be treated, but not everyone.
This shows that reductionist explanations are not very beneficial to society and holsitic explanations are better.

The fifth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an alternative to both holism and reductionism is interactionism, which considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact.
An example of this is the diathesis-stress model which has been used to explain the onset of mental disorders such as depression and schizophrenia.
This model suggests that the individual has a biological (genetic) predisposition, which is then ‘triggered’ by an environmental factor (stressor) to cause the illness.
What has this led to?

Answer 40

This has led to an interactive and a more multidisciplinary approach to treatment that has combined drug therapy and CBT, for example, which has proven to be more effective than drug therapy alone and is associated with lower relapse rates (Tarrier et al, 2004)