4.2.1 Approaches In Psychology Flashcards
origins of psychology - Wilhelm Wundt
- often called the ‘father of experimental psychology’
- he founded the first psychology lab in 1879
- he pioneered the technique of introspection, which involves examining one’s own thoughts, emotions and mental processes
introspection
- wundt et al. used introspection to try and uncover what people were thinking and experiencing
- this involved asking ppts to describe their thoughts / experience when presented with a set of stimuli, and often their reaction time was recorded
- Wundt attempted to break these thoughts down into structures (reductionism)
- it allowed him to analyse the quality of sensations people experienced
introspection - strengths
- although quite basic compared to modern psychological standards, he used scientific methods in his work - he gave ppts the same procedure and instructions, and tried to minimise the impact of extraneous variables by controlling the environment
- this helped move psychology away from philosophy, e.g. the work of Descartes and Locke, and move towards the scientific method, which influenced the beginnings of cognitive, biological and behavioural approaches
introspection - limitations
- relies on people describing their thoughts and feelings which isn’t objective and can’t be measured
- this means he was unable to replicate his findings, so his work can be seen as unscientific and unreliable
- people’s accounts of their own experiences can’t be confirmed, so it’s unreliable
- doesn’t explain how the mind works
the emergence of psychology as a science
- early behaviourists such as John B. Watson criticised introspection for its subjectivity and variations between people
- he suggested psychology should focus on studying observable behaviour
- so other behaviourists, e.g. Skinner, used scientific, highly controlled techniques such as lab techniques
- this was the dominant paradigm in the mid 20th century
- the cognitive approach became popular in the 1960s, and emphasised studying thought processes which can be indirectly tested in experiments
- the biological approach emerged in the 1980s, which can be studied through methods such as brain-scanning techniques
learning approaches
- they measure and explain human behaviour as a result of environment and experience
- behaviourism and social learning theory are both learning approaches
the behaviourist approach (behaviourism)
explains behaviour as a result of learning from experience, eg. via classical and operant conditioning
behaviourism - basic assumptions
- we’re born with our mind as ‘tabula rasa’ (a blank state) and everything we do is learned from experience
- the study of the mind should focus on external behaviour, as it can be objectively measured and observed, rather than internal thought processes
- the same processes that govern human behaviour also govern the behaviour of animals, e.g. rats, dogs, etc. so experiments on animal behaviour can yield valid conclusions about human behaviour too
classical conditioning
- explains behaviour as being learnt through association
- occurs when an association is made between a neutral stimulus and reflex response
- demonstrated by ivan pavlov
ivan pavlov (1927) - classical conditioning
- he demonstrated how dogs could be conditioned to salivate (unconditioned response) to the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) if that bell was repeatedly used when they were given food (unconditioned stimulus)
- the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell (conditioned stimulus) with food and so would produce saliva each time they heard it (conditioned response)
operant conditioning
- explains how behaviours are learnt from and reinforced in response to consequences
- 4 types of consequences for behaviour;
- positive reinforcement; getting a pleasant stimulus (reward) to increase / maintain behaviour
- negative reinforcement; removing a negative stimulus to increase / maintain behaviour
- positive punishment; adding a negative stimulus to decrease behaviour
- negative punishment; removing a positive stimulus to decrease behaviour
- demonstrated by B.F. skinner
skinner (1953) - operant conditioning
- suggested learning is an active process where humans and animals operate in their environment
- demonstrated how animals learn from the consequences of their actions by placing rats in boxes (a ‘Skinner’ box) one at a time until they learnt an action;
- in one variation, pressing the response lever released food, so rats quickly learnt this consequence and repeated the behaviour to get more food (positive reinforcement)
- in another variation, the rats learnt to avoid an electric shock by pressing the lever, so they quickly learnt to go straight to the response lever when put in a box (negative reinforcement)
behaviourism - strengths
- focuses on whats observable, measurable and repeatable which gives it scientific credibility
- has many practical applications, as it’s been used in several psychological contexts to produce desired results, e.g. the behaviourist treatment of phobias, including systematic desensitisation and flooding
- research support from pavlov and skinner
behaviourism - limitations
- an overly simplistic (reductionist) explanation as it ignores the role of genetics or cognition in behaviour
- can’t explain behaviours which can’t be observed, e.g. memory as it happens internally
- also can’t explain behaviours where a reward is ignored or a punishment is sought, e.g. people who engage in self-harm
- humans are very different to animals, both physically and cognitively, so the conclusions drawn from pavlov and skinner’s research may not transfer to human psychology
- several ethical concerns, e.g. causing distress to animals by using them in experiments
- in humans, certain applications of behaviourism, e.g. making gambling machines, can be seen as ethically wrong
social learning theory
explains behaviour as a result of learning from experience, but by observation of others’ behaviour
social learning theory - basic assumptions
- suggests learning happens via mediational processes (ARRM)
- people imitate the behaviours modelled by the role models they identify with, e.g. those who have similar characteristics as them
- behaviour may be vicariously reinforced as seeing others receive a reward is enough to motivate the desire to imitate the behaviour to also receive the reward
- isn’t entirely behaviourist as it allows for the inclusion of cognitive factors in explaining behaviour, i.e. mediational processes
mediational processes
- 4 cognitive mental factors (processes) which determine whether a new response is acquired and learning takes place;
- attention; to what extent the behaviour is observed
- retention; how well the observed behaviour is remembered
- reproduction; how able the observer is to imitate the behaviour
- motivation; the will to imitate the behaviour, i.e. depends if it was rewarded or punished
albert bandura (1961) - bobo doll study
- he believed learning was conditioned through observation and imitation of others
- bobo doll study aims;
- to see if same-sex models had a higher influence on behaviour
- to examine the effect of the continual influence of the model on behaviour, i.e. if imitation continued even when the role model was no longer present
- procedure;
- 72 ppts - 36 boys and 36 girls aged 3-6
- put into groups and put in a room with an inflatable doll (Bobo) and observed an adult role model interact with it for 10 mins
- 3 groups were; aggressive (role model hits the doll with a hammer and shouts at it), non-aggressive (role model doesn’t hit or shout at it), or a control group (no role model)
- half the ppts had a same-sex role model and the other half had an opposite-sex role model * after 10 mins of observing the role model, ppts were taken to a room with toys, including a bobo doll, but were told they couldn’t play with them (to increase aggression arousal)
- after 2 mins, they were left to play with the toys for 20 minutes
- results;
- children who observed an aggressive role model were more likely to be aggressive
- boys were more physically aggressive and girls displayed more verbal aggression
- children were more likely to imitate the behaviour of the same-sex model
- conclusion;
- observing a role model showing aggressive behaviour may motivate a child to imitate that behaviour in a different setting, especially when they observe a role model of the same sex
bandura’s bobo doll study - variations
- bandura et al. (1963) demonstrated vicarious reinforcement in a variation of his original experiment
- the model was either praised or punished for acting aggressively towards the doll
- children who saw the model praised for their aggression were more likely to imitate the behaviour
social learning theory - strengths
- offers a more complete account than behaviourism, as it allows for cognitive factors in explaining behaviour
- bandura’s study was a well-controlled observational study with a clear independent variable, so this procedure can be repeated to test for reliability
- explains cultural differences, because if children learn behaviours by imitating those around them, it can explain the different behaviours between cultures - this is unlike the biological approach which may have difficulty explaining these variations as the biology is essentially the same but behaviours are different across cultures
social learning theory - limitations
- the bobo doll experiments also support a biological approach, as bandura et al. found that boys show more aggression than girls, suggesting biological factors, e.g. testosterone levels, also play an important role in explaining behaviour
- bobo doll experiments were conducted in an unfamiliar (lab) setting, so children may have been behaving in the way they thought they were expected to by copying the role model - because it was just a doll it’s unclear whether the children would model aggressive behaviour in a real-life scenario
- bandura’s study only shows short-term effects of observed aggression, making it hard to see long-term effects
- ethical issues in bandura’s study; young children being exposed to an aggressive adult is problematic
the cognitive approach
- explains behaviour as a result of cognitive processes such as thoughts, beliefs and perceptions
the cognitive approach - basic assumptions
- inner mental processes can and should be studied in a scientific way
- although a person’s inner mental processes can’t be observed, they can be inferred from their external behaviour
- mental processes can be modelled like a computer program; inputs (e.g. sense data) get processed in the mind (like a computer program) to produce outputs (i.e. behaviour)
- to help explain them, the mental processes can be broken down into theoretical models, i.e. diagrams and flow charts, e.g. the MSM in memory explains how info flows through various components for processing
- whereas behaviourism only focuses on the inputs and outputs, the cognitive approach acknowledges the mental process in-between
schemas
- mental shortcuts (frameworks) which help to organise info and understand the world
- a key part of the cognitive approach
- they’re formed from experience - we form them and use them to interpret the past, categorise info in the present, and predict the future
- people have different schemas as they have different experiences
- this also means that culture has an impact on schemas, as different cultures have different experiences
- schemas can also develop over time, i.e. they can become more detailed
- however, once a schema is formed, it’s hard to change it as people tend to be biased towards info that fits the pre-existing schema and often ignore contradictory info
examples of schemas
- self-schema; about appearance / personality, e.g. ‘i’m tall’
- stereotypes / generalisations; e.g. ‘snakes are dangerous’
- social roles; e.g. ‘police catch criminals’
- motor schema; e.g. how to walk