5. holism - reductionism Flashcards
THE HOLISM-REDUCTIONISM DEBATE
Is the question of
is there a continuum?
whether holism or reductionism is the better approach to use in order to understand human behaviour.
There is no continuum between these 2 approaches.
Within the reductionist approach there is a continuum - levels of explanation.
HOLISM
Looks at a system as….
a whole - knowing about how the parts (e.g. characteristics a person has) does not help to understand the essence of that person.
holistic approach
Focuses on what and uses what methods?
the individual’s experience, which is not something that can be reduced into biological units.
Uses qualitative methods to investigate the self whereby themes are analysed rather than breaking the concept into component behaviours.
REDUCTIONISM
Seeks to? what is it based on?
analyse behaviour by breaking it down to its constituent parts.
Based on the belief that all phenomena can be explained using the simplest (lowest level) principles.
LEVELS OF EXPLANATION
There are different ways to explain behaviour - some more reductionist than others.
e.g. OCD may be understood at a:
6 levels where each level is more reductionist than the one before.
· Socio-cultural level OCD interrupts social relationships.
· Psychological level the person’s experience of anxiety.
· Physical level movements - washing hands.
· Environmental level learning experiences.
· Physiological level abnormal functioning in the frontal lobes.
· Neurochemical level underproduction of serotonin.
BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM
Includes the neurochemical and physiological levels, including evolutionary and genetic influences.
It is based on the premise
how do arguments work
that we are biological organisms, so behaviour is at some level biological.
Arguments often work backwards drugs that increase serotonin are effective in treating OCD - working backwards, low serotonin nay be a cause of OCD.
ENVIRONMENTAL (STIMULUS-RESPONSE) REDUCTIONISM
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism - proposes
give an example
all behaviour is learnt and acquired through interactions with the environment.
They explain behaviour focused on simple stimulus-response links.
e.g. the learning theory of attachment reduces the idea of love between the baby and the person feeding it to a learned association between doing the feeding (NS) and food (UCS) resulting in pleasure (CS).
AO3: limitation of holism
LACKS PRACTICAL VALUE
The holism approach lacks practical value.
Holistic accounts of human behaviour tend to become hard to use as they become more complex. This can present researchers with a practical dilemma - if we accept from a humanist perspective that there are many different factors that contribute to depression (e.g. past trauma, job, and family circumstances), then it becomes difficult to know which one is most influential. It is then difficult to know which to prioritise as the basic therapy.
This suggests that holistic accounts may lack practical value, whereas reductionist accounts may be better.
AO3: strength of reductionism
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH (needs an example)
Reductionist approaches form the basis of a scientific approach.
In order to construct well controlled research variables need to be operationalised (breaking target behaviours into constituent parts) to be studied. This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations in a way that is objective and reliable. For example, research on attachment (strange situation) operationalised component behaviours such as separation anxiety.
This scientific approach gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences.
AO3: limitation of reductionism
SOME BEHAVIOURS CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED AT A HIGHER LEVEL
Some behaviours can only be understood at a higher level.
There are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood in terms of the individual group members. For example, the effects of conformity to social roles in the prisoners and guards during the Stanford Prison experiment could not be understood by observing participants as individuals. It was the interaction between people and the behaviour of the group that was important. There isn’t a known conformity gene so social processes like conformity can only be explained at the level at which they occur.
This suggests that, for some behaviours, higher level explanations provide a more valid account.
