Approaches evaluation Flashcards
Introspection evaluation (Wundt)
limitation- his research is not scientific and criticised by behaviourists as the pts ‘private; experiences are not observable and difficult to measure as well as subjective
limitation- lack of reliability and consistency as other psychologists failed to get similar results and it would have been impossible for Wundt’s participants to have exactly the same thoughts during every introspection
strength- Wundt’s methods have been extremely influential to cognitive psychologists as introspection attempts to measure what is happening in the mind using scientific methods
Emergence of psychology as a science evaluation
strength- psychology can claim to be scientific as it has the same aims as the natural sciences (to describe, understand and control behaviour). Using scientific methods such as lab studies, psychologists investigate theories in a controlled and unbiased way
limitation- not all approaches use objective measures e.g. the humanistic approach rejects science and focuses on individual experiences by studying humans, who often respond to demand characteristics
Behaviourist approach evaluation
Deterministic- the behaviourist approach sees all behaviour as being controlled by past experiences and conditioning and states that free will is an illusion, so people are not responsible for their behaviour (if someone behaves in an immoral way the approach is used as an alibi)
Reductionist- reduces the explanation of complex behaviour down to the role of the environment and to the principles of operant and classical conditioning, which ignores other contributions such as the role of cognitive processes or neurochemistry
Application- token economy systems in prisons and psychiatric wards as well as the development of systematic desensitisation which has a high success rate of treating phobic patients
Social learning theory evaluation
Deterministic- SLT is seen as less deterministic than the behaviourist approach as it states that people have cognitive mental processes that allow them to choose whether to imitate a behaviour or not
Evidence- supporting research from Bandura’s study who found that children behaved more aggressively with a doll when they observed an adult behaving aggressively compared to children who had not, which adds validity and credibility to SLT
Application- increases our understanding of why we behave in a pro-social or anti-social way so parents can use the information to ensure their children are not exposed to negative role models in the media
Biological approach evaluation
Deterministic- the approach sees behaviour as being controlled by biological causes so we have no free will e.g. Retz concluded that the 5-HTTLPR gene which controls serotonin uptake is associated with violent behaviour- this has implications for the legal system and it suggested that offenders are not morally responsible for their actions as they are controlled by their genes
Evidence- the genetic explanation is supported by twin studies e.g. concordance rates of depression (mz twins- 49% dz twins-17% and ordinary siblings- 9%)
Method- precise and highly scientific methods e.g. Raine used PET scans to compare brain activity in murderers vs. normal people and found differences in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala which are associated with aggressive behaviour
Cognitive approach evaluation
Reductionist- the approach reduces all behaviour down to faulty thinking and distorted schemas which seems to blame people for e.g. having depression and ignores other causes such as environmental factors and the role of neurotransmitters
Application- led to cognitive treatments like CBT which is a successful treatment for depression
Methods- scientific lab experiments to investigate brain function e.g. Bulgeski and Alampay who showed two groups of pts a sequence of pictures either faces or animals and found that when they were shown an ambiguous picture the group who were shown faces would see a man and the group who were shown animals would see a rat
Psychodynamic approach evaluation
Reductionist- the approach is not reductionist and is considered interactionist as it states that behaviour is caused by the interaction of nature and nurture e.g. passing through fixed developmental stages (nature) and the environment we experience as we pass through them (nurture) so the approach recognises the complexity and variation in people’s personalities
Evidence- the evidence comes from unscientific case studies and clinical interviews e.g. Little Hans (oedipus complex that led to a horse phobia)
Application- development of psychodynamic therapies such as psychoanalysis which helps patients overcome neurotic symptoms as it links physical symptoms and the psychological state of mind
Humanistic approach evaluation
Deterministic- the approach is not deterministic as it believes in free will and the inclusion of personal experience as context to behaviour, this is a strength as it offers a more optimistic and refreshing alternative
Evidence- Van Houtte and Jarvis put a sample of 130 students into 2 groups of pet-owner and non-pet owner- results showed that self-esteem was higher in pet owners and this is a strength because the humanistic approach emphasises the importance of self-esteem
Methods- the approach has been based on questionnaire and q-sort data this is a weakness as self-report methods are subject to demand characteristics and social desirability bias
