Biological Approach Flashcards
A problem with the biological approach is its reliance on twin studies to investigate the genetic basis of behaviour.
E – Twin studies assume that MZ twins share 100% of their genes, while DZ twins share 50%, but both experience equally similar environments (e.g., same home, parents, and culture).
E – But critics argue that MZ twins’ genetic similarity may lead to a more similar environment, as their identical appearance likely results in similar treatment. This introduces a confounding variable in twin studies, making it unclear whether higher concordance rates stem from genetics, environment, or both. As a result, the internal validity of twin studies in assessing genetic influences on behaviour is undermined. However, despite this objection, twin studies remain a valid method for studying genetics. Rare cases of DZ twins who look identical (“pseudo MZ twins”) do not show higher concordance rates than typical DZ twins, suggesting that appearance has little impact. This weakens the claim that MZ twins’ identical looks confound results, supporting the validity of twin studies in genetic research.
A criticism of the biological approach’s explanation of human behaviour in terms of evolution relates to the reliance on ‘just so’ stories.
E – A ‘just-so’ story is a speculative explanation of doubtful or unprovable validity that is put forward to account for the origin of something (such as a biological trait) when no verifiable explanation is known.
E – Some critics have argued that explaining human behaviours as having evolved through natural selection is arguably a ‘just-so’ story. Arguably there is no way of testing the claims, as the evolution occurred thousands of years ago and – without a time machine - there is no obvious way of testing speculative explanations. This would mean evolutionary explanations of behaviour are not falsifiable, and therefore are not scientific. However, evolutionary psychologists have rejected this by pointing out the many ways in which evolutionary explanations can be empirically tested and potentially falsified. For example, cross-cultural research can test predictions from evolutionary psychology, as if a behaviour is truly evolved, it should be found universally across different cultures, suggesting a genetic basis rather than cultural learning.
L – Therefore, the scientific credibility of explanations of human behaviour in terms of evolution is debatable.
The biological approach’s clear strength is its scientific credibility
E – A good illustration of this is the use of twin studies to investigate the genetic basis of behaviour.
E – Twin studies fulfil all key features of science. For example:
Twin studies involve observing and quantitatively measuring the behaviour of twins, making the research empirical (due to the observation of behaviour) and objective (concordance rates are measured and quantified, thereby reducing the level of interpretation as it’s relatively clear cut which twin pair is more similar).
Twin studies can be used to falsify theories. For example, if a researcher theorised that a particular behaviour (e.g., patriotism) had a genetic basis, they could test this by hypothesising that MZ twins would be more similar in their level of patriotism compared to DZ twins. If twin study results showed the opposite, this would falsify the theory.
L – Therefore, biological research, like twin studies, demonstrates that the biological approach has scientific credibility as it utilises the key features of science in its research.
A criticism of the biological approach is that it engages in biological determinism
E – The charge is that researchers within the approach explain human behaviour as being, ultimately, controlled (i.e., determined) by our genes.
E – One argument for why this problematic comes from the behaviourists, who offer a competing deterministic account of behaviour in which the mind is a blank slate. This implies the error of the biological approach is to ignore the fundamental role that the environment plays in determining human behaviour. However, the claim that the biological approach sidelines the importance of the environment is unfair. For example, characteristics of an organism’s phenotype, including behaviour, are viewed as resulting from the combined influence of genes and the environment. Although the biological approach challenges behaviourism’s environmental determinism, this doesn’t mean it ignores the environment as an important cause of human behaviour. One argument for why this is problematic is presented by believers in free will. Their challenge is that this approach implies that forces outside of conscious control determine behaviour (e.g., no one consciously controls their genes). This undermines the fundamental belief, held by many in society, that people have the free will to consciously choose how to act.
A potential issue with the biologial approach is social sensitivity.
E - According to Sieber and Stanley, research is socially sensitive if it has the potential for social consequences.
E – Research into the genetic basis of behaviour is socially sensitive as if a behaviour is found to have a genetic basis, this might imply a form of genetic determinism.
Additionally, research into the evolutionary basis of behaviour may be socially senstive as evolutionary explanations of behaviour might be misinterpreted as implying the behaviour in question is ’natural’ and therefore ‘appropriate’. A good example of this is aggression in men. Althoughwithin the bilogical approach may be socially sensitive is that
