Holism vs Reductionism

Question 1

Outline holism.

Answer 1

A group of German Psychologists working in 1920s and 1930s known collectively as Gestalt psychologists.

‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.

Considers many aspects of a phenomenon to give a complete picture.

Any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate as these can only be understood by analysing the person as a whole.

Question 2

Outline reductionism.

Answer 2

Involves breaking down a complex phenomenon into more simple components.

It is based on the scientific principle of parsimony.

Question 3

What is parsimony?

Answer 3

The idea that all phenomena should be explained using the most basic (lowest level) principles.

This is often the simplest, easiest, and most economical level of explanation.

Question 4

State 2 advantages to the reductionist approach.

Answer 4

Easier to study, as complexities are broken down.

Allows for in-depth study, as more of a focus can be placed on an area.

Question 5

State 2 advantages to the holism approach.

Answer 5

It allows researchers to assess multiple factors that might contribute to a psychological problem.

Researchers can instead look at all of the elements that may play a role.

Question 6

State 2 disadvantages to the reductionist approach.

Answer 6

Looks at one element of a whole, so cannot necessarily be applied fully.

Ignores interactions

Question 7

State 2 disadvantages to the holism approach.

Answer 7

Variables are difficult to control and isolate.

Does not lend itself easily to scientific method testing because there can be many extraneous variables; cause and effect relationships can be difficult to find.

Question 8

Where does the cognitive approach sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 8

Far reductionism.

Focus is on thought processes.
E.g. input, process, output.

Question 9

Where does the biological approach sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 9

Far reductionism.

Genes/ NTs/ neurochemistry.

Question 10

Where does humanism sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 10

Far holism.

Looks at individuals as a whole. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs considers the range of factors to contribute to a whole.

Question 11

Where does neo-behaviourism sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 11

Strong reductionism.

Suggests behaviour can be simply broken down, e.g. ARRM. But does also consider that individuals choose to observe vicarious reinforcement.

Question 12

Where does behaviourism sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 12

Strong reductionism.

It attempts to reduce all aspects of human behaviour down to just one level of explanation. For example, it reduces complex behaviours down to learning through our environment through association and rewards and punishment.

Question 13

Where does the psychodynamic approach sit within the holism-reductionism debate? Why?

Answer 13

Weak holism.

Considers personality (id, ego, superego), psychosexual stages - large emphasis on childhood. Also looks at primitive biological drives, e.g. defence mechanisms.

Question 14

What are levels of explanation?

Answer 14

The notion of ‘levels of explanation’ suggests that there are different ways of viewing the same phenomena in psychology.

Some are more reductionist, e.g. focusing on basic components of behaviour, whilst others take a more multivariable (holistic) stance.

Refers directly to reductionism-holism

Question 15

What are the 3 ways in which Human behaviour can be explained in psychology, and each one’s different focus?

Answer 15

Cultural and social: social factors, norms, situational variables.

Psychological: emotional and cognitive factors.

Biological: physical, physiological, neurochemical.

Question 16

What is biological reductionism? Give an example.

Answer 16

Explaining behaviour using biological systems.

This could be genetics, physiology of the body and brain, or systems, (biochemistry).

It is called biological reductionism because in terms of the levels of explanation, it is as reductionist as psychology goes.

For example: A father attacking his daughter’s killer due to increased adrenaline. When taken in isolation, this could be argued to be biologically reductionist, because they do not take into account the higher levels of explanation such as learned associations and the influence of other people.

Question 17

Outline advantages of biological reductionism.

Answer 17

A more precise and simple explanation, a great deal more scientific than the ones at the higher and more general levels of explanation.

An explanation that is biologically reductionist can also be tested more easily and more effectively.

A desirable consequence is also that it can be used to generate an appropriate treatment, if the condition requires one.

Question 18

Outline limitations of biological reductionism.

Answer 18

Too simplistic, the biological explanations may be viewed as incomplete.

Question 19

What is environmental reductionism? Give an example.

Answer 19

Simplifies a behaviour to a stimulus-response action.

This level of explanation is advocated by behaviourist theorists, classical conditioning being one such example.

For example, a phobia of snakes can be explained as being learned through an experience such as a bite from a snake, where fear and pain are associated with the snake. When the individual then sees a snake after that experience they will avoid it as they experience a strong fearful reaction.

Question 20

Outline advantages of environmental reductionism.

Answer 20

Can explain broader, more social behaviours, very well.

The simplicity of explanations based on stimulus-response reactions means that it is easier to test the explanation.

Has the advantage of parsimony, meaning that by being simple it is argued to be more effective than a complex explanation for the same behaviour.

Question 21

Outline limitations of environmental reductionism.

Answer 21

There may be some behaviours that this explanation would be too broad to explain, e.g. why someone might kill, the explanation for this may incorporate many different levels, with a learned association being only one of them.

Simplicity of the explanations is seen as a flaw and the explanations are inadequate for describing the complexities of human behaviour.