Issue And Debates Flashcards
Gender bias evaluation
- the lab experiment may also be an example of institutionalized sexism within psychology
Male researchers have the authority to deem women as “unreasonable,
irrational and unable to complete complex tasks™ (Nicolson, 1995). Eagly and Johnson noted that studies in real settings found women and men were judged as more similar ir styles of leadership than in lab settings, hence having higher ecological validity. - means psychology may be guilty of supporting a form of institutional sexism that creates bias in theory and research
— femininist psychology
Feminimist commentators such as Worrel have put forward
Contemporary psychologists have looked for ways to reduce gender bias, proposing a number of solutions. For example, some psychologists attempt to develop theories that emphasise the importance or value of women.
Cornwell et al. (2013) noted that females are better at learning, as they are more attentive and organised, thus emphasising both the value and the positive attributes of women.
As a result, this type of research helps to reduce or challenge gender stereotypes which is important in reducing gender bias.
Another way to reduce gender bias is to take a feminist approach which attempts to restore the imbalance in both psychological theories and research. For example, feminist psychology accepts that there are biological differences between males and females: Research by Eagly (1978) actually claims that female are less effective leaders than males. However, the purpose of Eagly’s claim is to help researchers develop training programmes aimed at reducing the lack of female leaders in the real-world.
Cultural bias
Consequences of cultural bías: The US army IQ test showed that European immigrants fell slightly below white Americans in terms of IQ. This data has a profound effect on attitudes held by Americans towards certain groups of people, leading to stereotyping and discrimination.
Culturally biased research can have significant real-world effects
Not all behaviours are cultural relative : Although there may be differences in rates of obedience (Milgram) and conformity (Asch) between collectivist/Eastern and individualist/Western cultures, universal behaviours still exist. For example, Ekman et al.demonstrated that facial expressions for anger, guilt and disgust were universally recognized across all cultures. In terms of attachment, interactional synchrony and reciprocity are universal features of infant-caregiver interactions.
Therefore, this suggests that to fully understand behaviour, we must look at both universal and culture-bound examples.
Free will and determinism
One argument in favour of determinism is that it has positive implications in society. For example, determinism is consistent with the aims of science because human behaviour is orderly and obeys laws, which puts psychology on equal footing with established sciences.
This has led to the development of successful treatments, therapies, and behavioural interventions that have benefited many, such as psychotherapeutic drug treatment in controlling and managing schizophrenia. Therefore, embracing determinism in psychology has resulted in the development of successful treatments that have greatly benefited individuals and society as a whole.
However, the hard determinist stance is argued to have negative implications in society, especially in the legal system.
For example, there have been attempts in criminal cases for murderers to purposely claim that their behaviour was determined by aggressive tendencies or due to a history of violence in their families.
This means that the deterministic explanation allows crimes to be committed, and people to not be punished for anything because they can claim that they didn’t have a choice. Therefore, a person adopting a deterministic stance would lead to even greater problems and undermine personal responsibility.
One argument in favour of the free will concept is that it has positive implications for therapy.
For instance, Benassi et al. discovered that individuals with an internal locus of control, who believe in their own influence over their lives, were less likely to experience symptoms of depression. This suggests that by treating individuals as if they have free will and empowering them to take control of their lives, therapy can promote an internal locus of control and enhance overall well-being. Therefore, embracing the concept of free will can empower individuals and contribute to their overall well-being, leading to successful therapy.
However, studies in neuroscience have shown that free will may not play a role in decision making. For instance, Libet et al. discovered that the motor regions of the brain become active before a person consciously registers their decision such as the decision to move the finger was actually a predetermined action of the brain. This suggests that many actions are predetermined by the brain, challenging the belief in free will. Therefore, a perspective of
“soft determinism” that acknowledges some degree of free will is likely the most fitting
Nature vs nurture
There’s research that support nature debate
Bowlby proposed that attachment was adaptive as it meant an infant was more likely to be protected due to displaying social releasers (innate,
‘cute’ behaviours which activates the adult mammalian attachment system) and features of infant-caregiver interactions (such as interactional synchrony and reciprocity). As such, the infant would be more likely to survive and reproduce as an adult.
However, in reality, the debate is not that simple. One limitation of the ‘nature’ stance is that it underestimates the impact that nurture can have on nature. For example, Maguire showed that London taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampus than a control group, due to their increased use of spatial navigation. This supports the role of plasticity in brain functioning, which suggests that experience (nurture) creates physical changes in the brain (nature).
Therefore, genetic, neural and evolutionary explanations are incomplete if we disregard the role of nurture. Consequently, this limits the accuracy of the nature approach because it cannot fully explain behaviour on its own.
Nurture
Social learning theory - Bandura proposed that behaviour is acquired indirectly through operant and classical conditioning but also by directly through vicarious reinforcement. He acknowledged that biology had a role to play e.g. the urge to act aggressively could be biological but the way a person learns to express anger is through environmental influences (such as through observing and imitating the methods of expression of anger displayed by the identified role models).
+ Constructivism. - Plomin suggested that an individual’s ‘nature’ would determine their
‘nurture’ through niche-picking or niche-building.
For example, a naturally aggressive child would be more likely to play with and befriend other aggressive children. This in turn would increase the aggressiveness of the child. Therefore, the idea of constructivism further emphasises the multi-layered relationship between nature and nurture.
Conclusion - talk about the interactionist approach and include diathesis stress model
- most psychologist now believe that we should consider both nature and nurture
Holism and reductionism
The case for holism…
Often, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members. For instance, the effects of conformity to social roles and the de-individuation of the prisoners and guards in the Stanford prison experiment could not be understood by studying the participants as individuals, it was the interaction between people and the behaviour of the group that was important.
and the case against
Holistic explanations in psychology tend not to lend themselves to rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative. For example, humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence, and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts.
Higher level explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to say, depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use, for example, as a basis for therapy
Suggest that when it comes down in finding solution for real world problems = low level explanation may be more appropriate
- reductionist approach have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena leading to loss of validity.
fact that no one drug that is 100% effective in treating 100% of patients, displays the idea that there must be other factors involved. March found that when CBT and Drug therapy were combined, there was a greater improvement in symptom reduction compared to drug therapy alone, which increases the credibility that there are other factors involved and that the root cause of mental health issues is multifaceted. This suggests that taking a holistic approach to behaviour may be more applicable as it can look at the person as a whole and acknowledges the interaction of many different factors. On the other hand, without the biological perspective identifying possible root causes by utilising reductionism, and the lowest levels of explanation, those who have been positively impacted by drug treatment would not have benefitted in the same way.
The case for reductionism…
A reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research. In order to create operationalised variables it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts. This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable. Also, as we have seen, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the lab.
This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
