issues and debates Flashcards
why is bias in research bad
-view of people distorted and of limited value
-reinforces stereotypes and discrimination
-undermines psychology’s claims to universality (concept/theory applies to everyone)
gender bias def
prejudice for or against male/female
- seen in Asch and Bowlby attachment theory
alpha bias and implications for the real world
exaggerating difference between M and W
reinforces stereotypes
implications for real world - sexual promiscuity eg
beta bias
minimising/ignoring difference between M and W
- using all male/female Ps and generalising results to everyone
CONCLUSIONS MAY LACK VALIDITY
- fight or flight response - hormone differences, study suggests females evolved to inhibit response
androcentrism
viewing the world from male POV
using male views to explain all human experience
- leads to female behaviour being misunderstood (PMS being medical but male aggression being rational)
= opposite is gynocentrism
researcher bias
gender imbalance in research institutes - males tend to be appointed more and given promotions
they research stereotypes rather than real differences or similarities
don’t research issues important to women (pregnancy, female harassment)
publication bias = editors may filter out studies which exaggerate gender differences in published works
gender bias eval
+ legal wise, beta bias helps us see men and women as similar so leads to equal treatment
- alpha bias has led to criticism of certain male traits that used to be desirable and adaptive eg aggression
- alpha bias sustains prejudice and stereotypes
- socially sensitive research but should we shy away from it ?
implications of gender bias
- validates stereotypes - maternity/paternity leave
- may justify denying women of opportunities because of PMS
- damaging real world consequences, diagnoses of autism being affected by “extreme male brain” theory
cultural bias in psychology
criticised for ignoring effect of culture on behaviour
mainstream psychology based in western cultures therefore ‘norm’ is seen through one culture
differences often seen as abnormal or inferior
ethnocentrism
belief in superiority of ones own culture - views, behaviour, other cultures
eg strange situation => ideal attachment shows child slight distress when separated, German mothers were seen as cold and rejecting as they didn’t fit ideal
cultural relativism
norms and values can only be understood within specific social and cultural contexts
etic -> looking at behaviour from outside of a culture (imposed etic is wrongly imposing your views on another culture)
emic -> looking at behaviour within a culture, try to describe specific behaviours
cultural bias eval
+ real life application with diagnosing disorders
- validates discrimination with IQ tests being used universally
- individualist and collectivist old fashioned terms, due to media globalisation
nature nurture debate: what is nature (heritability coefficient and nativist)
characteristics are the result of hereditary, inherited genes
- heritability coefficient => to what extent a characteristic has a genetic basis
- nativist => genes define characteristic
nature nurture debate: what is nurture (empiricist)
characteristics as a result of our environment
- mothers state during pregnancy
- cultural, historical, social conditions we grew up in
- empiricist => born a blank slate, the learning and experience moulds us
interactionist approach (N/N)
nature and nurture are linked and it doesn’t make sense to separate the two
- considers how they interact and influence each other eg the temperament hypothesis (a child’s innate personality will affect the parents response)
PKU (phenylketonuria) N/N debate
genetic condition where you can’t break down a specific protein
can lead to brain damage if the protein is eaten
if defected from a young age a special low protein diet means development is normal
=> can’t distinguish between nature and nurture, cannot say one alone is responsible for the brain damage
diathesis stress model for N/N
psychopathologies caused by genetic vulnerability AND an environmental trigger
epigenetics (N/N)
change in genetic activity without changing genetic code
caused by interaction with environment
affects our children’s genes (need to consider life experiences of past generations)
nature nurture eval
- MZ/DZ twin study, concordance rates, difficult to say if it’s nature or nurture
- nurture has environmental determinism => could lead to controlling and manipulating citizens
- nature has biological determinism => eugenics (want to create the best race) could lead to sterilisation of people like serial killers
- difficult to distinguish between the 2 as environment affects us before we’re born (epigenetics)
=> ww2 pregnant women starved, babies more likely to develop schizophrenia
reductionism def
the idea behaviour can be studied by breaking down its parts, using basic principles
holism def
understand behaviour by considering the person as a whole “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” <— Gestalt psychologists
insight learning (holism)
behaviour learned through insight rather than trial and error
= the ‘aha’ experience where we suddenly see the solution to a problem
- happens when all parts of the problem are seen in relation to each other and forms a meaningful whole
insight learning study Kohler 1925
banana placed outside a chimp cage, they had a stick
when chimp realised it couldn’t reach the banana, after a short while it reached for the stick and used it to pull in banana
- evidence of aha experience
levels of explanation for reductionism
sociocultural => influence of where and how we live
psychological => influence of thoughts
physical => influence of physical movements
physiological => influence of neurochemistry genes and brain structure
biological reductionism
explaining behaviour at physiological level
= all behaviour explained by neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influence
- psychoactive drugs help to treat a number of mental disorders
environmental reductionism
physical level - doesn’t consider cognitive processes in psychological level
looking only at stimulus-response , usually in a lab setting
machine reductionism
viewing human mind as similar to a computer
- ignores influence of emotions
explains behaviour in terms of input, processing, output
reductionism holism eval
- some behaviour only occurs in certain contexts (Stanford Prison Experiment) - could not be understood by just viewing Ps individually
- holism can often not be tester scientifically, struggle to know which cause is most influential for behaviour and so we struggle to treat it
+ reductionism more scientific - operationalising variables and conducting experiments help us see what causes behaviour and develop treatments
+ interactionist approach may be best, looks at how different levels interact, diathesis stress model has led to better treatment (combining drugs and family therapy)
idiographic side of the debate
focuses on individuals and emphasises their uniqueness
methods that produce qualitative data eg studying individual and not generalising, unstructured interview
eg psychodynamic approach little hans
eg humanistic approach - client centred therapy focusing on experiences of the individual
nomothetic side of the debate
wants to form general laws of behaviour based on studying groups, produces statistical, quantitative data
3 general laws => classifying people into groups, establishing behaviour principles, establishing dimensions along which people can be placed, compared, measured
scientific method eg lab experiment and controlled observation (reliable)
eg behaviourist => stimulus response links, cause and effect relationship
eg cognitive => objective methods of brain activity (EEG and PET scans) inferences drawn about mental processes
eg biological => brain scans for localisation of brain function eg semantic vs episodic memory
socially sensitive research def
more controversial, may have implications for the people represented by the research
eg race or sexuality
can attract attention from the media and be misrepresented
