Issues n debates Flashcards
Gender bias
Gender bias is ignoring or exaggerating the difference bw men n women
There’s diff types of gender bias in psychological research n theories:
-
Alpha bias:
exaggerating the difference bw M n F
can be used to undervalue one of the sexes n differences can be attributed to biology (hormones)
eg
evo approach explains M n F innately diff to help adaption to roles (men dominant women nurturing which helps survival of offspring). This exaggerates differences bw men n women so alpha bias -
Beta bias:
Ignoring or minimising differences bw M n F
can happen when studies p(s) r j one gender but conclusions are applied to whole population
eg
Milgram obedience, Zimbardo n Asch on conformity have beta bias cos research done on men n conclusions assume women same. Results not generalisable to both genders which reduces pop validity.
Could’ve v bad consequences if things r assumed to apply to both but affect both differently (eg drug works on men but side effects on women) -
Androcentrism:
male centred n male behaviour seen as norm
means theories made in relation to males are applied to women which affects reliability n validity due to androcentric bias
eg
•Asch Milgram Zimabrdo only focused on M n ignored F
•Freud saw femininity as failed form of masculinity n his theories consequently suffered alpha bias -
Genocentric bias
female centred (v rare)
eg Moscovici
essay plan for gender bias:
• define gender bias n say there’s alpha n beta bias n give examples like asch milgram (beta) n how this can lead to false conclusions being made n meant studies on female behaviour was largely unacknowledged till recently
•ao3 should be saying gender bias limitation is goes against psychology’s aim of universality which aims to generalise theories to all ppl.
•then say psychology has long history of androcentrism as it was male dominated field n all studies done on males n generalise to women
eg Freud stated femininity is failed form of masculinity (n put m above f so alpha bias)
•Androcentrism such as Frueds case can lead to misleading conclusions about F behaviour eg labelled inferior as judged by men standards which may not apply to em shows that gender biased research serious consequences
•counter w suggests genocentric bias needed to counter the possible neg effects of androcentrism
eg Cornwall et al 2013 found females better at learning cos more attentive n organised which emphasises women have value n pos attributes. Suggests further research such as this needs to be done on women to reduce neg affects to gender bias
•counter this w seen in attachment studies that researchers need to be v careful on conclusions they make as it can also make M seem inferior eg Bowlby said women are primary caregiver n depriving child leads to Long term social n emotional effects. This led to M being seen as insufficient in bonds w kids n suggests can’t be primary which is neg implication. Further dangerous cos reinforces gender stereotypes eg assumption women should be primary n such assumptions led to widespread belief about gender roles in families. This socially sensitive n can have neg eco implications eg if mum breadwinner n told stay at home w kid less taxes paid.
• this demonstrates issues w gender biased research n shows researchers must be v careful in their conclusions n implications as can reinforce or create gender stereotypes. Instead use stratified samples where equal number of men n women so more generalisable
Culture bias
Culture refers to values, beliefs n behaviours shared by grp of ppl n culture bias occurs when all human behaviour is interpreted from only 1 cultural viewpoint.
As psychology had emerged in the west, western psychs often feel able to generalise their findings to ppl all over world despite research done in some part of world n may not be universally applicable.
eg Asch’s study on conformity showed USA p(s) conform to social pressure ez but results differed when same study done in other countries
This goes against psychology’s aim of universality which means a theory can apply to all ppl irrespective of gender or culture.
Berry 1969 identified 2 main approaches to research that can lead to cultural bias:
- Etic involves observing n analysing a culture from an outsider’s pov
- in contrast, Emic perspective focusses on understanding a culture from w/i using the concepts n values of that culture.
cultural relativism n ethnocentrism differ from concepts of etic n emic:
- Cultural relativism is the understanding n acceptance of diff cultural practices based on ideas no culture superior to other
- on other hand, Ethnocentrism involves belief one’s culture superior n any deviation from this is abnormal (often due to lack of awareness other ways of seeing things can be valid as one’s own)
eg Ainsworth’s SS described as imposed etic n developed to assess attachment types n many assumed it it has the same meaning for infants in other cultures as it does for USA kids. Ijzendoorn proved otherwise n found G kids more insecure-avoidant but not cos G mums insensitive, but cos they promote independence so kids acted diff in SS. Ainsworth’s study can be problematic cos coulda lead to G culture being criticised n seen as unethical when this not case shows importance of acknowledging culture diffs
Way to solve this bias n achieve universality:
Derived etic which involves series of emic studies taking place w local researchers n local techniques. means can study diff cultures by use of comparisons n so we can learn more about a target culture
this goes into argument of Irl consequences:
- making assumption behaviours universal across cultures can lead support of racist/discriminatory practices irl as cultural biased research can reinforce stereotypes
eg US army used IQ test b4 WW2 that was culturally biased to white majority which led to afro-americans having lowest IQ which caused them to be tested negatively by whites - despite this, must also rmbr some behaviour can be universal eg expression of emotions like happiness is universal
shows we mustn’t overemphasise differences in culture but acknowledge they may exist before conducting research such in turn prevents stereotypes or criticisms being made to certain groups
Free will vs determinism
Free will suggests we’ve choices n control/choose own behaviour.
This approach is all about personal responsibility n plays a central role in humanist psychology eg Maslow/Rogers
Psychs who take free will view suggest that determinism removes, freedom, dignity and devalues human behaviour n free will allows us to control lives n achieve self-actualisation
pros:
- emphasises importance of individual, individual diffs, n responsibility meaning if you break law be punished
- use of self-efficacy useful in therapies as it makes em more effective. If everything determined therapy becomes redundant cos has no power to change anything
cons:
-
Subjective
impossible to scientifically test free will so is unpredictable n not open to objective measurement so not likely to be taken seriously. -
Few argue behaviour fully under control of person n in reality we’ve free will but is restricted by circumstances
eg no one chose to have schizo but can choose how u deal w it so balances needed
Free will vs determinism
- Determinism refers to behaviour that’s determined by past events n and thus predictable
Some approaches in psychology, see the source of determinism as being outside the individual (Env determinism)
eg Skinner Stated freedom is an illusion and we think we have free will, but the probability of any behaviour occurring is determined by past experiences n bcz unaware of the reinforcement that occurred
env reasons eg parents/upbringing
Others see it coming from inside. There’s 2 types:
-
Biological determinism:
Our biological systems (eg NS/Neurochemistry) govern behaviour n implies we victim of our bio
eg Schizo maybe caused by genes -
Psychic determinism:
Freud stated childhood experiences, past trauma and unconscious motivations govern behaviour n free will non-existent cos behaviour cos of unconscious n predictable
Lvls of determinism:
-
Hard determinism:
Free Will is an illusion and believes every event/actions has cause. No room for accountability of actions - ** Soft determinism**
(Middleground) people have a choice, but the choice is constrained by external factors
eg
being poor doesn’t make u steal but more likely to
cog psych example of soft determinism cos acknowledge we’ve some free will over behaviour (y CBT effective cos changed way of thinking n hence behaviour n allows for rational processing of info n accountability of actions)
Pros:
-
scientific
Can establish cause and affect relationships
Behaviour is backed up by empirical evidence upon which conclusions can be drawn
Therefore gives psychology more pros ability and allows it to be seen as a science
Cons:
-
Reductionist
No account for various factors which can affect behaviour
eg suggests criminals can’t be accountable for actions bcz determinism doesn’t allow for individual responsibility
Creating a general law of behaviour, underestimates the uniqueness of human beings, and their freedom, to choose their own destiny
Nature vs Nurture
-
Nature view that all behaviour determined by our bio (genes). Some Genetic characteristics only appear later in development as a result of the process of maturation
Evolutionary explanation of human behaviour exemplify the nature approach of psychology. Main assumption underlying this approach is that any particular behaviour involved because of its survival value.
Psychologists like Darwin Assume behaviour is a product of natural selection
Attraction can be explained as consequence of natural selection as M n F select partners who enhance their reproductive success eg traits like fitness -
Nurture
behaviour is learnt and influenced by external factors
eg env
Behaviourist Approach clearest example of nurture position in psychology
eg SLT Proposes much of what we learn is through, observation n vicarious reinforcement (Bandura kids c adult praised for violence to doll n reproduce same behaviour) supports idea of personality being influenced by nurture over nature
another eg = diathesis stress model twin studies used to express is suin genetic but not 100% concordant so nurture had effect
evaluate nature vs nurture
-
behaviour appearing to be determined by nature maybe by nurture
eg preg woman had bad diet so unborn kid suffer so each egg female has n is born will suffer n can affect whole gens after (transgenerational effect) meaning child’s health maybe influenced by grandmas env.
suggests what ppl may interpret to be inherited was caused by env/nurture - counter w even learning has genetic basis so counters behaviourist approach
Quinn et al 1979 found mutant flies missing a crucial gene can’t be conditioned
Instead of defending Extreme nature/nurture views, most psychological researchers now interested in investigating ways in which nature and nurture interact. It’s limiting to only use one of this approach, and this underestimate the complexity of human behaviour.
eg psychopathology both env n genetic triggers needed for mental disorder to appear (makes sense to say diffs in behaviour bw ppl cos of genetic predisposition or env factors) - Diathesis stress model of schizo suggest, although people may inherit a gene to schizo, Some sort of environmental stress required to develop disease as it happens in late teens or adulthood (times of stress eg leaving home/starting work) suggests both approaches should be considered n studied equally in psych research for it to be effective (Interactionist approach)
Holism vs reductionism
- Holism often referred to as Gestalt psychology (GUHSH-TALT) meaning ‘whole’ or ‘put together’ n described as ‘while being greater than the some of its parts’
- Psychologist study whole person to gain understanding of all factors that may influence behaviour.
- holism uses several lvls of explanation eg bio,env,social factors
- Holistic approaches include Humanism, social, Gestalt psychology n makes use of case study method
eg Jahoda’s 6 elements to optimal living an example of holistic approach to defining abnormalities
Pros:
-
Everything impacting behaviour considered
Doesn’t ignore complexity of behaviour by integrating components of behaviour to understand person as whole. High eco validity
Cons:
-
Overcomplicates behaviour that may have simple explanation
not open to empirical or scientific testing so hard to est cause n effect
neglects importance of bio factors n almost impossible to study all factors affecting behaviour
Holism vs reductionism
- Reductionism belief behaviour can b explained by breaking it down to smaller components
- Reductionist see the best way to understand the way we behave as we do is to look closely at simplest parts that make up our systems n use simplest explanations to understand these
- In psych, reductionism often used to describe bio explanations (genes, neurotransmitters,hormones) of human behaviour eg schizo, gender, aggression. Such reductionist explanations legitimately criticised for ignoring psychological, social n env factors
- Cog psych computer analogy reduces behaviour to machine lvl
- behaviourist psych reduce behaviour to simple stimulus-response rs
- psychodynamic reduces behaviour to unconscious n childhood experiences
Pros:
-
Scientific
Scientific study requires iso of variables to make possible to identify causes of behaviour
eg research into genetic basis of mental disorders allowed findings of specific genes believed to be responsible for schizo
reductionist approach enables scientific causes of behaviour to be identified n advances possiblity of scientific study. led to development of treatment for mental disorders so beneficial
cons:
-
Oversimplistic
Humans and their environment so complex the reductionist explanation falls short of giving whole explanation of behaviour so lacks eco validity as doesn’t address plausible issues affecting behaviour eg poverty n its effects on ppl - reductionism can still be useful if we acknowledge limitations since it’s v hard to take fully holistic approach to psych as human behaviour so complex. Case studies r closest thing to holistic approach.
But, explaining behaviour in reductionist way seen as low lvl explanation n holism seen as high lvl explanation
idiographic vs nomothetic
- Nomothetic approach looks at how our behaviour are similar to eachother as human beings
- it comes from Greek word ‘nomos’ meaning law
- Psychologists who adopt this approach, are mainly concerned with studying what we share with others
- They try to establish laws or generalisations, and use quantitative methods to get numeric data that’s easy to organise/categorise/analyse
eg Psychometric approach to study personalities compares individuals in terms of traits common to everyone eg Eysenck’s personality type in forensics
it assumes there’s small number traits that account for basic structure of all personalities n that individual differences can be measured along these dimensions
Pros:
-
scientific
More scientific than idiographic approach, as it takes evidence based objective approach to formulate causal laws Enabling us to make predictions about how people behave in certain situations
eg Zimbardo prison study how G behave
Findings meant to me generalisable far as possible so follows psychology aim of universality
Cons:
-
Not applicable to everyone
Nomothetic approach accused of losing sight of ‘whole person’ n extent to which laws generalisable limited as everyone diff
idiographic vs nomothetic
- Idiographic approach looks at individual differences and how our behaviours differ from each other
- it comes from word ‘idios’ meaning own/private
- Psychologists interested in this aspect of experience want to discover what makes each of us unique
- Tend to use qualitative methods as we want in depth, subjective experiences unique to individual studied (eg case studies)
eg humanist psychs use case study method n look at individuals subjective experiences before providing therapy
pros:
-
Focus on individual
idio approach uses case study method which can be v powerful in predicting the persons behaviour as it gets to know the person as a whole. From this single study, many theories n studies can be conducted which can revolutionise psychological findings
cons:
-
time consuming/costly
takes hella time n p to study individuals in depth meanwhile nomo j uses one methods eg q’aire n data can be collected hella quick.
from this We can see the difference between a nomothetic approach, and idiographic approach is not just a question of what the psychologist wants to discover, but also the methods used.
Nomo= Experiments,correlation psychometric testing n other quantitative methods
Idio= Case studies, interviews on structured, observation, and other qualitative methods
All approaches (except humanist) is nomo cos try est laws n generalise
As always, Best to take a combined approach. Millon n David 1996 Suggest research w a nomothetic approach I want general laws, have been established research can then move to a more idiographic approach. Thus getting best of both worlds.
eg WMM we tried est general laws of memory for STM n then used case studies like KF to get a better idea of memory in certain conditions
Modern psychology should aim for this type of approach, giving a fuller picture
Ethical implications of research
- There’s been assumptions over the years by many psychs that provided they follow BPS guidelines (eg protection from harm, confidentiality, consent etc) there is no ethical concerns w research
- Sieber n Stanley 1988 used the term Socially sensitive research (SSR) to describe studies that’ve potential social consequences for p(s) or grps of ppl represented by the research. They outlined 4 grps that maybe affected by SSR:
-
members of social grps being studied (eg racial/ethnic grp-
early research on IQ used to discriminate USA blacks) - friends/relatives taking part in studies (esp case studies where individuals become famous/infamous)
- research team (examples of researchers being intimidated bcz of line of research they’re in)
- institution which research conducted in could suffer
They also identified important areas of concern to be mindful about when conducting research:
-
Implications- consider wider effects
eg is it giving support for prejudiced views? -
Uses/public policy- could it be used for wrong purposes?
eg Bowlby’s study used to give mums auto custody over kid -
validity of research- being clear on how objective research acc is
eg Burt’s 11+ research found to be made up but 11+ still exists so damage done
-
Cost n benefit analysis
If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is unethical. It is difficult to assess cost and benefits, accurately and participants really benefit from the research. Benefits are likely to be assessed subjectively and the real impact may not always be clear until it’s too late -
S&B Advise researchers shouldn’t avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge and need to take more care when the issue is sensitive.
eg Awareness of how findings may be interpreted and used
They should make explicit assumptions/limitations underlying the research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these
eg study carried out on White american middle class students
They should be aware of the balance between their obligation to participants and society
They should be aware of their own values and biases, and those of participants  - Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised
SSR is the most scrutinised research in psychology and is more rejected than any other forms of research.
However, by gaining a better understanding of issues (eg gender/sexuality), we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice
SSR has benefits to society
eg showed EWT flawed
SSR has helped to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures/outlooks
However, research has been used to discriminate against groups in society eg Mothers pressured to stay home instead of work to prevent damage of child’s IWM
Guidelines used by psychologist to control SSR lacks power, and as a result is unable to prevent indefensible research being carried out, perhaps more stringent regulation is required
