psychology as a science controversy Flashcards
introduction
Since the late 19th century, there has been ongoing debate about whether psychology qualifies as a science. Psychology is often referred to as the “science of behaviour,” yet the term “science” has specific criteria, including controlled observations, objectivity, falsifiability, and replicability according to Eysenck and Keane (1990). The changing nature of science, with advancements in methodology and shifts in dominant paradigms, has made it difficult to establish the scientific status of psychology. Some argue that adopting the scientific method has strengthened psychology, while others believe that human behaviour is too complex for strict scientific inquiry.
para 1
Behaviourism is arguably the most scientific psychological approach, as it emphasises observable behaviour, controlled experimentation, and replicability. Shown by Watson and Rayner (1920), behaviourism rejected introspection in favour of objective measurement, aligning with the principles of science. Their “Little Albert” experiment demonstrated classical conditioning in humans by conditioning an infant to fear a white rat through repeated pairings with a loud noise. This provided empirical evidence that behaviour could be learned through environmental associations. Similarly, Pavlov’s (1927) research on dogs illustrated classical conditioning, showing that a neutral stimulus (a bell) could elicit a conditioned response (salivation) when paired with food. Skinner (1948) further developed behaviourism through operant conditioning, demonstrating with rats that behaviour is shaped by reinforcement and punishment. In a controlled setting, rats learned to press a lever for food, illustrating how behaviour is influenced by consequences. These studies meet key scientific criteria: they are empirical, falsifiable, and replicable. The standardisation of behaviourist methods has also led to significant real world applications, such as systematic desensitisation for treating phobias and token economies in behaviour management. However, the behaviourist approach has been criticised for environmental determinism and reductionism, oversimplifying human behaviour by ignoring cognitive and emotional factors. Additionally, the changing nature of science, particularly advancements in neuroimaging, has challenged the behaviourist view of the mind as a “blank slate,” suggesting that internal mental processes canbe scientifically studied. While behaviourism aligns closely with the scientific method, its strict focus on observable behaviour limits its explanatory power, highlighting the complexities of defining psychology as a science.
para 2
The psychodynamic approach, founded by Freud, is often criticised for lacking scientific validity, which makes it difficult to establish psychology’s scientific status. Freud’s theories, such as the unconscious mind, defence mechanisms, and the psychosexual stages of development, are based on qualitative data gathered from case studies like “Little Hans,” rather than controlled experiments. In this case, Freud interpreted a young boy’s phobia of horses as a manifestation of unconscious conflicts related to the Oedipus complex. However, this subjective interpretation is not easily replicable or empirically tested, making it difficult to falsify, which goes against the principles of the scientific method. This idiographic approach, relying on a single individual, limits the generalisability of the findings, therefores challenging the notion of psychology as a science. Kuhn (1962) argued that a defining feature of science is a unified theoretical framework, yet psychodynamic theory remains open to subjective interpretation, which complicates the establishment of a clear scientific paradigm in psychology. Despite this, Freud’s work significantly influenced psychology, shaping practices like psychoanalysis, and modern neuroscience has provided some empirical support for psychodynamic ideas, such as unconscious processing (Solms, 2000). Nevertheless, the psychodynamic approach largely fails to meet the scientific criteria, demonstrating how the changing nature of science makes it challenging to classify psychology as a science.
para 3
The cognitive approach in psychology is often regarded as scientific due to its reliance on controlled laboratory experiments and empirical data. Cognitive psychologists, such as Loftus and Palmer (1974), have demonstrated the reliability and repeatability of their findings through studies on eyewitness memory. In their study Loftus and Palmer found that participants who were asked how fast cars were going when they “smashed” into each other were more likely to report seeing broken glass, compared to those asked using less suggestive language like “hit.” This finding highlights the impact of cognitive biases and memory reconstruction, demonstrating how controlled experiments can yield objective, measurable data. Their study not only supports the cognitive approach’s focus on mental processes but also meets key scientific criteria such as replicability and objectivity. Furthermore, research such as Raine et al. (1998), which used PET scans to investigate brain activity in violent offenders, also exemplifies the cognitive approach’s empirical basis, providing clear, objective data to support theories of cognitive processes in relation to criminal behaviour. However, while these methods are empirical, the cognitive approach still faces challenges. It reduces the complexity of human cognition and internal mental processes down to “computer” models. As a result, despite the cognitive approach’s scientific methods, the changing nature of science makes it difficult for psychology to fully align with traditional scientific standards, especially when it comes to addressing the complexities of human behaviour.
para 4
The biological approach is often regarded as the most scientific in psychology due to its reliance on objective, measurable factors such as genetics, neurotransmitters, and brain function. Classic studies like Raine et al. (1997), which used PET scans to examine brain activity in murderers, provide empirical, replicable data that meets scientific standards and aligns closely with methodologies in fields like medicine and neuroscience. This empirical foundation strengthens the biological approach’s scientific credibility, particularly in its application to real world scenarios, such as the development of medications for mental disorders, which have brought significant social and economic benefits. For example, according to the McCrone Report (2008), psychoactive drugs save around £22.5 billion each year in England alone. However, the approach has been criticised for its reductionist viewpoint, as it often reduces complex human behaviours to simple biological explanations, neglecting the influence of nurture. Additionally, the biological approach is often seen as deterministic, suggesting that behaviours are primarily determined by genetic and neurobiological factors, which undermines the role of free will and personal choice in human behaviour. While the biological approach does support psychology’s claim to be a science, the ongoing advancements in neuroscience, often leading to shifts in paradigms as new findings emerge, illustrate the changing nature of science. As a result, the rapidly changing nature of scientific discovery means that even biological explanations are subject to revision, which complicates psychology’s efforts to maintain a consistent and universally accepted scientific framework.
para 5
Positive psychology has further complicated psychology’s classification as a science. Unlike traditional psychological approaches, positive psychology emphasises wellbeing and happiness. Myers and Diener (1995) conducted a meta analysis, literature review on happiness, which, while informative, lacks the controlled experimentation typically required in scientific research. Positive psychology also incorporates qualitative data and self report measures, which are subject to response bias such as social desirability bias and lack falsifiability. However, the approach has made efforts to adopt scientific methods, such as randomised controlled trials (RCT) in interventions like mindfulness based therapies. RCTs are considered one of the most rigorous methods for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, as they involve random assignment and control groups, helping to eliminate bias and increase the reliability of the findings. However, this debate influences broader discussions within psychology about whether all aspects of the field should adhere to traditional scientific methods, or whether alternative methodologies, shown within positive psychology, should be embraced. The evolving nature of science, with an increasing acceptance of mixed methods research, suggests that psychology’s scientific status may depend less on adherence to traditional scientific principles and more on its ability to adopt flexible and diverse methodologies that suit the complex nature of human behaviour.
conclusion
The changing nature of science has made it difficult to establish the scientific status of psychology. While approaches like behaviourism and the biological approach align with scientific principles, others such as the psychodynamic and positive approaches, challenge the extent to which psychology meets the criteria of a science. The biggest benefit of psychology striving for scientific status is the ability to develop evidence based treatments and improve societal understanding of behaviour. However, the biggest drawback is that strict scientific methods may overlook the complexity and subjectivity of human experience. Moving forward, psychology must balance scientific methodology with the need to capture the richness of human behaviour, reflecting the ongoing evolution of psychology as a science.
