Reductionism in Psychology (Studies)

Question 1

Sherif

Answer 1

+ Reducing conditions for prejudice to competition for resources allowed for empirical testing of RCT of prejudice, thus allowing the theory to be falsified (AO1: reduction of conditions for prejudice to competition for resources)
+ Reducing prejudice in procedure to competition by two groups manipulated by the experimenter made Sherif’s investigation scientific - isolation of prejudice into variables manipulated by researchers allows for research to be focussed around the effect of prejudice on competition (procedure - prejudice reduced to stages manipulated by the experimenters)
- Reducing prejudice solution down to S.O. goals leads to an overly simplistic and incomplete explanation - ignores other factors that may impact prejudice solutions (e.g. interactionism - environmental, social, cultural factors) (reduction of solution to S.O. goals in integration phase)
- The fact that Sherif’s reduced study found that prejudice does result from competition overlooks complexities in competition - Sherif only considers situational factors affecting prejudice while overlooking biological factors, e.g. effect of testosterone

Question 2

Baddeley

Answer 2

+ Reducing memory down to semantic and acoustic encoding makes Baddeley’s experiment testable and falsifiable, as acoustic and semantic memory can easily be researched scientifically through word lists - could have been proven that such encoding did not affect memory
- Reducing memory to recollection of word lists limits application of Baddeley’s research as human memory is not truly comprised of only acoustic and semantic encoding and memory does not always involve simply information processing tasks
+ Baddeley’s collection of qualitative data to give a superficial understanding of memory is scientific, as simplifying memory to qualitative data allowed Baddeley to identify the causes of this differences in memory as differences in encoding
- Baddeley concluded that STM and LTM largely encode information differently - may be an incomplete explanation as simplifying memory to LTM and STM neglects other factors, including biological, which may have an influence on memory - a HOLISTIC approach may have been more appropriate

Question 3

Raine

Answer 3

+ Operationalising DV as results of PET scans is a very scientific and objective way of determining the effect of brain function on aggression, improving validity
+ Highly controlled nature of study (making it objective by only testing biological variables) makes the study falsifiable, as brain scans can demonstrate areas of the brain to show no difference in NGRIs
- Raine’s findings are biologically reductionist as they are reduced to the physical level of the brain - limited application as Raine considers affect of only limited parts of the brain (e.g. amygdala)
- Raine’s conclusions support previous findings about the role of certain activity in violent behaviours, suggesting that the difference in amygdala activity supports theories on violence - reduces violence to amygdala function, leading to an incomplete explanation of aggression - would benefit from holistic interpretation of interactionism which would reflect social aspects such as evolution - incomplete explanation

Question 4

Watson and Rayner

Answer 4

• Operationalisation of fear as Little Albert’s emotional reactions to stimuli - lacks validity, leading to an incomplete explanation, as fear is more than an emotional response (crying, crawling away, etc.), and also includes fear processing, which is cognitive
  + W+R’s use of a laboratory experiment to isolate the stimulus and response pairings, a reductionist method to assess learning, is scientific in allowing for the identification of cause and effect between conditioned stimulus and phobic response
  + Allows for an easy-to-understand explanation of how phobias are acquired through pairing a stimulus with the response of fear
• Classical conditioning reduction to stimulus and response - overlooks complexities in biological influences