Issues and Debates

Issues and Debates

Covering: Gender Bias Culture Bias Free Will and Determinism Nature-Nurture Debate Holism and Reductionism Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches Ethical Implications of Research Studies and Theory Final Summaries

Gender Bias

Universality and Bias As psychologists are influenced by the social and historical context of their time, they will naturally have their own values which could lead to bias. Bias may be an inevitable part of the research process. Lessening objectivity. It undermines psychology's claim of universality (conclusions drawn from research can be applied to anyone across time and cultures. There are two main themes of bias : gender bias and culture bias.   Gender Bias ALPHA BIAS: exaggerates or overestimates the differences between the sexes. Therefore, these differences are seen to be inevitable, they are often used to devalue women in comparison to men. E.g; The sociobiological theory of relationship formation (Wilson) explains human sexual attraction rough the principle of "survival efficiency". Meaning it is in the male's interest to impregnate as many women as possible to ensure the chance of his genes being passed on. For women, on the other hand, to ensure the preservation of her genes, she must look after her children. This theory suggests that promiscuity is natural in males, but females who show the same behaviour are 'going against their nature'. BETA BIAS; ignores the differences between the sexes. This is usually the case when women are not part of the initial research process but the conclusions are assumed to be generalisable. For example in Milgram's research. E.g; the fight or flight response, in more recent studies, it has been suggested that woman have evolved differently in their response to a threat 'tend and befriend' Androcentrism Androcentrism is a possible consequence of beta bias, if we only see 'normal behaviour' as a result of all-male samples in research, then women may be more likely to be considered 'abnormal' or inferior to men. This means that female behaviour may be greatly misunderstood E.g; many feminist commentators have objected to the agnostic category of PMS on the belief that it stereotypes and trivialises female experiences. It is said to be a social construction.

Evaluation

Implications of Gender Bias It may create misleading assumptions about female behaviour and consequently fuel negative stereotypes. It makes men set the standard of normalcy and so 'it becomes normal for women to feel abnormal'. This may have damaging consequences which affect the lives and prospects of real women, e.g, women are 2x more likely to be diagnosed with depression than men. Sexism Within the Research Process There is a lack of women appointed to senior research level position, so female concerns may not be reflected in the questions asked. Male researchers are more likely to have their work published. Lab equipment also plays a role and may also disadvantage woman. Female ppts are placed in an inequitable relationship with a (usually male) researcher who has the power to label them unreasonable/irrational. Institutional sexism. Reflexivity Modern researchers have begun to reflect on how their values and assumptions may influence the nature of their own work. They embrace this bias as a crucial aspect of the research process. For example. Claire Dambrin and Caroline Lambert reflected on how their own gender-related experiences influenced how they may have read events. Reflexivity may lead to greater awareness of the role of personal biases in shaping research in the future. Essentialism Many gender differences reported by psychologists are based on an essentialist perspective (that the gender difference in question is inevitable and fixed in nature). E.g the fact in the 1930s it was reported that attending university would shrivel a woman's ovaries is an extremely essentialist account which are simply politically motivated arguments that are DISGUISED as facts. Creating a double standard in how the same behaviour is view in men and women. Feminist Psychology Feminist commentators (Worrell) have put forward criteria that should be adhered to in order to avoid gender bias in research. For example, women should be studied within meaningful real-life contexts and actually participate in research rather than being objects of study. Diversity within groups of women is essential as well as comparisons between men and women. Emphasis on collaborative research.                              

Culture Bias

Universality and Bias Many argue that although psychology claim to have unearthed truths that say something about people around the world, in reality, the findings of research only apply to the groups of people that were studied. Mainstream psychology has been criticised for generally ignoring culture as an influence on human behaviour and so has assumed western studies can be applied all over the world. E.g obedience and conformity studies. If the norm is based on western or a particular culture, then other cultures may be seen as inferior or abnormal. Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism regards the belief in the superiority of one's own cultural group, this is usually shown by suggesting that any behaviours that do not conform to the (usually western) norm, are somehow abnormal. E.g;  Ainsworth's strange situation only reflected the norms and values of the american culture. It led to misinterpretation of child-rearing practices in other countries which deviate from the American norm Cultural Relativism Ainsworth's study is an example of an imposed etic. She assumed her US-based model was the norm and imposed her own cultural understanding on to the rest of the world. Berry argues that psychology is common for imposing an etic approach. Psychologists should be more mindful of the cultural relativism or their research- that what they discover may only make sense from the perspective of the culture in which they were discovered. This would avoid cultural bias in research.

Evaluation

Individualism and Collectivism When psychologists have referred to culture they have done so by distinguishing between individualist-collectivist culture. INDIVIDUALIST; associated to Western countries who value personal freedom and independence COLLECTIVIST; emphasis on interdependence and the needs of the group This can be seen as a lazy and simplistic difference that may no longer apply to cultures. Cultural Relativism versus Universality The concept of imposed etic is a useful reminder to psychologists of the culturally relative nature of their work. However it shouldn't be assumed that all psychology is culturally relative and there is no such thing as universal behaviour.. E.g facial expressions are universal.Unfamiliarity with Research Tradition When you take a western experiment and apply it to other cultures, they may not have the same historical experience of research so may not have familiarity with aims and objectives of scientific enquiry. This could increase demand characteristics. Operationalisation of Variables The variables under review may not be experienced in the same way by all participants. E.g in China the invasion of personal space is seen as normal whereas in the West it may be seen as confrontational. This may affect interactions between the researcher and participants.Challenging 'Implicit' Assumptions A great benefit of cross-cultural research is that it may challenge out typically western ways of thinking and viewing the world. Being able to se some of the knowledge and concepts we take for granted are not shared by other cultures may promote a greater sensitivity to cultural relativism. Means there is more likely to be higher levels of validity.                                      

Free Will and Determinism

Free Will Free will suggests that human beings are self-determining and choose our own thoughts and actions, it does not deny any biological or environmental forces but says we are able to reject these as we are masters of our own destiny. This is advocated by the humanistic approach. Determinism Determinism suggests that free will has no role in explaining behaviour. There are hard and soft versions. HARD DETERMINISM; aka fatalism, suggests all human behaviour has a cause and that, in theory, it should be possible to identify these causes. This is compatible with the aims of science. Everything we think and do is dictated by internal and external forces that we cannot control. May be too extreme a position. SOFT DETERMINISM; important feature of the cognitive approach. Though it says that all human behaviour has a cause, soft determinism states that there is some room for manoeuvre; people have conscious mental control over the way they behave. There are determining forces but this does not detract from the freedom we have to make choices in everyday life.  Biological, Environmental and Psychic Determinism BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM; the biological approach stans the role of biological determinism in behaviour. Many of out physiological and neurological processes are not under our conscious control. Also, many behaviours and characteristics such as mental disorders are thought to have a genetic basis. Furthermore, research has demonstrate the effect of hormones on behaviour, e/g testosterone on aggressive behaviour. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM; Skinner described free will as 'an illusion' and argues that all behaviour comes as a result of conditioning. Our experience of choice is simply the sum of reinforcement contingencies that have acted upon us over our lives. We think we are acting independently but out behaviour has been shaped by external events and agents of socialisation. PSYCHIC DETERMINISM; Freud also agreed that free will is an illusion but believes it is more the result of  the influence of biological drives and instincts. It sees human behaviour as determined by unconscious conflicts, repressed in childhood. There are no accidents. E.g a Freudian slip. The Scientific Emphasis on Causal Explanations A basic principle of science is that every event has a cause and that that cause can be explained by general laws. Knowledge of causes and the formulation of laws are important; they allow scientists to predict and control future events. therefore all extraneous variables are removed in a laboratory experiment to try and predict and control human behaviour.

Evaluation

For Determinism Determinism is consistent with the aims of science. The value of such research is that the prediction and control of human behaviour has led to the development of treatments, therapies, and interventions that have benefitted many. E.g psychotherapeutic drug treatment for managing schizophrenia. The presence of mental disorders casts doubt on free will as no one would choose to have them. Therefore they are determined. Against Determinism The hard determinist stance- that individual choice is not the cause of behaviour- causes issues in the legal system, offenders are held morally accountable for their actions, should they be? Also, determinism is unfalsifiable. It is impossible to prove wrong, it may not be as scientific as it first appears. For Free Will There is face validity; everyday experience gives the impression that we are constantly exercising free will through the choices we make. This makes cognitive sense. Also, research suggests that those with a high internal LOC, tend to be more mentally healthy as they believe they control their own life. Even if we don't have free will, the belief that we do may have a positive impact on mind and behaviour. Against Free WillNeurological studies of decision making have revealed evidence against free will. Libet and Soon have shown that the brain activity that determines the outcome of simple choices may predate our knowledge of having made such a choice. Choosing which hand to press a button with occurs in the brain up to 10s before participants report being consciously aware of making the decision. Shows that even basic experiences of free will may be determined by our own brain before we become aware of them. Compromise An interactionist position may provide us with the best compromise in the free will-determinism debate. E.g Bandura: Although environmental factors are key in learning, we are still free to choose who or what we attend to and when to perform certain behaviours.

Nature-Nurture Debate

The Debate The nature-nurture debate has a long history in psychology. NATURE; Early nativists (Descartes) said that human characteristics are innate. This is a result of heredity. The heritability coefficien is used to assess heredity, it ranges from 0 to 1.0 which indicates the extent to which a characteristic has a genetic basis. With 1 meaning completely genetic. E.g IQ is around 0.5 which shows both nature and nurture play a role. NURTURE; Locke argued that the mind is a blank slate at birth (tabula rasa)upon which learning and experience writes, this is the result of the environment. Nurture is the environment but also pre-natal (mother's physical and psychological state during pregnancy) and also post-natal experiences such as social conditions and the context they are a part of. Relative Importance of Heredity and Environment The nature-nurture question is impossible to answer as the environmental influence on a child's life begins as soon as it is born or even before. Nature and nurture are very closely linked and so it makes little sense to try and separate the two. For example. In twin studies it is hard to tell whether high concordance rates are more of a result of genetics or a shared upbringing. THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACH; in attachment, attachment patterns are seen as a 'two-way street' in which the child's innate temperment will influence the parents' response to it. Their response will in turn affect the child's behaviour. Therefore nature can create nurture. DIATHESIS- STRESS MODEL; models of mental illness that emphasise the interaction of nature and nurture are much more compelling. The diathesis-stress model suggests that psychopathology is caused by a genetic vulnerability which is only expressed when paired with an environmental trigger. EPIGENETICS; refers to a change in our genetic activity without changing our genetic code. It happens throughout life as a result of the influence of the environment. Aspects of our lifestyle, (e.g smoking, drinking, diet) leave epigenetic 'marks' on out DNA, these tell out bodies which genes to ignore and which to use. Therefore it may influence the genetic codes of our children. The life experiences of previous generations adds another element to the nature-nurture debate. E.g; Dias and Ressler and Mice. Gave shocks to rats as soon as they were exposed to a certain smell. They were conditioned to fear the scent. The rat's children also feared the smell.

Evaluation

Implications of Nativism and Empiricism Nativists suggest that 'anatomy is destiny' by stating that our inherited genetic makeup determines out characteristics and out behaviour whilst the environment has no input. This extreme stance has caused controversy. It tried to link race to intelligence. Socially sensitive. Empiricists however would suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions.This is called behaviour shaping which has had practical applications in therapy. Desirable behaviours are reinforced, underiable are punished/ignored. Shared and Unshared Environments Research that has attempted to 'tease out' the influence of the environment is complicated by the fact that even siblings raised in the same family may not have experienced the exact same upbringing. Shared and unshared environments (Dunn) suggests that individual differences may mean that siblings experience events differently. This explains why even MZ twins raised together do not have perfect concordance rates. Constructivism The notion that genes and environment interact are elaborated by constructivism. People create their own nurture by actively selecting environments that are appropriate for their nature. So a naturally more aggressive child is more likely to feel comfortable with similar children and so choose their environment accordingly. This environment will then impact on their development. Plomin describes this as niche-picking and it is further evidence that it is impossible and illogical to try and separate them. Genotype-Environment Interaction Scarr and McCartney put forward a theory of gene-environment interaction based on the type of interaction: Evocative interaction; the child's genes shape the environment in which they grow up Active interaction; the child creates its own environment through people and experiences it selects. Relationship to Other Debates A strong commitment to either nature or nurture corresponds to a belief in hard determinism. The nativist perspective would suggest that 'anatomy is destiny' whereas empiricists would argue that interaction with the environment is all. This equates to biological and environmental determinism

Holism and Reductionism

A group of German researchers claimed that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. This view is the basis of holism in psychology, the idea that any attempt to break up behavior and experience is inappropriate as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole. This is a view shared by humanistic psychologists who sed this in therapy. Reductionism analyses behaviour by breaking it down into its constituent parts. Based on the principle or parsimony; that all phenomena should be explained using the most basic principles. This is the simplest, most economical level of explanation. Levels of Explanation in Psychology This suggests that there are different ways of viewing the same phenomena in psychology- some being more reductionist than others. E.g OCD can be explain at a socio-cultural context as odd behaviour, irrational etc. But at a psychological level, it is the experience of having obsessive thoughts. At a physical level it is the repetitive action. and the physiological level, its hypersensitivity of the basal ganglia. Neurochemical level; underproduction of serotonin. Which is the best explanation is up for debate, but each level becomes more reductionist. Psychology itself can be placed in a hierarchy of science with the more precise disciplines at the bottom and more general at the top. (E.g physics -> sociology) Biological Reductionism Based on the belief that we are biological organisms made up of physiological structures and processes. SO all behaviour is at SOME POINT biological and can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological evolutionary and genetic influences. This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been applied to many areas in psychology. E.g the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed to our understanding of neural processes and that it may be possible to explain mental illness at a biochemical level. Environmental Reductionism The behaviourist approach is based on this. Behaviourists only study observable behaviour and so break complex learning into stimulus-response links that are measurable within a lab. Therefore the key level of analysis is at the PHYSICAL LEVEL, behaviourist is not interested in cognitive processes. The mind is considered as irrelevent to our understanding of behaviour.

Evaluation

The Case For Holism Often there are aspects of behaviour that only emerge in a group context and cannot be understood at the level of individual group members. E/g the effects of conformity or The Stanford Prison Experiment could not be understoof by looking at the ppts as individuals. It was the interaction between them that was important. Showing the holistic level explanation can provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist.The Case Against Holism These explanations to not lend themselves to scientific testing, so can be vague and speculative as they become complex. E.g, humanistic psychology takes a holistic approach to behaviour and is criticised for its lack of empirical evidence and how it is only seen as a loose set of concepts. Higher level explanations that combine multiple perspectives present a practical dilemma; we can accept there are many factors that can contribute to things such as depression, but this makes it difficult to determine which is most influential and therefore what to base therapy on. Lower level explanations may be more appropriate for finding solutions to real-world problems. The Case For Reductionism A reductionist approach forms the basis of scientific research. To create operationalised variables, you need to break down behaviours into its constituent parts (e.g happiness; smiling, laughing etc). Therefore it is possible to conduct experiments/observations that are reliable. The behaviourist approach has also shown that complex learning could be broken down into simple stimulus-response links in the lab. Giving psychology greater credibility. The Case Against Reductionism Have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, this would lead to a loss of validity. Explanations that operate at a genetic or neurochemical level do not include analysis of the social context within which the behaviour occurs. This could be where the behaviour may stem from.  E.g, pointing a finger has the same physiological process, but it may be due to different reasons. This means that the reductionist explanations can only ever form a PART of an explanation.          

Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches

The Idiographic Approach This approach attempts to describe the nature of the individual. People are studied as unique entities, each with their own subjective experiences, motivations, and values. No attempt is made to compare them to a larger group or norm. Generally associated with methods in psychology that produce qualitative data; case studies, unstructured interviews etc. This reflects one of the central aims of idiographic research; to describe the richness of human experience and gain insight into a person's unique perspective. The Nomothetic Approach The main aim of this approach is to create general laws of human behaviour, providing a 'benchmark' against which people can be compared and measured. On the basis of this, likely future behaviour can be predicted/controlled. Is more closely linked to 'scientific' methods of psychology, like experiments. They study large numbers of people to establish ways people are similar. This will then inform us of how people are different from each other. Examples of the Idiographic Approach in Psychology Humanistic psychology is the best example of the idiographic perspective; Rogers and Maslow took a phenomenological approach to studying people, they were only interested in documenting the conscious experience of the individual. They describe themselves as unscientific, were less interested in creating general laws of behaviour. The psychodynamic approach is also labelled as idiographic, this is due to Freud's use of the case study method when detailing the lives of his patients. But he also did identify some universal laws of behaviour and personality development.Examples of the Nomothetic Approach in Psychology Tends to be a feature of approaches that are reductionist and determinist, using scientific methods of investigation. Hypotheses are formulated and tested in controlled conditions and findings generated from large samples are then analysed for their statistical significance.Behaviourist, cognitive and biological approaches meet the criteria for a nomothetic approach E.g Skinner studied the responses of hundreds of animals, in order to develop the laws of learning.Cognitive psychologists have been able to infer the processes of human memory by measuring the performance of large samples of people in lab tests.Biological psychologists have conducted brain scans on countless human brains in order to make generalisations about localisation of function. All of these have hypotheses which are tested, statistically analysed and general laws/theories are proposed These are key features of the nomothetic approach.

Evaluation

The Case For the Idiographic Approach In-depth qualitative methods allow for a complete and global account of the individual, this could complement the nomothetic approach by shedding further light on general laws, or challenging them. E.g; a single case can generate hypotheses for further study, (HM) which may reveal important insights about normal functioning and can contribute to our overall understanding. The Case Against the Idiographic Approach It can be criticised as being narrow and restricted in nature. For example, Freud with his concepts like the Oedipus complex were usually developed from the study of a single case (Little Hans). Meaningful generalisations cannot be made without further examples as there is no baseline with which to compare. The Case For the Nomothetic Approach Much more scientific processes, mirroring processes in natural sciences; standardised conditions, data sets to provide group averages, statistical analysis, prediction and control etc. Such processes have allowed psychologists to establish norms of 'usual' behavior, giving psychology more scientific credibility. The Case Against the Nomothetic Approach It has been accused of 'losing the whole person' as it is so focused on general laws, prediction etc. Knowing that there is a 1% lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia tells us little about what suffering from it is like. Also, in lab studies involving tests, participants are treated as a series of scores rather than individual people and their subjective experience of the situation is ignored. The nomothetic approach may look over the richness of human experience.                  

Ethical Implications of Research Studies&Theory

Ethical Implications Ethical issues may arise when there's a conflict between psychology's need to gain valid/valuable research findings WHILST preserving the rights and dignity of the ppts. Thus, ethical guidelines were established to help protect those involved. However, the social impact of psychological research may be more difficult to control once it's been conducted. Although researchers may have considerable control over the methods used in the experiment and how the ppts are treated, they have little influence on how their research findings are represented/misrepresented in the media, the impact of their work on public policy and how it may influence our perception of groups in society. This is a concern with the WIDER ethical implications of research. Socially Sensitive Research Some areas of research are more socially sensitive than others. For example, research on the GENETIC basis of criminality may have a far-reaching consequence for those involved. Studies that tackle 'taboo' topics; race sexuality; may have a lot of attention to them. However, this should not lead to psychologists 'shying away' from socially sensitive research. Psychologists have a social responsibility to carry it out due to its undoubted importance. Ethical Issues in Socially Sensitive Research Sieber and Stanley have identified concerns for researchers to keep in mind when conducting socially sensitive research. IMPLICATIONS; the wider effects should be carefully considered as some studies may be seen as giving scientific credence to prejudice/discrimination, such as studies looking at the racial basis of intelligence. However, these implications may be difficult to predict. USES/PUBLIC POLICY; what is this research likely to be used for? What would happen if it was used for the wrong purpose? Findings may be adopted by the government for political ends or to shape public policy (Burt and Bowlby) THE VALIDITY OF THE RESEARCH; some findings have been found to be highly suspect, not objective at all. Or even fraudulent. E.g Burts research on IQ. However, many modern social constructionists researchers- who tackle socially sensitive areas of research- are beginning to be much more upfront about their own biases and preconceptions. They also include comments on the reflexive nature of their work in their publications.

Evaluation

Benefits of Socially Sensitive Research Scarr argues that, despite ethical implications, studies of underrepresented groups and issues may promote a greater sensitivity and understanding of these. This can help reduce prejudice and encourage acceptance. Socially sensitive research has benefitted society; research into the (un)reliability of eyewitness testimony has reduced the risk of miscarriages of justice within the legal system- there's a valuable role. Framing the Question Sieber and Stanley warn that how questions are phrased and investigated can influence the ways that findings are interpreted. E.g, cross-cultural research may be impacted on by ethnocentrism on part of the researchers. Kitzinger and Coyle say that research into so-called 'alternative relationships' has been guilty of a form of heterosexual bias within which homosexual relationships were compared against heterosexual norms. This suggests that researchers must approach research with an 'open mind' and be prepared to have their preconceptions challenged if they are to avoid misrepresenting minority groups. Who gains? Socially sensitive research has been used by the government to shape social policy, despite sometimes dubious nature of findings and without full consideration of the effects of the environment on such characteristics like IQ (Burt). Some research may seem harmless but can have socially sensitive consequences. E.g, in the 1950s, research into subliminal messages were used by marketing companies to advertise. Coca-Cola and popcorn sales increased significantly when the images were quickly flashed in a cinema. but then it had bee revealed that Packard (the author of the study) made his findings up. Although there was little damage from this research, research that seeks to manipulate the public has obvious ethical implications. Who benefits from this research? Social Control In 1920-30s America, a large number of states enacted legislation that led to the compulsory sterilization of many citizens on the grounds that they were 'feeble minded' and a drain on society. The rationale, supported by many sections of the psychological community at the time was that they were 'unfit' to breed.