Golden rules for A2 level Psychology

1. Use examples to illustrate your points in all of your answers.2. Always use trigger words in your strengths and weaknesses. If your mind goes blank, they can always be

used to get you by.3. If you forget a researcher’s name, or do not feel you can even start to remember them all, try using general

phrases such as “Research has been done which………” or “One researcher found ………”4. Writing three average/good answers on one paper will get more marks than writing one brilliant one, and

then running out of time for the other two.5. If you run out of time, write a few quick bullet points in the last 5 minutes, which should get a few marks.6. You need to try and write 2-3 sides, or about 650 words, for an answer in PYA4 (25 minutes) and 3-4

sides, or about 800 words, for an answer in PYA5 (40 minutes). You should also divide your time equally between A01 and A02.

7. If there is a quotation attached to a question, you need to refer to it at the beginning and the end, and several times in between as well if you can.

8. If a question asks you to outline and evaluate one theory of ……….. your structure will be as follows:

Outline (A01)

Two strengths (A01/2)

However, three weaknesses (A01/2)

In contrast (A02)

9. If a question asks you to outline and evaluate two theories of ………. your structure will be as follows (or a variation of this):

Outline of first theory (A01)

One strength of first theory (A01/2)

However, two weaknesses of first theory (A01/2)

Outline of second theory (A01)

One strength of second theory (A01/2)

However, two weaknesses of second theory (A01/2)

In conclusion (or in contrast if you have a third theory) (A02)

Split part questions will follow the same structures, but will be split appropriately (according to the marks).

10. If a question asks you to compare and contrast two theories of ……………… your structure will be as follows:Outline of explanation 1 (A01) / Outline of explanation 2 (A01)

Similarity 1/ Similarity 2 / Similarity 3 if you have time!

Difference 1 / Difference 2 / Difference 3

Schizophrenia: Discuss the role of life events in schizophrenia (25 marks)

AO1: One psychological explanation of schizophrenia considers the role of life events. These events are stressful because they herald change, and require mental energy to adjust to them. Life events are accompanied by physiological arousal and neurotransmitter changes. Their role in schizophrenia has been studied using both retrospective and prospective methods.

Brown & Birley (1968) found that 50% of participants reported having experienced a major life event in the three weeks prior to the episode, but only 12% reported one in the nine weeks prior to that. Participants who did not have a schizophrenic episode reported a low and unchanging level of life events in the same time frame. Day et al. (1987) conducted a cross-cultural study, and found that sufferers in several countries experienced a high number of stressful life events prior to symptom onset.

Hirsch et al. (1996) conducted a prospective study over a 48 week period. They found that life events made a significant cumulative contribution to patient relapse, but not that events were actually more concentrated prior to relapse. Van Os et al. (1994) found very different results. They found no link between life events and schizophrenia onset: patients were just as likely as not to have experienced a major life event in the three months prior to symptom onset. The prospective aspect of the study found that patients who had experienced a major life event subsequently demonstrated a lower relapse rate. (235 words AO1)

AO2/3: It is difficult to interpret the conflicting research findings on the role of life events as studies use different methodologies so it is difficult to compare results. Studies using prospective methods tend to have higher reliability and validity as there are fewer issues with memory bias and forgetting. However, most of the studies also contain a number of key confounds which reduce internal validity, such as the lifestyle of the Ps (eg. use of alcohol and drugs, smoking, diet, activity levels) and varying levels of social support. Findings are also affected by the fact that the Ps’ diagnoses may have low validity and reliability. Furthermore, all studies use non-experimental methods, as it would be unethical to manipulate levels of events, and this means that we cannot conclude that life events cause schizophrenia.

One can also argue that it would be reductionistic to attempt to explain such a complex disorder as schizophrenia via life events alone, as this ignores the role of other contributing socio-cultural factors (eg. family communication patterns, expressed emotion, social causation and drift) as well as the role of biology. Genetic factors have been shown to contribute to the disorder via studies of MZ twins, and biochemical and neuro-anatomical abnormalities are also evident in many patients. Therefore, a more inclusive explanation would use a bio-psycho-social framework, and refer to all factors.

Another area which requires clarification is that it is unclear which ‘stage’ of schizophrenia life events are linked to - to aetiology (root of disorder), to symptom onset, to the course disorder takes, or to relapse. It could be that having schizophrenia increases the likelihood of life events occurring, or it could be that the person has prior or co-morbid mental health problem (eg. anxiety or depression, or both) which lead to life events, and that these then lead to schizophrenia onset. The diathesis-stress model would argue that predisposition is likely to be genetic, that genes may moderate biochemical and structural changes, but that these alone may not be sufficient for the disorder to develop. It could be that life events act as stressors and contribute to symptom onset. However, the research evidence suggests that life events may contribute more to relapse than onset.

The increased understanding that we have of life events can be applied in a therapeutic setting to help schizophrenic patients to cope better with life events, using ideas from CBT and hardiness training. This is best done in family therapy where everyone can examine their roles, actions and coping strategies. The involvement of the whole family is especially important as when in-patients return home, family dynamics are linked to relapse rates. (434 words AO2/3)

Q1. Discuss issues surrounding the classification and diagnosis of schizophrenia (9+16 marks)

Psychologists use the DSM and ICD to diagnose a patient with schizophrenia (s.), however there are issues surrounding it. Classification and diagnosis does have advantages as it allows doctors to communicate more effectively about a patient and use similar terminology when discussing them. In addition, they can then predict the outcome of the disorder and suggest related treatment to help the patient. It has been suggested that the new revised DSM III solved the problem of reliability, as one study found that before a diagnosis and classification system, more people were diagnosed with schizophrenia in New York than in the UK. A diagnostic criteria now solves this problem by outlining what classifies a patient as schizophrenic.

However, it also has its limitations. As the symptoms vary so much between patients, there is still a very high risk of misdiagnosis, which could then lead to the wrong treatment and maybe even wrong institutionalization. Because of these varying symptoms, subtypes were developed, however there is still variation between subtypes, such as paranoid s. and catatonic s. which clinicians are reluctant to use unless they match the patient exactly. There are also issues of reliability in the classification and diagnosis of s. as there is a problem with consistency and inter-rater reliability. For example, with the new DSM III the issue of reliability was thought to be solved, however Whalley found that inter-rater reliability was on average 0.11 so the psychologists only agreed on a patient’s diagnosis 11% of the time.

This is a serious problem as it could lead to patients being misdiagnosed and subject to wrong treatment. In addition to this, one symptom of schizophrenia is ‘bizarre delusions’ but when 50 top psychologists were asked to rate delusions in terms of ‘bizarre’ and ‘non-bizarre’ they only agreed 40% of the time. This interpretation is unhelpful and suggests the diagnostic criteria should be refined again in order to solve this issue.Rosenhan’s study measured the reliability of the criteria and showed how outdated it was, but since then it has been much improved, stating at least 2 symptoms should be present for a month and that the patient should show a constant disturbance for six months, so his study would not have been as successful today.

The issue of validity is also a problem for the diagnostic criteria. As the symptoms vary to vastly between patients, there is a high risk of misdiagnosis. This is backed up by a form of epilepsy that has similar symptoms to s. In addition this, drugs can cause psychotic behaviour and negative symptoms can be associated with depression. This shows that the clinician should conduct a thorough physical examination and history taking before diagnosis to avoid misdiagnosis.

Similarly the issue of labeling is also evident. By labeling a schizophrenic, they may live up to that self-fulfilling prophesy. Henry (2010) backs this up by his findings that schizophrenics function less well in conversations when they think a person knows their condition. This has important implications for whether or not the term ‘s’ should still apply, and also whether it should remain on medical records.

The classification and diagnostic criteria for diagnosing s. could also be seen to be culturally biased. Both the DSM and the ICD were developed in the West and therefore may reflect Western cultures more than Eastern ones. The diagnostic system in China is evidence for this as it does not use either the DSM or ICD. The most common diagnosis in Chinese medicine is ‘weakness of the nerves’ which suggests a whole different disorder to s. However, it has been argued that his may instead be a cover up for the stigma disorders like s. carry in countries like China. Further evidence that the criteria is culturally biased is the fact that more African-Americans and Afican-Carribeans are diagnosed with s. This could be due to many factors, a stressful lifestyle, being a minority group or a simple lack of cultural awareness. (16 marks)

Describe and evaluate one biological explanation of schizophrenia (25 marks) OR Describe and evaluate two biological explanations of schizophrenia (25 marks)

A01 Biological explanation of schizophrenia ~ Genetic explanation

A02 Finland Adoption Study- Kety et al

A02 Methodological problems, Nature-v-Nurture and Reductionist

A01 Biochemical explanation

A02 Practical application,

A02 Contradictory evidence Kasper, Cause and Effect and Deterministic.

In contrast Psychological explanations of schizophrenia

In conclusion The Diathesis Stress Model

“Biological explanations of schizophrenia tell us all we need to know about this disorder.” Critically consider biological explanations of schizophrenia, with reference to the issues raised in the quotation. (25)

A01 Refer to the quote throughout the essay

Biological explanation of schizophrenia ~ Genetic explanation

A02 FES Kety

A02 Methodological problems, Nature-v-Nurture and Reductionist

A01 Biochemical explanation

A02 Practical application,

A02 Contradictory evidence Kasper, Cause and Effect and Deterministic.

In contrast RIFT Psychological explanations of schizophrenia

In conclusion The Diathesis Stress Model

Discuss one or more psychological explanations of schizophrenia, including the evidence on which they are based (25 marks)

A01 Cognitive explanations of schizophrenia & Research evidence (Names)

A02 FES Myer-Lindenberg et al. (2002)

A02 Practical applications / Nurture approach

A02 Cause and effect

A02 Reductionist

A02 Deterministic

In contrast The Biological explanations of schizophrenia

In conclusion The Diathesis Stress model

Describe and evaluate two psychological explanations of schizophrenia (25 marks)

A01 Cognitive explanations of schizophrenia & Research evidence (Names)

A02 Myer-Lindenberg et al. (2002)

A02 Cause and effect

A02 Reductionist / Deterministic

A01 Life events / Family relationships

A02 FES Berger

A02 Contradictory evidence from Liem

A02 Cause /effect, ethical issues

In contrast The Biological explanations of schizophrenia

In conclusion The Diathesis Stress model

Critically consider one biological and one psychological explanation of schizophrenia (25 marks)

A01 Cognitive explanations of schizophrenia

A02 FES Myer-Lindenberg et al. (2002)

A02 Cause and effect

A02 Reductionist / Deterministic

A01 The Genetic explanation of schizophrenia

A02 FES Kety

A02 Methodological problems

A02 Nature~Nurture, Reductionist

In conclusion The Diathesis Stress model

Compare and Contrast biological and psychological explanations of schizophrenia (25 marks)

A01 Cognitive & Life events explanations

A01 Biological: Genetic, Neurotransmitters and Neuroanatomy

Similarity Both have FES

Similarity Both have the same weakness of being reductionist

Similarity Both have the same weakness of cause and effect

Difference Both have a different main assumption Both have different methodologies

Both have different treatments

In conclusion The diathesis Stress Model

Biological Explanations of Schizophrenia

GENETIC EXPLANATION

Research by Miyakawa et al. (2003) studied DNA from human families affected by schizophrenia and found that those with the disease were more likely to have a defective version of a gene, called PPP3CC which is associated with the production of calcineurin which regulates the immune system. Also, research by Sherrington et al. (1988) has found a gene located on chromosome 5 which has been linked in a small number of extended families where they have the disorder.

Family studies:First degree relatives share an average of 50% of their genes, and second degree relatives share approx 25%. To investigate genetic transmission of schizophrenia, studies compare rates of schizophrenia in relatives of diagnosed cases compared to relatives of controls. Evidence suggests that the closer the biological relationship, the greater the risk of developing schizophrenia. Kendler (1985) has shown that first-degree relatives of those with schizophrenia are 18 times more at risk than the general population. Gottesman (1991) has found that schizophrenia is more common in the biological relatives of a schizophrenic, and that the closer the degree of genetic relatedness, the greater the risk.

Twin studies:Twin studies offer an alternative way of establishing genetic links, by comparing the difference in concordance rates. Both share the same environment, but only the MZ twins have identical make up. Many studies have been conducted and they all show a much higher concordance rate in MZ twins than DZ twins. To separate out genetics conclusively from the environment, researchers have sought out MZ twins reared apart where one twin has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Gottesman and Shields (1982) used the Maudsley twin register and found 58% (7 out of 12 MZ TWIN PAIRS REARED APART) were concordant with schizophrenia. If the genetic hypothesis is correct, then the offspring of a non-affected discordant MZ twin should be high risk. Fischer (1971) found that 9.4% of such offspring developed schizophrenia, which is a much higher incidence than in the general population. A study in London using the Maudley Twin Register by Cardno et al. (1999) found a 40% concordance rate in MZ twins, compared to 5.3% in DZ twins.

Adoption studies:A more effective way of separating out the effects of environmental and genetic factors is to look at adopted children who later develop schizophrenia and care them with their biological and adoptive parents. The Finish Adoption Study, which Tienari began in 1969 identified adopted away offspring of biological mothers who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (112 index cases), plus a matched control group of 135 adopted offspring of mothers who had not been diagnosed with any mental disorder. Adoptees ranged from 5-7 years at the start of the study and all had begun separation from their mother before the age of 4. The study reported that 7% of the index adoptees developed schizophrenia, compared to 1.5% of the controls.

One strength of the genetic explanation of schizophrenia is that there is further empirical support provided by kety et al. (1975). On one of the largest adoption studies, Kety used two groups of adoptess who were identified as: (a) 33 who had schizophrenia, and (b) a matched group who didn’t. Rates of the disorder were compared in the biological and adoptive families of the two groups of adoptees – the rate was greater among biological relatives of the schizophrenic adoptees than among those of the controls, a finding which supports the genetic explanation. Further, the rate of schizophrenia wasn’t increased among couples who adopted the schizophrenic adoptees, suggesting that environmental factors weren’t of crucial importance (Gelder, 1989). This suggests that there is wider academic credibility for the notion that genetics play an influential role in the development of schizophrenia.

One weakness of the genetic explanation of schizophrenia is that there are methodological problems. Family, twin and adoption studies must be considered cautiously because they are retrospective, and diagnosis may be biased by knowledge that other family members who may have been diagnosed. This suggests that there may be problems of demand characteristics.

A second weakness is the problem of nature-v-Nurture. It is very difficult to separate out the influence of nature-v-nurture. The fact that the concordance rates are not 100% means that schizophrenia cannot wholly be explained by genes and it could be that the individual has a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and simply makes the individual more at risk of developing the disorder. This suggests that the biological account cannot give a full explanation of the disorder.

A final weakness of the genetic explanation of schizophrenia is that it is biologically reductionist. The Genome Project has increased understanding of the complexity of the gene. Given that a much lower number of genes exist than anticipated, it is now recognised that genes have multiple functions and that many genes behaviour. Schizophrenia is a multi-factorial trait as it is the result of multiple genes and environmental factors. This suggests that the research into gene mapping is oversimplistic as schizophrenia is not due to a single gene.

Another weakness of the family studies is that they lack population validity. The reason for this is because the samples that are used are small in numbers and only a select number of families are used. This suggests that there are

issues with the findings being generalised to the whole population.

DOPAMINE HYPOTHESIS

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter. It is one of the chemicals in the brain which causes neurons to fire. The original dopamine hypothesis stated that schizophrenia suffered from an excessive amount of dopamine. This causes the neurons that use dopamine to fire too often and transmit too many messages. This message ‘over load’ may produce many of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Evidence for this comes from that fact that amphetamines increase the amounts of dopamine. Large doses of amphetamine given to people with no history of psychological disorders produce behaviour which is very similar to paranoid schizophrenia. Small doses given to people already suffering from schizophrenia tend to worsen their symptoms. Further evidence points to the connection between dopamine and schizophrenia comes from antipsychotic drugs to treat the disorder. They work by blocking dopamine receptors, so preventing dopamine-receiving neurons from firing. In addition, L-Dopa, which is used to treat Parkinson’s Disease (caused by a lack of dopamine), can produce schizophrenic symptoms in individuals with no history of the disorder (Grilly, 2002).

A second explanation developed, which suggests that it is not excessive dopamine but that fact that there are more dopamine receptors. More receptors lead to more firing and an over production of messages. Autopsies have found that there are generally a large number of dopamine receptors (Owen et al., 1987) and there was an increase in the amount of dopamine in the left amygdale (falkai et al. 1988) and increased dopamine in the caudate nucleus and putamen (Owen et al, 1978).

A strength of the research into schizophrenia is that it has practical applications. From the research using schizophrenics new drugs have been developed such as Clozapine, which is much more effective than neuroleptics at relieving schizophrenic behaviour. This suggests that Psychiatrists and GP’s can understand the role played by different drugs when treating different types of schizophrenia and thus improve the patients quality of life.

One criticism of the dopamine hypothesis is there is a problem with the chicken and egg. Is the raised dopamine levels the cause of the schizophrenia, or is it the raised dopamine level the result of schizophrenia? It is not clear which comes first. This suggests that one needs to be careful when establishing cause and effect relationships in schizophrenic patients.

A third criticism is that there is contradictory evidence for the biochemical explanation from Kasper et al. (1999). He suggests there are a number of problems with the dopamine hypothesis. First, antipsychotic drugs are effective for only positive symptoms. Therefore, excessive dopamine can at best explain only some types of schizophrenia. Second, newer atypical antipsychotic drugs (e.g., clozapine) have proved more effective than traditional ones in successfully treating the symptoms of schizophrenia despite blocking fewer dopamine receptors.. This suggests that there is refuting evidence for the notion of dopamine being the main contributing factor associated with schizophrenia.

A final weakness of the dopamine hypothesis is that it is biologically deterministic. The reason for this is because if the individual does have excessive amounts of dopamine then does it really mean that thy ey will develop schizophrenia? This suggests that the dopamine hypothesis does not account for freewill.

NEUROANATOMY

Using PET, MRI and Cat scans researchers have discovered that many schizophrenics have enlarged ventricles, cavities in the brain that supply nutrients and remove waste. The ventricles of a person with schizophrenia are on average about 15% bigger than normal (Torrey, 2002).

Brown et al. (1986) found decreased brain weight and enlarged ventricles, which are the cavities in the brain that hold cerebrospinal fluid. Flaum et al. (1995) also found enlarged ventricles, along with smaller thalamic hippocampal and superior temporal volumes. Buchsbaum (1990) found abnormalities in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, the basil ganglia, the hippocampus and the amygdale. As more MRI studies are being undertaken, more abnormalities are being identified. Structural abnormalities have been found more often in those with negative/chronic symptoms, rather than positive/acute symptoms, lending support to the belief that there are two types of schizophrenia: Type 1 (acute) and Type 2 (chronic).

A strength is that the research into enlarged ventricles and neurotransmitter levels have high reliability. The reason for this is because the research is carried out in highly controlled environments, which specialist, high tech equipment such as MRI and PET scans. These machines take accurate readings of brain regions such as the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, the basil ganglia, the hippocampus and the amygdale. This suggests that if this research was tested and re-tested the same results would be achieved.

Supporting evidence for the brain structure explanation comes from further empirical support from Suddath et al. (1990). He used MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to obtain pictures of the brain structure of MZ twins in which one twin was schizophrenic. The schizophrenic twin generally had more enlarged ventricles and a reduced anterior hypothalamus. The differences were so large the schizophrenic twins could be easily identified from the brain images in 12 out of 15 pairs. This suggests that there is wider academic credibility for enlarged ventricles determining the likelihood of schizophrenia developing.

A second weakness of the neuroanatomical explanations is that it is biologically deterministic. The reason for this is because if the individual does have large ventricles then does it really mean that they will develop schizophrenia? This suggests that the dopamine hypothesis does not account for freewill.

In contrast, the psychological explanation rejects the view that schizophrenia is caused by genetics and brain chemistry. Instead it favours the idea that the disorder is caused by life events - the environment, upbringing family etc. For example, research shows that dysfunctional family interaction, where there is a lot of “expressed emotion”, can lead to

schizophrenia. Also many schizophrenics come from lower social classes which implies that poverty and poor housing are involved. This suggests that the biological account does not provide a full explanation of schizophrenia.

In conclusion the Diathesis Stress Model, which suggests that there is a genetic vulnerability to a disorder (Diathesis), but this is triggered when an individual has been exposed to a stressful life event. Both of these factors are necessary for a disorder to develop. This is why not all the children with schizophrenia develop the disorder, and why the concordance rate for mental disorders for MZ twins is nothing like 100%.

Psychological Explanations of Schizophrenia

COGNITIVE EXPLNATION

Cognitive approaches examine how people think, how they process information. Researchers have focused on two factors which appear to be related to some of the experiences and behaviours of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. First, cognitive deficits which are impairments in thought processes such as perception, memory and attention. Second, cognitive biases are present when people notice, pay attention to, or remember certain types of information better than other.

Cognitive deficits:There is evidence that people diagnosed as schizophrenic have difficulties in processing various types of information, for example visual and auditory information. Research indicates their attention skills may be deficient – they often appear easily distracted.

A number of researchers have suggested that difficulties in understanding other people’s behaviour might explain some of the experiences of those diagnosed as schizophrenic. Social behaviour depends, in part, on using other people’s actions as clues for understanding what they might be thinking. Some people who have been diagnosed as schizophrenic appear to have difficulties with this skill.

Cognitive deficits have been suggested as possible explanations for a range of behaviours associated with schizophrenia. These include reduced levels of emotional expression, disorganised speech and delusions.

Cognitive biases:Cognitive biases refer to selective attention. The idea of cognitive biases has been used to explain some of the behaviours which have been traditionally regarded as ‘symptoms’ of ‘schizophrenia’.

- Delusions: The most common delusion that people diagnosed with schizophrenia report is that others are trying to harm or kill them – delusions of persecution. Research suggests that these delusions are associated with specific biases in reasoning about and explaining social situations. Many people who experience feelings of persecution have a general tendency to assume that other people cause the things that go wrong with their lives.

- Auditory hallucinations: There is evidence that auditory hallucinations – hearing voices where none exist – are related to cognitive biases. To some extent, people seem themselves in terms of their social networks – their networks of social relationships. Some people tend to see themselves as powerless compared to other, more powerful individuals in their social network. This bias can lead them to see themselves as worthless, useless and incompetent.

Most people experience an inner voice when thinking in words – for example, when deciding what to do or when struggling with a problem. There is evidence that some people who experience auditory hallucinations mistake their inner voice for speech from an external source. Those who see themselves as powerless sometimes hear voices saying ’he’s useless’. The status and power gap they see between themselves and others in their social

One strength of the cognitive explanation when describing schizophrenia is that there is further empirical support provided by Myer-Lindenberg et al. (2002). They found a link between poor working memory (typical of schizophrenics) and reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, Schielke et al. (2000) studied a patient who developed continuous auditory hallucinations as a consequence of an abscess in the dorsal pons. This suggests that there is wider academic credibility for the link between biological and cognitive factors causing schizophrenia.

A second strength of the cognitive explanation is that it has practical applications. Yellowless et al. (2002) developed a machine that produced virtual hallucinations, such as hearing the television telling you to kill yourself or one person’s face morphing into another’s. The intention is to show schizophrenics that their hallucinations are not real. This suggests that understanding the effects of cognitive deficits allows psychologists to create new initiatives for schizophrenics and improve the quality of their lives.

A final strength is that it takes on board the nurture approach to the development of schizophrenia. For example, it suggests that schizophrenic behaviour is the cause of environmental factors such as cognitive factors.

One weakness of the cognitive explanation is that there are problems with cause and effect. Cognitive approaches do not explain the causes of cognitive deficits – where they come from in the first place. Is it the cognitive deficits which causes the schizophrenic behaviour or is the schizophrenia that causes the cognitive deficits? This suggests that there are problems with the chicken and egg problem.

A second weakness of the cognitive model is that it is reductionist. The reason for this is because the approach does not consider other factors such as genes. It could be that the problems caused by low neurotransmitters creates the cognitive deficits. This suggests that the cognitive approach is oversimplistic when consider the explanation of schizophrenia.

A final weakness is that the model is environmentally deterministic. The reason for this is because it suggests that the cognitive deficits and cognitive biases will cause someone to become schizophrenic. This suggests that the explanation does not take into account freewill.

network is mirrored in the relationship they have with the ‘voice’. The bigger gap, the more powerful the ‘voice’ and the more control it has.

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS THEORY

Bateson et al. (1956) suggested the double bind theory, which suggests that children who frequently receive contradictory messages from their parents are more likely to develop schizophrenia. If a mother tells her son that she loves him, yet at the same time turns her head away in disgust, the other child receives conflicting messages about their relationship on different communication levels: affection on the verbal level, animosity on the non-verbal. Bateson et al. argued that the child’s ability to respond to the mother is incapacitated by such contradictions because one message effectively invalidates the other. Prolonged exposure to such interactions prevents the development of an internally coherent construction of reality; in the long run, this manifests itself as typically schizophrenic symptoms such as flattening affect, delusions and hallucinations, incoherent thinking and speaking, and in some cases paranoia.

Another family variable associated with schizophrenia is a negative emotional climate, or more generally a high degree of expressed emotion (EE). EE is a family communication style that involves criticism, hostility and emotional over-involvement. High levels of EE are most likely to influence relapse rate. A patient returning to a family with high EE is about 4 times more likely to relapse than a patient whose family is low in EE (Linszen et al. 1997). In the study of the relapse rate in Iran, Torabi et al. (1996) found that the high prevalence of EE in Iranian culture (overprotective mothers and rejecting fathers) was one of the main causes of relapse. The negative emotional climate in these families seems to arouse the patient and lead to stress beyond his or her already impaired coping mechanisms.

One strength of the double bind explanation comes from further empirical support provided by Berger (1965). They found that schizophrenics reported a higher recall of double bind statements by their mothers than non-schizophrenics. However, evidence may not be reliable as patient’s recall may be affected by their schizophrenia. This suggests that there is wider academic credibility for the idea of contradictory messages causing schizophrenia.

A second strength of the research into expressed emotion (EE) is that it has practical applications. For example Hogarty (1991) produced a type of therapy session, which reduced social conflicts between parents and their children which reduced EE and thus relapse rates. This suggests that gaining an insight into family relationships allows psychiatric professionals to help improve the quality of patient’s lives.

A weakness of the family relationsships appraoch is that there is a problem of cause and effect. Mischler & Waxler (1968) found significant differences in the way mothers spoke to their schizophrenic daughters compared to their normal daughters, which suggests that dysfunctional communication may be a result of living with the schizophrenic rather than the cause of the disorder. This suggests that there is a problem of the chicken and egg scenario in relation to expressed emotion causing schizophrenia.

A second weakness of the double bind theory is that there are ethical issues. There are serious ethical concerns in blaming the family, particularly as there is little evidence upon which to base this. Gender bias is also an issue as the mother tends to be blamed the most, which means such research is highly socially sensitive. This suggests that the research therefore does not protect individuals from harm.

A final weakness is that there is further contradictory evidence provided by Liem (1974). They measured patterns of parental communication in families with schizophrenic child and found no difference compared with normal families. Also, Hall (1980)n analysed data from previous studies and found no difference between families and without a schizophrenic member in the degree to which verbal and non-verbal communication were in agreement. This suggest that there is refuting evidence for the double bind theory causing schizophrenia.

In contrast, the biological explanation rejects the view that schizophrenia is caused by psychological factors. Instead it favours the idea that the disorder is caused by excessive levels of dopamine, enlarged ventricles and genetics. This suggests that the biological account does not provide a full explanation of schizophrenia.

In conclusion the Diathesis Stress Model, which suggests that there is a genetic vulnerability to a disorder (Diathesis), but this is triggered when an individual has been exposed to a stressful life event. Both of these factors are necessary for a disorder to develop. This is why not all the children with schizophrenia develop the disorder, and why the concordance rate for mental disorders for MZ twins is nothing like 100%.

Arguments FOR & AGAINST Reductionism DEFINITION OF REDUCTIONISM

Reductionism involves breaking down a complex phenomenon into simpler components. It implies that this process is desirable because complex phenomena are best understood in terms of a simpler level of explanation. Rose (1997) identified three kinds of reductionism:

Reductionism as a methodology: (Experimental reductionism): Reducing complex behaviours to isolated variables is a useful strategy for conducting research. It underlies the experimental approach, in which behaviours are reduced to operationalised variables that can be manipulated to determine causal relationships.

Reductionism as an explanation: The best explanations or theories are those with the fewest sets of laws or principles. The cannon of parsimony, or Occam’s razor states that ‘of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is preferred’.

Reductionism as a philosophy: Psychology should dovetail (fit together) seamlessly into the other sciences. If all science is unitary (one thing), we should be able to reduce all explanations of behaviour to physical laws.

FOR REDUCTIONISM1. Reductionism as a scientific approach:Reductionism has worked well in other sciences’ – Scientific research is reductionist and has led to many important discoveries that have enabled people to control and predict their world better, specifically using the laboratory experiment to find causal relationships. Thus, breaking complex behaviours down to smaller units permits us to discover causal relationships E.g., if you want to understand stress it’s useful to understand the nervous system and the HPA and SAM systems.

2. Appropriate for certain levels of explanation:Rose (1997) has distinguished between different levels of explanation, each of which has a valid contribution to make. The lowest level is the molecular (physics), followed by the intra-cellular (biochemistry) then parts of individuals (physiology), behaviour of individuals (psychology) and ultimately, the

AGAINST REDUCTIONISM1. Methodological reductionism may be appropriate for the physical sciences, but less appropriate when explaining behaviour that is more complex. Complex systems may not behave predictably, i.e., as a simple summation of the constitute parts. This is the view of the Gestalt theories, who argued that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This holist approach of memory is therefore less reductionist than the multi-store model of memory. The connectionist model of memory suggests that memory consists of an interconnection between a network of neurons, each neuron connected to an average of 10,000 other neurons.

2. Rose (1997) suggests that biologists need all five types of explanation and no one explanation is correct; it all depends of what kind of explanation is required. E.g., the use of anti-depressants to treat depression may miss real causes of a person’s depression such as unconscious motivated processes. Furthermore Wolpe (1973) developed systematic desensitization and treated a woman who had a fear of insects. He found no improvement from this behavioural method of therapy and it turned out that her husband, who she had not been getting along with had an insect name. Thus, her fear of insects was not down to conditioning but the repressed feelings of her marital problems, thus ignoring other factors resulted initially in an inaccurate diagnoses. . The danger of lower level explanations is that they may

behaviour of groups (sociology). We can explain any particular behaviour at all these different levels. For example, mental illness can be explained in physiological terms (neurotransmitters), in terms of the psyche (unconsciousness) or in terms of social systems (family dysfunctions).

3. Since all animals are made of atoms, our behaviour must be explainable at this level, i.e., can be reduced to a physical level. This leads to two main assumptions. A) behaviour is nothing more than the sum of its parts, B) There is no special ‘life force’ added to the mix, no mental events that are independent of physical events: every physical event has a physical cause, called materialism (the belief that there is only one physical matter).

4. It is wrong to dismiss all research carried out in the lab, some of it has proven to be very successful, e.g., Baddeley and Hitch carried out the majority of their research in the lab. However, have successful practical applications such as children with reading problems had an impaired memory span and had difficulties saying whether words rhymed, perhaps suggesting that there is a phonological loop deficit. This suggests that Baddeley and Hitch’s model can be used to help improve the quality of children’s lives.

5. This holist view would appear to be supported by the relatively modest success achieved by drug therapies in the treatment of illnesses. If physical-chemical explanations were appropriate, we should see far fewer individual differences and much higher success rates. However, the humanistic view would lead us to using more psychological treatments and these too do not have universal success.

6. Higher level explanations lack predictive power. It is more difficult to frame cause and effect predictions unless one reduces complex behaviours to simpler ones. Eg., if psychologists looked at both psychological and physical factors causing eating disorders it would mean that research would not develop and consequently we wouldn’t have a greater

distract us from more appropriate levels of explanation: the administration of Clozaril to a schizophrenic may miss the real causes of the disorder such as expressed emotion or cognitive deficits. Rose (1992) suggests that the problem of different levels can be resolved if the levels are regarded as separate and non-competing. There is however, the question of correspondence between levels. In some cases a correspondence has been made. The discovery of specific cells in the visual cortex that respond to the orientation of lines (lowest level) matches with psychological explanations of perception (higher levels).

3. Is the mind something physical? This is the mind, body problem. The Dualists believe that there are two types of entities: physical and mental – a physical brain and a non-physical soul or mind that interact. The mind can indeed affect physiology. E.g., depressed patients who received psychotherapy experienced the same changes in brain levels of serotonin and norepinephrine as those receiving drugs (Martin et al, 2001). According to Bell (2000) trying to reduce the mind to something merely physical is to make a basic error. We observe that only certain physical events are associated with mental events: certain electrical activity in the brain (during REM sleep) is associated with subjective reports of dreaming. Psychologists then make the error than one causes the other.

4. Erroneous explanations of behaviour:Methodological reductionism aims to make the study of behaviour more accessible by reducing the variables. The findings of such experimental research may not apply to other settings because key variables have been altered by being simplified. E.g., Memory research often involves learning nonsense syllables or word lists, a simplification of real world memory tasks. Such variables are used because they permit easy study. However, the findings are mistakenly generalised to memory in general. If memory is studied in the ‘real world’, findings may be quite different. For example, experiments have found little evidence for long term memory, but when Bahrick studied recall of year book photographs – data was meaningful to Pps – they found good evidence of long tem memory.

5. Inappropriate for psychology:A second argument against reductionism is that reductionist goals are inappropriate for psychology. Humanistic psychologists (such as Rogers and Maslow) believe that it does not make sense to study reductionist accounts of human behaviour. They promote the view of ‘emergence’, that higher level descriptions and understandings cannot be derived from lower-level ones. E.g., Laing (1965) claimed that it is entirely inappropriate to see schizophrenia as a complex physical-chemical system that has gone wrong. The disorder only makes sense when studied at the level of the experience, and treatment should target this level of explanation.

6. Appropriate only for certain kinds of question:Reductionist explanations may be appropriate only for certain kinds of question. Valentine (1992) suggests that physiological explanations focus on structures whereas holist explanations are more concerned with process. E.g., with respect to visual perception, physiologists are concerned with the structures involved (the nerve pathways, parts of the brain, visual cortex, etc) whereas psychology is more concerned with the processes involved in it (what aspects of the environment are being perceived, what part the brain plays, whether processing is ‘bottom up’ or ‘top down’.

understanding of HTR1D gene and serotonin causing A.N.

In contrast Holism: The assumption that behaviour is best explained by a holistic approach The humanistic approach emerged as a reaction against those dehumanising psychological perspectives that attempted to reduce behaviour to a set of simple elements. Humanistic psychologists feel that holism is the only valid approach to the complete understanding of mind and behaviour, which they achieve by using clinical interviews. E.g., Maslow’s work on the motivation behind human behaviour. Rather than simply focusing on one level of motivation for human behaviour, Maslow identified several levels of needs ranging from basic biological drives at the bottom of the hierarchy to psychological drives such as ‘self-actualisation’ at the top. This suggests that behaviour is better understood by looking at the whole picture rather than a single factor.

Research into Reductionism Physiological Reductionism:

Because human beings are biological organisms, it should be possible to reduce even complex behaviours down to neurophysiological components. There is a clear advantage to this, as it leads to the application of concise and concrete concepts, which are then susceptible to scientific methods of research (Wadeley et al. 1997).

E.g., Schizophrenia is thought to be caused by excessive activity in the biochemical neurotransmitter dopamine. Evidence of the importance of dopamine in schizophrenia comes, in part, from the discovery that antipsychotic drugs that reduce dopamine activity in the brain may also reduce the symptoms of the disorder. Thus, schizophrenia is thought to be controlled by drugs. This theory therefore de-emphasises the importance of environmental factors in the development of the disorder.

Physiological explanations of mental illness have led to drug treatments. A strength of such treatments has been the considerable reduction in institutionalisation since the 1950’s. Furthermore, it is more humane approach to the treatment of mental illness as it does not blame the individual, which may create more tolerance of mental illness in society. Furthermore there are issues of severe side effects and only dealing with the symptoms of the disorder and not the cause. This suggest that reducing mental illness to the physiological level ignores context and the function of such behaviour, and therefore psychological explanations need to be considered.

Most theorists agree that schizophrenia is caused by a combination of factors. Genetic and biological factors may establish predispositions to develop the disorder; factors such as stress help to worsen the symptoms. The Diathesis Stress Model can explain behaviour like this.

Examples such as schizophrenia show us that complex phenomena cannot easily be explained simply by reference to physiological imbalance. The influence of these brain chemicals is indisputable, but to argue that they cause schizophrenia is to neglect all other potential influences in the course of this disorder. It may well be that, for example, stress is the ultimate cause of the disorder, which then creates physiological imbalances – the proximate cause.

Evolutionary reductionism: evolutionary psychologists explain behaviour in terms of natural selection and sexual selection. Such explanations are reductionist because they suggest all behaviour can be reduced to genetic influences and the principle of adaptiveness.

Relationships are formed on the basis of evolution and natural selection. Males are attracted to women who are fertile, as they need to ensure their genes are passed on. This leads to men seeking young women with big breasts and hour glass figures. Females are attracted to men who are well off, irrespective of their age. This is so they can be sure there will be sufficient resources to ensure the survival of their children. People who have failed to form relationships on these grounds in the past have not passed their genes on to us as those genes are not adaptive. This suggests that relationships are best understood in evolutionary terms, so again, higher level explanations are redundant.

Evolutionary explanations are unfalsifiable. The reason for this is because they are not able to be scientifically tested. Thus, it is very difficult to test if men and women have really evolved to look for a partner because of physical features or whether there are other features involved. Therefore, this approach cannot be tested scientifically.

A second weakness is that the evolutionary theories may be undesirable because they distract us from other possible explanations and oversimplify reality.

However, they increase understanding because they help us to make sense of behaviours that would otherwise not make sense because they focus on adaptiveness and function, i.e., they focus on ultimate causes of behaviour rather than proximate one. E.g., an ultimate explanation of relationships might be that the people simply wanted to have children however the proximate cause may be due to people wanting to feel good about them self and even show off their attractiveness or their partners attractiveness.Environmental reductionism: behaviourist explanations suggest that all behaviour can be explained in terms of stimulus-response links, i.e., can be reduced to a simple relationship between behaviour and events in the environment.

E.g., Attachment: According to behaviourists, attachment is determined by classical and operant conditioning. With the former, the person feeding an infant comes to produce a conditioned response (pleasure) through being associated with food (an unconditioned stimulus). With the latter, the person feeding the infant becomes a secondary reinforcer because s/he is supplying food, which is in turn a primary reinforcer, reducing an unpleasant hunger drive and thus rewarding.

Behaviourist explanations are oversimplifications: Restricting ourselves to the study of only one influence at a time may make sense in the context of a laboratory science, but we may miss the complexity of influences on any one behaviour. These influences interact in complicated ways and it can be frustratingly difficult to ascertain which, if any, of them is really causing the behaviour.

In a world dominated by either reinforcement or punishment, it might appear that the only way to motivate people is with the ‘carrot and stick’. Kohn (1993) argues that this sort of ‘pop behaviourism’ distracts us from asking whether the behaviour being reinforced is worthwhile in the first place. Skinner never believed that life should be reduced to the mindless use of reinforces.

The behavioural approach is reductionist because it has developed as a result of experiments using non-human animals. Such explanations may not be appropriate for more complex human behaviour. Humans are not scales-up versions of other animals: their behaviour is influenced by social context, intentions, etc. Even in non-human animals, reductionist explanations ignore other possible influences such as cognitive and/or emotional factors.

Machine reductionism: Is used by the cognitive approach when it likens the human mind to a computer. This type of information-processing approach explain behaviour in terms of encoding, storage and retrieval, exemplified in some models of memory.

E.g., The Multi-store model of memory maintains that there is simply a SM, STM and LTM, with rehearsal.

One weakness of the machine approach is that the Multi-store model is reductionist and linear account of how memory works. More recent developments in cognitive psychology have represented mental functions such as connectionist networks. The links develop through experience, each new experience strengthening or weakening the links. Connectionist networks are described as holist because the network as a whole behaves differently from the individual parts; linear models assume that the sum of parts equals the whole.

Arguments FOR & AGAINST Freewill and DeterminismDeterminism - The determinist approach proposes that all behaviour is determined and thus predictable. Some approaches in psychology see the source of this determinism as being outside the individual, a position known as environmental determinism. eg. Bandura showed that children with violent parents will in turn become violent parents through observation and imitation. Others see it from coming inside i.e., in the form of unconscious motivation or genetic determinism – biological determinism. E.g., high IQ has been related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et a,., 1998).

Free will - The idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act is fundamental to most common-sense theories of psychology. Free will assumes that we are free to choose our behaviour, in other words we are self determined eg. people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not (unless they are a child or they are insane). Also, a person is responsible for their own actions, eg. a person needs to find their own route to personal growth and self-actualisation (Maslow). It does not mean that behaviour is random, but we are free from the causal influences of past events.

Arguments FOR Freewill Counterarguments (or arguments AGAINST Freewill)

1. ‘People have a subjective sense of free will’ – Most people feel that they possess freewill and are able, at any time, to make free choices. Dr. Johnson, in the 18th century, said ‘We know our will is free, and there’s an end on ‘t’.

2. The Ethical argument:If an individual’s behaviour is determined by forces beyond the individual’s control, then the individual cannot be help responsible for their actions. The basis of moral responsibility is that individuals are responsible for their own actions, i.e., can exercise free will. The law states that children and those who are mentally ill do not have this responsibility but otherwise there is the assumption in our society that ‘normal’ adult behaviour is self-determined. In other words, humans are responsible for their actions, regardless of innate factors or early experiences.

3. From a materialist perspective, we may gain insight into the location of free will by considering mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia where patients lack voluntary control or the ability to initiate activity.

4. Modern science no longer upholds the view that the world is predictable; it is best described as ‘probabilistic’ (Dennett, 2003). Heisenberg’s ‘Uncertainty Principle’ (1927) suggests that particles can no longer be predicted. Thus, if scientists cannot predict particle movement, then human behaviour cannot be predicted.

1. Despite this subjective sense of having free will, it has proved to be a difficult concept to define, and also difficult to see how behaviour is not predictable to some extent. Unfortunately, there is no proof of having freewill. We may think we are free because the causes of our behaviour (e.g., unconscious forces, genetic factors) are hidden from us. Nor is this a position that can be tested scientifically (unfalsifiable). How can you assess whether you would take a particular course of action unless you took it? More specifically, free will may be a culturally relative concept. Western culture is individualistic, whereas some non-western cultures are collectivist with a sense of ‘we-ness’ and lack of self-determination. For example, Nadler (1993) compared immigrants to Israel, one group from the US (individualistic) and one from the Soviet Union (collectivist). Those from the Soviet Union were more likely to seek help, and the US immigrants less likely to do so. Therefore those in the collectivist society do not think in terms of ‘I’ but in terms of ‘we’ and therefore have a lack of a sense of freewill and are determined by their social norms.

2. Most psychological theories or moral development present moral thinking and behaviour as being determined by internal and/or external forces. Both Piaget and Kohlberg suggested that moral development was biologically determined. The behaviourist view is that we behave ‘morally’ because otherwise we are punished; i.e., moral behaviour is determined by punishment (or not). If this were true, there would be no need for a concept of moral responsibility, as suggested by the free will argument. If an individual behaved in an anti-social way, it would not, according to this view, matter whether or not they were responsible; they should still be punished to prevent it happening again. However, Humanistic psychologists believe that behaviour is governed by conscious decisions which have some regularity. Heather (1976) resolved this contradiction by suggesting that much of behaviour is predictable, though not inevitable; individuals are free to chose their behaviour but this is usually within a familiar limited repertoire.

3. Difficulty in specifying free will:The notion of free will implies that there is something doing the ‘willing’, something that is mental rather than physical. Besides trying to establish what might do the willing, there is s further question of how mental states might interact with physical states – in other words, how it is that thinking about moving one’s foot results in the nervous and muscular activity required. ‘Materialists’ believe that only physical states exist, whereas ‘dualists’ believe that there are separate mental and physical states.

4. Inconsistency with science:Events being determined by something in the past is fundamental to scientific psychology. We might argue that discovering the determinants of behaviour is the ultimate goal of psychology, e.g., the event has been caused by a past event. Thus, in psychology we measure behaviour before and after an experiment to explore cause/effect relationships. However, if human behaviour is governed by free will, then there is no causality to be discovered.

Arguments FOR Determinism Counterarguments (or arguments AGAINST Determinism)1. Success of science in investigating human behaviour:Scientific investigations of human behaviour have produced valid knowledge which can be applied to the real world. E.g., research into stress and the immune system have shown the link between physical and psychological factors intertwining can affect an individual.

2. Predictability of people’s behaviour:The psychological world, like the physical world is predictable. People believe in their own predictability of others. We know ourselves to be mean with money and expect to behave in a similar way in the future. Or if someone has previously been generous they will be generous in the future.

3. Skinner (1971) argued that freedom is an illusion. We may think we have freewill but the probability of any behaviour occurring is determined by past experiences. Skinner claimed that free will was an illusion – we think we are free, but this is because we are not aware of how our behaviour is determined by reinforcement. Freud also thought that free will was an illusion, because he felt that the causes of our behaviour is unconscious and still predictable. However, Valentine (1982) claims that this subjective sense of freewill is a tenable proposition. It is something that can be studied and thus shown to be true. E.g., attitudes towards free will have been found to increase with age and are also more common in individualistic cultures where personal responsibility receives greater emphasis.

4. Research into the human genome project is producing increasing evidence of genetic influences on behaviour. For example, a high IQ may be related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et al. 1998). Also, For example Zubenko et al (2002) recently identified a ‘susceptibility’ gene for depression. This seems to be gender specific, explaining women’s vulnerability to developing depression.

5. Valentine (1982) suggests that in fact determinism is falsifiable because it has been falsified by the uncertainty principle! Thus the proof that determinism is not true demonstrates that at least it can be falsified.

6. Scientific research is based on the belief that events have a cause and an effect. If we do not take a determinist view, this rules out psychological research into explaining causes of behaviour. This also means that, at a personal level, it does not make sense to try and predict behaviour. This view suggests that the human world is totally unpredictable –which is contrary to most people’s experiences.

1. Science’s lack of success: Psychological research which may have discovered cause and effect relationships in the laboratory may not be applied to the real world and thus lacked ecological validity. For example, Loftus carried out research in the laboratory where she looked at leading questions, and changing the verbs in sentences. However, the results were unreliable! Yuille and Cutshall carried out similar research yet found reliable results in real life situations.

2. Are people unpredictable? Mischel’s theory of personality proposed that people do not have a consistent personality, which would challenge the claim that personality is predictable. He claimed that people’s behaviour varies from one situation to another. E.g., you might be shy in class, but when you’re with your friends you can be loud and outgoing. However, Fleeson (2001) supports the view that people are consistent across situations, thus supporting the notion of causality in human behaviour and determinism.

3. How do we reconcile this moral responsibility? People who commit crimes can argue that their behaviour was beyond their control. Lawyers have tried to use genetic determinism as a defence argument. E.g., in 1995 Stephen Mobley was accused of shooting a pizza restraint manager. His lawyer produced evidence that Mobley’s antisocial behaviour was inherited because many family members had shown similar tendencies (Brunner, 1993). Mobley was convicted nevertheless. However, we do accept ‘diminished responsibility’ as an explanation for such crimes, as in the case of the Moors murderer Ian Brady.

4. Research into the human genome project is producing increasing evidence of genetic causes of behaviour. However, it is doubtful that there will ever be 100% genetic determinism for any behaviour. For example, twin studies which have been used to look at concordance rates never show 100% concordance rate between MZ twins and thus there has been be an element of nature and nurture influencing behaviour. For example, Holland’s research into biological explanations of anorexia only found a 56% concordance rate in MZ twins and only a 7% concordance rate in DZ twins.

5. Determinism is not falsifiable:Theories should generate hypotheses that can be tested to see if there are true or false. If this is not possible, then you cannot ‘prove’ a theory’s validity. The question of whether all behaviour can be explained within a determinist framework receives the reply that as yet is not possible.

6. It may be that psychology is not a science. Even if it were a science, Dennett (2003) argues that, in the physical sciences, it is now accepted that there is no such thing as total determinism. Chaos theory proposes that very small alterations in initial conditions can result in major changes – the butterfly effect’ (One small change may lead to a series of unpredictable events). Therefore, the world is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

In conclusion the deterministic approach is valuable because it has lead to beneficial practical applications such as behaviour therapy and drug therapy – and will soon lead to genetic modification of faulty genes. However, it is a very pessimistic approach, because it suggests one cannot change. The free-will approach, on the other hand, is optimistic as it suggests one can change for the better. Most psychologists now accept that the real debate is about how much of human behaviour is due to free will and how much is due to determinism. This is called SOFT DETERMINISM, and it suggests that biological and environmental factors determine behaviour, but there is an element of free will involved as well – but the question remains – how much of each is involved?

Research into Freewill and DeterminismHumanistic approach: the humanistic approach embraces free will. Roger’s (1959) proposed a personality theory based on the concepts of self-determination (free will) and self actualisation. He suggested that taking responsibility for oneself is the route to healthy self development. Individuals who remain controlled by other people or other things cannot take responsibility for their behaviour so cannot begin to change it. Only when an individual takes self-responsibility is personal growth possible, resulting in psychological health.

E.g., Jahoda’s view of ideal mental health suggests that abnormal behaviour occurs because individuals do not fulfil their full potential. Thus, he stated that human behaviour is driven by biological needs, but once these have been satisfied, other needs such as self actualisation become important.

E.g., Carl Rogers’s client-centred therapy (counselling) saw the therapist as a facilitator for the client to help them make sense of their current situation and future. This allowed the client to develop a sense of control over their future and to decide what is best for themselves.

This suggests that healthy psychological development depends on owning your behaviour.

One strength of the Humanistic theory is that it is supported by research into stress. The harmful effects of stress are reduced if a person feels in control of events around them. For example, Kim et al. (1997) found that children who felt in control showed fewer signs of stress when their parents divorced.

1. The biological approach: takes the view that behaviour is determined by internal, biological systems. This is physiological/biological determinism. Up to a point biological determinism is a valid argument. Clearly, biological factors provide explanations of behaviour, but not a complete picture. The biological approach consist of brain structures and neurotransmitters.

The General Adaptation Syndrome for example, proposes that humans respond to stressors in 3 stages as a result of hormonal secretions. This implies that the stress response is determined at a purely biological level. This may be applicable to animals, but humans have self awareness and involve their cognitions when responding to a stressor (e.g. I'd better get out of here!).

Evidence has also shown that no complex behaviour can be explained solely by biological factors. The diathesis stress model of mental disorder explains this by showing that biological factors set a vulnerability, but it is the interaction of this predisposition with environmental factors which can trigger the disorder.

. One strength of the biological approach is that it takes on the nature approach, which is supported by scientific, causal research. This allows predictions to be made from a controlled laboratory environment where there is control over the IV and DV. This suggests that causal relationships can be achieved using scientific methods to test the biological approach.

A weakness of the biological approach is that it is reductionist. For example, anorexia cannot solely be caused by faulty genes (HTR1D) or low levels of serotonin, there are to be other factors such as free will involved. This suggests that the biological approach is oversimplistic when considering behaviour.

2. Environmental determinism: the behavioural approach proposes that all behaviour is learned and can be explained solely in terms of external (environmental) factors. Skinner said that freedom was an illusion, because we are unaware of the environmental causes of behaviour.

E.g., According to behaviourists, attachment is determined by classical and operant conditioning. With the former, the person feeding an infant comes to produce a conditioned response (pleasure) through being associated with food (an unconditioned stimulus). With the latter, the person feeding the infant becomes a secondary reinforcer because s/he is supplying food, which is in turn a primary reinforcer, reducing an unpleasant hunger drive and thus rewarding.

The idea of environmental determinism is shown in the behaviourist explanation of anorexia, which proposes that body image is shaped by the media. A person is then positively reinforced for losing weight. Mischel however, suggested a reciprocal deterministic view. This proposes that the interaction between the individual and the environment is important, as people are both a product and a producer of their environment. An individual selects their social environment due to personal characteristics. This choice determines who the individual spends time with, and which behaviours are reinforced. So learned behaviour is to some extent regulated by choice.

One strength of the behaviourist approach is that it has practical applications. For example, the assumptions of behaviourist have been applied to treat abnormal behaviour, e.g., systematic desensitisation and token economy. This suggests that using the behaviourist principles to reduce the behaviour down to a stimulus response then practitioners can improve the quality of people’s lives.

One weakness of behaviourist explanations is that they are reductionist. They reduce complex behaviour to a series of stimulus-response units that respond to reinforcement. This explanation may be suitable for non-human animal behaviour, but is not relevant to humans, which have the ability to have some freewill over their behaviour. This suggests that the behaviourist is oversimplistic.

3. Psychic determinism: the psychoanalytic approach suggests that adult behaviour or personality is predetermined by events in early childhood. This is because the causes of our behaviour are psychological and not free chosen. Freud, like Skinner, believed that free will was an illusion. Freud believed this was because the actual causes of our behaviour are unconscious and therefore hidden from us. However, Freud did believe that people do have the potential for free-will.

Dreaming: according to Freud, dreams are determined by unfulfilled wishes. The id has irrational, instinct-driven thoughts that are unacceptable and therefore repressed but resurface in our dreams. Freud believed that if we did not dream, the energy invested in these desires would build up and threaten our sanity.

A weakness of Freud’s theory is that it is difficult to falsify (prove wrong). We do not have a way of demonstrating that Freud’s interpretation of a dream is correct. This means that the interpretations made by Freud and others are subjective and methodologically flawed (particularly lacking validity).

A second weakness of Freud’s theory is that it is reductionist. This is because Freud believed that all dreams are ‘fulfilments of wishes’ and hence overestimated the role of sexual factors, but underestimated the role of social factors. This suggests that Freud’s theory is oversimplistic when trying to explain why people dream.

Most psychologists now accept that the real debate is about how much of human behaviour is due to free will and how much is due to determinism. This is called SOFT DETERMINISM, and it suggests that biological and environmental factors determine behaviour, but there is an element of free will involved as well – but the question remains – how much of each is involved?

Definition of Science Varieties of Science

Definitions: Science literally means “knowledge” – which is based on factual evidence. Scientific method involves

1. Scientific observation are objective – not influenced by bias

2. Observations are fully controlled

3. Science involves predictions about what is expected under specific conditions

4. Scientists need to falsify their hypothesis

5. Scientists need to have a high level of reliability to test and re-test

Most scientific ……. Physics……Chemistry……Anatomy…….Geology…….Psychology…….Sociology…….Least scientific

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning:

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach . In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

Psychology as a ScienceDEFINISTIONS AND VARIETIES OF SCIENCE:

Arguments For & AGAINST Psychology as a Science

Arguments For Psychology as a Science Counterarguments (Arguments AGAINST Psychology as a science)

1. Objectivity: Data should be collected as objectively as possible with the minimum bias, prejudice, and expectation from researchers. For example This theory assumes that IQ is genetic, Carefully controlled scientific experiments have enabled researchers to test this idea. Experimental groups of pps with high IQ’s have been compared to control groups with

1. However, Popper (1972) argues that observation is always selective and pre-structured because, before an observation can be made, the researcher has to decide what is to be observed. No-one ever observers without some idea of what they are looking for, so observations are selective. Psychologists also have

average IQ’s to see if there were any significant differences. Plomin compared blood samples of super bright pps with the blood of average pps. He found more of the super brights had the gene IGF2R than the average pps (IV = IGF2R or not, DV = IQ). This work supports the genetic argument and is scientific, tightly controlled, objective and reliable. This again suggests that Psychology can be a science. Wallach and Wallach (1994) while acknowledge that perfect objectivity is not possible, argue that nevertheless we can be confident in the interpretation of behaviour if there is plenty of other supporting evidence.

2. Falsifiability: Popper (1969) argued that the hallmark of science is the formulation of ideas that are potentially capable of being falsified. The idea of falsifiability is related to the extent to which predictions can be made from the theory. E.g., If predictions are specific then it is possible to test them to see if they are false. For example, they theory that STM holds 7 + or – 2 leads to clear predictions that can be tested. IF people can generally only remember 3 items, or they can regularly remember at least 11, the theory is false.

3. Paradigm: A paradigm is a shared set of assumptions, methods and terminology about what should be studied and how. Kuhn (1962) states that “a field of study can be properly considered a science if a majority of its workers subscribe to a common global theory of perspective”. He suggests that the progression of science takes place in three historical stages:

♪ Pre-science: no universally accepted paradigm.♪ Normal science: researchers work by sharing the same paradigm♪ Revolutionary science: the evidence becomes so overwhelming that a ‘paradigm shift’ occurs and a new

perspective is adopted (e.g., moving from a psychodynamic approach in the 20 th century to the behaviourist approach during the late 20th century with Watson).

It can be argued that there have been paradigms and paradigm shifts in psychology, starting with Wundt’s Introspectionism and moving through behaviourism and into cognitive psychology. Alternatively, it can be argued that there are mini-pardigms, such as psychodynamic, behaviourism, evolutionary, etc) each with a set of explanations and methods. Valentine (1982) takes the view that Behaviourism constitutes as a science because it has a clear paradigm. Behaviourism uses the scientific method, only studying what can be objectively measured, and making precise predictions. However, only a minority of psychologists are advocates of behaviourism. Although behaviourism has played a major role in psychology it is specifically the methodology and not the theory which is influential.

4. Replicability: Replicability referes to being able to test and re-test a study and see if the results are consistent and therefore reliable. The only method in psychology that is replicable is the experimental method. Laboratory experiments permit high control and reasonably good replicability. For example …. In contrast, there have been some areas which have proved successful when using the lab-based investigation such as Darley and Latane’s research into bystander behaviour.

5. Anti-reductionist approaches to psychological research, sometimes called ‘new paradigm methods’ are still ‘scientific’ in so far as they aim to be objective. Data can be collected from interviews, discourse analysis and observations, and then triangulated – the findings are compared with each other as a means of verifying them and making them objective.

preconceived ideas depending on their theoretical orientation, so what they see depends to an extent to what they are expected to see, so observations are interpretative. . Furthermore, only some psychologists (behaviourists and biopsychologists) are willing to restrict their field of study to objective measurements. Others wish to include feelings and conscious experience. Moreover, there is the question of whether simply using the scientific methods turns psychology into a science. Miller (1983) suggests that psychologists who attempt to be scientists are doing no more that ‘dressing up’ psychology. Perhaps at best pseudo—science could be used.

2. In contrast, if a theory is very general and unspecified, then predictions are vague and multiple and the theory is impossible to falsify. A classic example, is Freud’s theory. Take the example of a boy raised by a harsh, rejecting mother and a weak father. He may, according to the theory, seek dominating women who will denigrate him because they remind him of his mother, or a warm comforting wife who can provide the mothering he lacked in infancy. Another non-scientific approach of Freud’s theory is that there are many aspects of it, such as the id, ego and super-ego which are unfalsifiable since it is not possible to imagine any findings that would refute them. Eg., (Eating disorders)

3. As regards to psychology, Kuhn argues that it is still at the pre-science state with no overall paradigm for two main reasons. First there are many conflicting approaches (psychodynamic, behaviourist, humanistic, etc). Second, the subject matter of psychology is so diverse, ranging from topic areas bordering on sociology, biology and neurology that researchers in different fields have little in common, therefore it could be classed as a pre-science.

4. Despite the idea that laboratory studies have high reliability they lack validity (both internal and external). For example, Orne and Holland claim that Milgram’s research lacked internal validity because the participants were responding to demand characteristics. Furthermore, research into social influence such as Asch, Moscovici etc, were all carried out in the lab, which is artificial to real life and this suggests that the findings cannot be applied to real life situations.

In contrast, it seems reasonable to use an alternative method such as qualitative methods i.e., a case study, naturalistic observation, etc which are not replicable yet they provide invaluable information about human behaviour. Psychology would be a far less valid means of finding out how and why people behave as they do if the laboratory experiment was the only means of investigation. Many researchers therefore argue that it is inappropriate to use a scientific method in psychology or indeed to make psychology a pure science.

5. Are the goals of science appropriate for psychology? Laing (1965) discussing the causes of schizophrenia, felt it inappropriate to view a person experiencing distress as a complex physical-chemical system that has gone wrong. The proof is in the pudding – and psychological treatments have had at best a modest success, which suggests that the goals of science are not always appropriate.

The Biological Approach

Bodily activity is divided into two main systems of the body: Central nervous system: the brain and the spinal cord (Rapid response to a situations) and Autonomic nervous system: controls the release of hormones (Slower and generally automatic responses)

Brain Organisation:Left hemisphere: Language, Rational, Deductive, ObjectiveRight hemisphere: Visuo-spatial info, Emotion, Creative, Subjective, IntuitiveFrontal Lobe: Motor cortex: Fine motor movement, Pre-frontal cortex: Forward planning and working memory.Limbic system: The centre for emotionsHypothalamus: The pleasure Neurotransmitters:Serotonin: Low levels = depression, suicide, impulsive aggression, alcoholism, sexual deviance and explosive rage. High levels = OCD, fearfulness, lack of confidence and shyness.Dopamine: affects the process of movement, emotional responses and the ability to experience pleasure and pain. High levels = when people are addicted to sex, drugs and chocolate leads to an intense feeling of enjoyment.Endorphins: block pain pathways

The Autonomic Nervous System:This is divided into two main pathways: Parasympathetic: governs the resting state Sympathetic: associated with bodily arousal, such as increase heart rate, etc. Hormones: Melatonin: Is released by the pineal gland and acts on the brainstem sleep mechanisms to help synchronise sleep Testosterone: May lead to an increase in aggression

Evolution: The phenotype and genotype, genetically determined traits evolve through natural and kin selection. Any behaviour that helps the individual survive and reproduce will be selected and the genes will survive. Sexual Selection: Traits (EEA), males would compete for females and females select the most resourceful male.

Strengths & Weaknesses

It is a scientific approach, which is objective. It can describe causal relationships. It has useful practical applications

HOWEVER…

Reductionist Deterministic

Hypothesis Design Sample Control Group IV and DV EthicsYou need to choose a method below or multiple ones:

Non-Invasive Methods:EEG- The EEG is synchronised with a recognisable and repeated waveform, or desynchronized with apparently random patterns of waves and spikes. It also has a frequency or number of waves of spikes per second. Certain patterns correlate highly with behavioural states.FMRI: place the head in a powerful magnetic field and bombarding the brain with radio waves. Molecules in the brain vibrate in response to the radio waves and emit radio waves of their own which are used to build up a very accurate 3D picture of the brain.PET: involves injecting radioactive glucose into the bloodstream. The parts of the brain that are more active take up more glucose and emit more active take up more glucose and emit more radioactivity; a computer is used to provide an activity map of the brain. This allows the psychologists to see which parts of the brain are most active.

Adoption or twin studies:These studies help discover the effects of genetics and the influence of the environment. Adoption studies are useful since the children share half their genes with each biological parent but not their environment, and their environment with their adoptive parents but not their genes. Correlations can be made between the children’s traits and behaviours compared to both their biological parents and adoptive parents. Twin studies use a similar method. MZ twins can be compared with DZ twins ~ therefore if the behaviour is seen in the MZ twins then it’s generally biological.

Strengths & Weaknesses

High reliability Ethical compared to invasive methods

HOWEVER…

Low ecological validity Low internal validity Involve recording over long hours, therefore technical, expensive and time consuming