Psychology (9685) | Issues and debates in psychology

Welcome to Issues and Debates in Psychology!

Hello! This chapter is one of the most important and exciting parts of your Psychology course. Instead of learning specific theories, you will be learning how to think like a psychologist by exploring the big philosophical questions that underpin all the approaches you’ve studied (like Cognitive, Biological, and Learning).

Understanding these debates allows you to evaluate and compare every piece of research and theory you encounter. If you master these four core debates, you will be able to write much stronger essays in your final exams. Let's dive in!

---

1. Free Will versus Determinism

What is the Debate About?

This debate asks a fundamental question: Are we genuinely in control of our actions, or are our behaviors caused by forces outside our control?

The Free Will Position

The concept of Free Will suggests that individuals are entirely responsible for their own choices and behavior. We have self-determination and can choose how we act, regardless of our biological makeup or past experiences.

• Analogy: Free will is like driving a car manually. You choose when to turn, accelerate, or stop.

The Determinism Position

Determinism argues that all behavior is controlled by internal or external factors, and therefore, free will is an illusion. If we knew all the controlling factors, we could theoretically predict every human action.

Types of Determinism (Syllabus Requirement)

It is important to know that determinism isn't just one concept; it comes in different forms, depending on the cause:

1. Biological Determinism: This view claims that our behavior is controlled by our internal biological systems, such as:

   • Genes (e.g., a specific gene determines aggressive behavior).

   • Hormones (e.g., high testosterone causes risk-taking).

   • Neurochemistry (e.g., low serotonin causes depression).

2. Environmental Determinism: This view claims that behavior is controlled by forces in our environment and our learning history.

   • The Learning Approach (Behaviourism) strongly supports this. B.F. Skinner argued that we are simply the sum of our previous reinforcements and punishments (Classical and Operant Conditioning).

   • We think we are making choices, but we are just responding to external stimuli we have been conditioned to react to.

Hard versus Soft Determinism

Psychologists distinguish between how strongly they believe behavior is controlled:

• Hard Determinism (Fatalism): This is the strongest position. It suggests that all human action has a cause and it should be possible to identify these causes. It is incompatible with free will – there is no choice whatsoever.

• Soft Determinism (Interactionist): This is a more moderate position. It suggests that while all behavior has causes, we still have room for conscious mental control and choice. We are determined by external factors, but we can exercise our free will in how we act upon those factors. This is the position taken by many Cognitive Psychologists.

The Scientific Emphasis on Causal Explanations

The reason the determinist view is popular among many psychologists is its link to science.
Science operates on the principle that if we can find the cause (\(A\)), we can predict the effect (\(B\)). This search for causal explanations (cause-and-effect laws) is the core goal of the scientific method. If behavior truly had no cause (i.e., pure free will), then science would be impossible.

---

2. The Nature-Nurture Debate

The Core Question

This debate explores the relative importance of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in determining behavior.

• Nature: Behavior is innate, controlled by biological factors like genes, evolution, and biology. (Think Genotype).

• Nurture: Behavior is learned and acquired through experience, upbringing, and environment. (Think Conditioning, Social Learning).

The Interactionist Approach (The Modern View)

Don't worry if this seems like a tricky either/or choice! Modern psychology rarely takes an extreme 'nature only' or 'nurture only' stance.

Instead, most psychologists now adopt an Interactionist approach. This means they accept that nature and nurture are closely linked and constantly influence each other. They interact, rather than act separately.

Example: A person might have a genetic predisposition (Nature) to develop a mental illness like schizophrenia. However, this gene might only be "switched on" if they experience severe early childhood trauma (Nurture). This is known as the Diathesis-Stress Model.

Did You Know?

The debate is less about "what causes behavior" and more about "how much" each factor contributes. Psychologists often calculate heritability coefficients (like in twin studies) to quantify the genetic influence on a trait. For example, if the heritability coefficient for intelligence is 0.5, it means 50% of the variance in intelligence is due to genetic factors.

---

3. Holism versus Reductionism

The Big Picture vs. The Small Details

This debate is about how we study human behavior—should we look at the whole person, or break them down into simple parts?

• Holism (The Big Picture): Proposes that behavior should be viewed as a whole integrated experience. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To understand a person, you must consider everything: their culture, their experiences, their biology, and their feelings. (Associated with the Humanistic Approach).

• Reductionism (The Small Details): Proposes that human behavior is best understood by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts.

Levels of Explanation

The concept of reductionism often involves looking at Levels of Explanation. When explaining a complex phenomenon (like depression), we can look at different levels, moving from the broad social context down to the microscopic biological level:

Highest Level: Socio-cultural (How society and culture influence the behavior.)
Middle Level: Psychological (How thoughts, feelings, and memory influence the behavior.)
Lowest Level: Biological (How genes, neurons, and neurochemicals influence the behavior.)

Reductionist approaches tend to focus on the lowest levels of explanation.

Types of Reductionism (Syllabus Requirement)

1. Biological Reductionism: Explains behavior using only biological factors (e.g., genetics, physiology, neurotransmitters).

   • Example: Explaining Schizophrenia purely through the Dopamine Hypothesis (excess dopamine activity), ignoring the person's experiences, social background, or cognitive processing.

2. Stimulus-Response (Environmental) Reductionism: Explains behavior only in terms of learned associations between a stimulus (S) and a response (R). This ignores internal mental processes (the "black box").

   • This approach is characteristic of the Behaviourist Approach (like Pavlov and Skinner).

   • Example: Explaining a phobia simply as an S-R link (a learned association between a spider and fear), ignoring the cognitive belief that the spider is dangerous.

Which Approach is Better?

Reductionism is useful because it allows for scientific testing (you can easily test the effect of one variable, like a neurotransmitter). However, it often misses the complexity of human life.
Holism provides a richer, more complete picture of the individual, but it is often harder to study scientifically because you cannot isolate specific variables.

---

4. Psychology and Science

Defining Psychology as a Science

A key debate asks whether psychology should truly be classified as a science. To be scientific, a subject must adhere to strict principles and use specific research methods.

A. Objectivity and the Empirical Method

Science must rely on data gathered through direct observation and experience—this is the Empirical Method.

• Objectivity: Scientific investigation must be unbiased. Researchers must not let their personal beliefs or expectations influence the data collection or interpretation.

• Empirical Method: Knowledge should be derived from senses and direct experience, usually through controlled experiments or structured observations. Data must be measurable (quantitative) to be truly scientific.

B. The Scientific Process (Theory Construction and Testing)

The scientific process follows a logical cycle:

1. Observation/Data Collection: Gather data empirically (e.g., watching behavior in a laboratory).

2. Theory Construction: Develop a broad explanation or set of principles to account for those observations (e.g., creating the Multi-Store Model of Memory).

3. Hypothesis Testing: Based on the theory, a specific, testable prediction (a hypothesis) is formulated. Experiments are then conducted to see if the hypothesis is supported or refuted.

4. Refinement/Modification: If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, the original theory must be modified or abandoned.

C. Replicability and Falsifiability

These two principles are crucial for scientific validity:

• Replicability: If a study is truly scientific, the results must be repeatable. If a researcher can follow the exact same procedures as the original study and get the same results, we trust the findings more. This is why careful recording of research methods is essential.

• Falsifiability: This concept, promoted by philosopher Karl Popper, states that a true scientific theory must be testable in a way that could prove it false.

  • If a theory is so vague that any possible outcome supports it, it is not scientific.

  • Example: A hypothesis like "All swans are white" is scientific because you could find a black swan (falsify it). A non-scientific claim might be "Everyone has an unconscious mind that guides them," as this is very difficult to scientifically test and prove wrong.