A03

• Can explain key aspects of social behaviour?


  • Some social behaviours that only emerge within a group context and can't be understood at the level of individual group members
  • E.G. the effects of de-individuation of prisoners and guards in the Stanford couldn't be understood by studying the Ps as individuals - the interactions between the people that mattered
  • Holistic explanations are needed for a more complete understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches
• Impractical?


  • Tend to not lend themselves to rigorous scientific and become vague and speculative as they become more complex
  • E.G. if we accept there are many factors contributing to depression it's difficult to establish which is most influential and which to use as a basis of therapy
  • Suggests that when it comes to finding solutions for real world problems lower level explanation may be more applicable
• Against:

  Too hypothetical
• Against:

  What does the lack of experimentation lead to?


  A lack of reliability
• Against:

  Can't be empirically tested
• Against:

  What is a major issue?


  It's too detailed, to complex which leads things unanswered
• Against:

  Why does it lack predictive power?


  The explanations are broad, imprecise and untested
• For:

  What does it acknowledge?

  Complexity
• For:

  What does it not artificially strive for?

  Simplistic explanations
• For:

  Which interactionist accounts are sometimes more valid than reductionist ones?

  • Human reproductive behaviours - partner choice
  • Social psychology - conformity, obedience
  • Breland and Breland - instinctive drift
• For:

  What is it less likely to leave out?

  Cultural and social factors
• For:

  What does it focus on?

  Subjective experiences
• For:

  What is it better at explaining?

  The 'why' of behaviours