A03: Holism and Reductionism

• Evaluate


  ?
• Case FOR holism

  P: Some aspects of social behaviour only emerge within a group context & can't be understood at the level of the individual group member.

  E: E.G: effects of conformity to social roles & the deindividuation of the prisoners & guards in Zimbardo’s prison experiment 

  E: This phenomena couldn't be understood by studying the behaviour of ppts as individuals, it was the interaction of the group that was important.

  L: This shows holistic explanation provides a more complete understanding of human behaviour than reductionist approaches when studying topics such as social psychology
• AGAINST holism

  P: Holistic expla, considered vague, speculative & less scientific as they don't lend themselves to empirical testing.

  E.G: humanistic psy, takes holistic approach to behaviour be criticised coz of lack of empirical evidence & seen as loose set of concepts

  Higher level holistic concepts pose practical problems as if we accept there multiple factors in development of illness like depression, its difficult to establish which most influential & thus used as basis for therapy

  L: When attempting find solutions to real-life problems, lower level expla may be more appropriate.
• AGAINST reductionism:

  P: Reductionist approaches been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena leading to a loss of validity.

  E: Explanations that focus on genes, neurotransmitters & neurons don't include analysis of social context within which behaviour occurs

  E: E.G: physiological processes behind pointing your finger will be the same, regardless of context. However, this cannot tell us why the finger was pointed e.g. to draw attention to something, an act of aggression, to bid at an auction

  L: Thus, reductionist explanations can only ever provide a partial explanation for behaviour.
• FOR = R: Scientific status

  P: Reductionist approach often forms basis of scientific research.

  E: To conduct well-controlled research variables must be operationalised, to create OV need to break target behaviour down to itsconstituent parts. So possible to conduct experiments & record observations (using Behavioural categories) in meaningful, objective & reliable way. E.G: behaviourist approach able reduce complex human behaviours to simple S-R links in lab

  L: This scientific approach gives psy more credibility, placing it on equal terms with natural sciences lower in reductionist hierarchy
• Against Reductionism (2)

  Reductionist explanations at the level of the gene or neurotransmitter do not include an analysis of the context within chich behaviour occurs and therefore lack meaning

  • This suggests that reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation.
• Against HOLISM (2)

  May lack practical value:

  • Holistic accounts of human behaviour become hard to use as they become more complex which presents researchers with a practical dilemma.
  • If many different factors contribute to, say, depression, then it becomes difficult to known which is most influential and which to prioritise for treatment.

  This suggests that holistic accounts may lack practical value (whereas reductionist account may be better)
• LIMITATION of reductionisms - the need for higher level explanations

  There are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood in terms of the individual group members.

  • For example: The Stanford Prison Study could not be understood by observing the ppt as individuals, it was the behaviour of the group that was important

  This shows that, for some behaviours, high (or even holistic) level explanations provide a more valid account.