Issues and debates

• Gender bias

  
  

  A lack of consideration of differences between men and women

  • = improper representation in psychological theories
  • = worse treatment of one gender (women)
  • Undermines universality as all conclusions are applied to everyone
• Gender bias - alpha bias

  • Research on differences between men + women
  • Differences = fixed + inevitable (due to biology)
  • e.g. Oedipus/Electra complexes
• Gender bias - beta bias

  • Theories ignoring/minimising sex differences
  • Assuming that same studies on males/females = same outcome
  • Differences between genders not considered
  • e.g. Cannon's Fight or Flight theory
• Gender bias - androcentrism

  • Centring society around men's needs/priorities/values (masculine POV)
  • Culturally marginalises femininity + women's behaviour dismissed (not 'up to standard' -> abnormal)
• Cultural bias


  Interpreting all cultures through the lens of our own culture + ignoring effects that other cultures have on behaviour
• Cultural bias - cultural relativism

  • Not judging other cultures to our own standards (what's right/wrong/strange/normal)
• Cultural bias - ethnocentrism

  • Judging other cultures by standards/values of our own culture
  • Belief in superiority of our own culture = prejudice + discrimination
• Cultural bias - attachment types

  
  

  • Mary Ainsworth + Sylvia Bell, 1970
  • Research on attachment type -> ideal attachment between babies + mothers = secure attachment
  • Only reflects Western cultures, e.g. Japanese babies + mothers = insecure attachment (rarely separated)
  • Shows issues of culture bias affecting results' reliability
• Cultural bias - overcoming cultural bias

  • John Berry, 1969
  • Emic approach - outlines unique nature of culture (opposite to etic approach)
  • Research takes place within culture by indigenous researchers = better understanding
  • Biased research avoided + better cultural representation
• Cultural bias - universality + bias

  • Research participants: 68% = USA, 96% = industrialised nations, 80% = psychology undergrads
  • Understanding of human behaviour may have strong cultural bias
  • WEIRD societies = most likely to be studied (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic)
• Ethical implications of research

  • How research affects (groups within) society
  • Sieber + Stanley, 1988
  • All research with ethical implications = socially sensitive
  • SSR could lead to negative consequence on type of people investigated, e.g. legislations against them/vindicating current prejudice (Freud's psychodynamic theories slowed down equal rights movement)
• Ethical issues - ways to prevent negative consequences (S+S)

  • Careful consideration of implications of publishing research, especially for marginalised groups
  • Consideration of how the research will be used in creating public policy
  • Focus on research's validity
• Nature vs nurture debate


  The debate over whether personality, culture and development are caused by nature (biology) or nurture (environment)
• Nature vs nurture debate - nature

  • Nativism -> hereditary (biological factors passed down by parents) -> biological factors believed to be stronger than environmental factors
  • Biological factors (genes, DNA) make up our insides = some think this determines thoughts/actions -> genes make up parts of our brains = influence on behaviour + intellectual capacity
  • Francis Galton (1900s) studied families of doctors/teachers -> showed talent may be hereditary (introduced ideas of Eugenics)
• Nature vs nurture debate - nurture

  • Environmental factors mould personalities -> people around us determine our own thoughts/actions
  • John Locke -> humans = tabula rasa
  • Human mind = blank slate at birth
  • Info added + rules for processing info generated by sensory experience
  • Personalities formed through experience
  • Conditioning to change/instil a child's behaviour
  • e.g. Bandura -> SLT; humans learn through observing others' behaviour (Bobo Doll experiment)
• Nature vs nurture debate - conclusion

  • Nature + nurture overlap/contradict each other depending on individual
  • Genetics do play a role but environmental factors also contribute a large part of who we are
  • Relative importance = the extent to which each factor contributes (considering its effect + the effects of other variables)
• Holism and reductionism


  Levels of explanation
• Holism + reductionism - holism

  • Highest possible level of explanation -> not reduced at all (only understandable in its entirety)
  • Stems from 'Gestalt Psychology' -> sees 'the whole as greater than the sum of its parts'
  • People's behaviour cannot be understood through reduction
  • Humanistic Psychology -> argues that person reacts as unified whole
  • No 'unified identity' = mental illness/disorders
• Parsimony


  Competing explanations are all equally good so researchers use the simplest ones
• Holism + reductionism note:

  
  

  Mid-level explanations are not holistic or reductionist
• Idiographic + nomothetic research - idiographic

  • Small group of people/one single case
  • Pros: qualitative -> focuses on first-hand accounts from few people
  • Cons: Small group = restricted work/single case can't be compared to others within study + least scientific (highly subjective = open to bias)
• Idiographic + nomothetic research - nomothetic

  • Large group of people
  • Quantitative
  • Vigorously tested, statistically analysed, general laws + principles proposed then developed
  • Most nomothetic studies consider similarities between people
  • Pros: establishes laws/generalisations that apply to everyone
  • Cons: less focus on individuals = generalised results + subjective experiences ignored/human experience overlooked
• Holism + reductionism - reductionism

  • Lowest level of explanation
  • Simple = broken down into smallest/most basic pieces
  • Environmental reductionism -> all physical human reactions = stimulus-response links, e.g. Behaviourism
  • Biological reductionism = behavioural analysis = neurophysiological/neurochemical or neurophysical
  • Lowest level of explanation
  • All behaviour explained through biology