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