Methodological issues

• individual vs situational


  is our behaviour the result of individual factors (such as our personality, upbringing etc.) or is it the result of the situation (environment our circumstances) we are in at the time
• strengths of individual explanations


  • it is supported by evidence of individual differences between people
  • could be useful if placing people in jobs etc.
  • it means people can be held accountable for how they behave
• weaknesses of individual explanations


  • it makes it difficult to predict or control how people will behave in a given situation
  • it makes generalisations difficult
• strengths of situational explanations


  • it is supported by evidence of people being influenced by situations in the same way
  • useful as it suggests we can change behaviour by altering the situations that create it
• weaknesses of situational explanations


  • it could be used as an excuse to explain away bad behaviour
  • it underplays individual differences in response
• nature vs nurture


  • nature: our behaviour is explained as a result of our genetic inheritance (we are born that way)
  • nurture: our behaviour is explained by how we have been brought up (all behaviour is learned after birth)
• strengths of nature as an explanation


  • supported by evidence of behaviour appearing to be difficult to change
  • could potentially be useful, albeit only by pointing towards genetic modification or other biological interventions
  • probably not ethnocentric as biological factors will affect people the same way anywhere
• weaknesses of nature as an explanation


  • of limited usefulness: it may not be possible to do anything.to change a person's nature
  • too reductionist: behaviour is too complicated to be attributed to single genes
  • could be socially sensitive if identifying a problem that someone cannot change about themselves
• strengths of nurture as an explanation


  • it is supported by evidence of behaviour being open to change (e.g. via operant conditioning or social learning)
  • can be useful, suggesting ways to change behaviour by changing how a child is brought up
• weaknesses of nurture as an explanation


  • might be ethnocentric as cultures will vary in how people are brought up within them
  • could be socially sensitive, leading children to blame their parents for how they were brought up
• free will vs determinism


  the debate centres on the extent to which we have control over our actions

  • free will: we are able to choose how we behave in a given situation
  • determinism: our behaviour is caused (determined) by factors we have no control over. this could be as a result of genetics, or other biological factors such as brain functioning.
• strengths of free will as an explanation


  • not socially sensitive- people will often like to feel that they have control over their behaviour
  • useful- people can be held to account for the behaviour they carry out
  • has face validity in the sense that people often feel that their behaviours are their choices
• weaknesses of free will as an explanation


  • hard to prove: what seems like 'free will' could just be a response to a different determinant
  • it suggests no predictability or pattern to behaviour, reducing the usefulness of psychological research
  • socially sensitive: people may find it uncomfortable being told that they are responsible for how they choose to act
• strengths of determinism as an explanation


  • open to positive uses- if we know what causes a wanted behaviour, we can make the behaviour occur again
  • it is scientific as determinist explanations often arise from controlled experiments in which cause and effect has been established
  • recognises that people cannot always be held to account or blamed for their actions
• weaknesses of determinism as an explanation


  • open to negative uses: for example, lawyers could use determinist explanations to get guilty people acquitted
  • socially sensitive: people may find it uncomfortable being told that they are not in control of how they behave
  • can be reductionist if researchers search for THE cause of a particular behaviour
• reductionism vs holism


  • holism: investigating multiple factors at lots of different levels that all interact
  • reductionism: investigates the most basic underlying reasons behind human behaviour
• strengths of reductionist explanations


  • allows psychological research to be more scientific (as it allows researchers to test the impact on behaviour of one factor at a time)
  • studies which take a reductionist approach make it possible to draw more valid conclusions about cause and effect because they tend to be more highly controlled
  • as studies which take a reductionist approach are so highly controlled, they are often more replicable, enabling researchers to repeat studies to see if there is a consistent effect
• weaknesses of reductionist explanations


  • human behaviour is often too complicated to be reduced down to single-factor explanations
  • reductionist research can therefore lack construct validity in the conclusions drawn about the explanation for behaviour
  • studies which take a reductionist approach are often highly controlled experiments and, as such, can lack ecological validity
  • reductionist research can encounter the 'decoupling problem' of isolating a factor to be able to study it on its own, when in real life it always operates in conjunctions with other processes
• strengths of holistic explanations


  • can lead to explanations of behaviour that are high in face validity because all factors are considered
  • holism can account for emergent properties that only appear through the interactions of different factors but would not be present in any single component part
• weaknesses of holistic explanations


  • it can be difficult for researchers to pin down which, out of many different factors is having the greatest effect
  • holistic explanations can end up being quite vague, including levels of explanation that may not be necessary. this can undermine the claim of psychology to be a science
  • may be of limited usefulness as it means it will be difficult to make predictions
• usefulness of research


  for psychological research to be useful...

  • it needs to have practical applications
  • it needs to tell us something new about behaviour
  • if it applies to a large number of people
  • if the research is actually valid
  • if the research has high ecological validity
• benefits of useful research


  • it can have positive practical applications that can improve the quality of people's lives
  • if research is likely to have the practical applications then it is more likely to have practical applications then it is more likely to attract funding, making it more likely that the research will actually be carried out
  • it can improve the reputation of psychology as an academic subject
• drawbacks of useful research


  • research which is useful can be put to bad uses as well as to good uses
  • if two people on opposite sides both make use of the same psychological insight, then the usefulness of the research is cancelled out
  • if it implied that research ought to be useful then psychologists might not do 'pure' research that is not useful now but could be useful in the future
  • if it is all important that research is useful, then this could put pressure on researchers to breach some of the ethical guidelines
• socially sensitive research

  research might be socially sensitive if it's findings could lead to prejudice or discrimination against a particular group of people or cause them harm. this harm could come to participants who take part in the research or to the types of people they represent

  socially sensitive topics include: race, age, gender identity and sexuality
• strengths of carrying out socially sensitive research


  • it can answer important questions that improve our understanding of human behaviour
  • it can lead to practical applications than can improve the quality of people's lives
• weaknesses of carrying out socially sensitive research


  • it can involve potential harm being caused to the participants in the research
  • it can lead to people beyond the study being stigmatised
  • the insights it provides can be used for negative/harmful purposes
• ethical guidelines

  • informed consent: participants should be told about the aims of the study and agree to take part
  • right to withdraw: participants are allowed to leave the study if they are no longer willing to take part
  • confidentiality: participants' results should be kept anonymous
  • deception: participants should not be lied to by researchers
  • protection from harm: participants should not be harmed either physically or emotionally within the research
  • debrief: the true aims should be explained and the research should ensure participants leave with no negative effects of taking part
• strengths of ethical guidelines


  • it avoids participants leaving the study in a different state than when they entered it
  • it makes replication of the study possible, in order to see if the same results would be obtained again
  • it enhances the reputation of psychology as an academic discipline
  • researchers are likely to get other participants for psychological research in the future if they can see that participants are treated well
• weaknesses of ethical guidelines


  • it can place limits on the sort of research carried out
  • it can reduce the validity of research if participants know the aim of a study (as this can then lead to them not behaving how they normally would)
  • sampling bias can be a problem if participants are able to withdraw
  • insisting on participants being confidential could silence them and prevent them from having people know that a particular result in a study related to them
• psychology as a science


  for a study to be scientific it must be...

  • objective: data that is based on facts that can be scientifically recorded and observed rather than personal opinions and beliefs
  • replicable: research is carried out in such a way that it would be easy to repeat the procedure again in the future with other participants
  • falsifiable: for a theory or prediction to be falsifiable, it must be possible to prove it as false
• strengths of scientific research


  • quantitative data is often gathered which can be analysed to see significant effects
  • scientific research is less vulnerable to being affected by researcher bias
  • scientific research typically involves the use of laboratory experiments that enable cause and effect to be inferred
  • controlled laboratory experiments can be repeated to see if finding are reliable
• weaknesses of scientific research 


  • scientific research is often lacking in qualitative data and therefore explanatory power is reduced
  • there research is often reductionist because it tries to test the impact of a single factor; as such, it can miss out other factors that might be involved
  • scientific studies are often conducted in tightly controlled laboratory settings, which can reduce the ecological validity of the findings