Issues and Debates

• Alpha Bias 


  Gender differences are over exaggerated.
• Androcentric


  Bias towards a male centered view.
• Beta Bias 


  Gender differences are understated.
• Hard Determinism

  
  

  Free will does not exist
• Gender Bias

  • Alpha bias: exaggerates differences. Beta bias: ignores or underestimates differences. Androcentrism: male centred, leads to bias, non-male behaviour=abnormal
  • -Implications from biased studies/theories: misleading assumptions, fail to challenge negative stereotypes—validating discriminatory practises.
  • -Gender bias promotes sexism in research. Male researchers expectations about women may mean female participants underperform(NICOLSON).
  • +Gender bias has resulted in greater reflexivity (recognise effect of own values on nature of work).
• Cultural Bias

  • WEIRD participants: Westernised, Educated people from Industrialised, Rich Democracies.
  • Ethnocentrism: superiority of own culture, others seen as deficient (TAKAHASHI on AINSWORTH).
  • Cultural relativism: norms/ethics only make sense in their culture.
  • -Evidence shows cultural bias is issue. Many studies are culturally biased.
  • -Ethnic stereotyping: early IQ tests were ethnocentric, but then used as evidence that certain ethnic/cultural groups were genetically inferior (GOULD).
  • +Cultural psychology: emic approach avoid ethnocentrism.
• Ideographic vs Nomothetic

  • Idiographic: one person/group/institution. Qualitative methods. E.g. Freud (phobia, Little Hans).
  • +In-depth qualitative methods, provides more complete account of individual.
  • -Restricted, no baseline for comparison, also unscientific/ subjective.
  • Nomothetic: ‘laws’ applied to individuals. Quantitative methods. E.g. Skinner (laws of learning).
  • +Scientific: establishes objectivity through standardisation, control and statistical testing.
  • -Losing the whole person: loss of understanding when focusing on statistics.
  • Objective versus subjective.
• Holism vs Reductionism 16/20

  • Holism: whole. Reductionism: reducing to simplest principles.
  • Biological reductionism: physiological, neurochemical, evolutionary, genetic. Environmental reductionism: behaviour reduced to stimulus responses (behaviourism).
  • +Holism: some understood by higher level explanations (e.g. Stanford prison).
  • -Holism: lack practical value. Complex and impractical.
  • +Reductionism: scientific approach, enables objective experiments.
  • -Reductionism: oversimplify complex behaviour.
• Free Will vs Determinism

  • Free will: we are self determining, influences can be rejected.
  • Hard: all actions have cause. Soft: freedom within restricted range of choices.
  • +Determinism more consistent with aims of science.
  • -The law: hard determinism not consistent with legal principle of moral responsibility.
  • +Free will: even if we don't have free will—evidence suggests (ROBERTS) the fact that we believe we do may have a positive impact on mind and behaviour.
  • -Free will: research: participants asked to randomly flick wrist and say so, brain activity came before (LIBET).
• Nature-Nurture 16/19

  • Nature: heredity, genes, innate influences.
  • Nurture: environment, mind blank slate 'Tabula Rasa'.
  • Interactionist approach: Can't separate nature and nurture.
  • Diathesis-stress model: vulnerability+trigger
  • Epigenetics: lifestyle and events leave ‘marks’ on our genes, switching them on or off, permanent and can be passed on.
  • +Nature: twin study evidence.
  • +Nurture: evidence from studies of social learning theory or classical/operant conditioning.
  • -Strong support for interactionist approach as opposed to only nature or nurture
• Ethical Implications 8/18 8/22

  • Socially sensitive research: consequences for participants or the groups they represent SIBER/STANLEY.
  • Dealing with participants (victims of domestic abuse may worry about confidentiality).
  • +Can have benefits for the groups being studied (KINSLEY showed homo was normal).
  • -Negative consequences (criminal gene individuals claiming no responsibility).
  • +Real world: decisions on child care, crime.
  • -Poor research design: BURT's research on IQ led to 11+ exam but later showed to be fraudulent.