Approaches in psychology AO3

Behaviourism has experimental support. Pavlov showed that classical conditioning leads to learning by association. Watson and Rayner showed that phobias can be learnt through classical conditioning in the Little Albert experiment. Laboratory experiments were used with high control of extraneous variables. These experiments were replicable and the data obtained was objective and measurable, providing the approach with more credibility

Many of the experiments carried out were done on animals. Humans are different cognitively and physiologically, and have different social norms and morals; these mediate the effects of the environment so therefore we may behave differently to animals. This means that the laws and principles derived from these experiments may apply more to animals and are limited in application when extrapolated to human behaviour

The approach does not explain important aspects of human behaviour such as memory and problem solving as these are internal mental events which cannot be observed. To add to this, it views people as passive in their learning with little conscious thoughts influencing their behaviour; other approaches recognise the importance of mental events in the learning process

The approach has ethical issues as it can be used by governments and gambling companies to encourage people to behave in ways that they would not rationally choose to

The approach is also deterministic as it neglects the influence of free will. It argues that our behaviour is the result of previous conditioning. Skinner stated that free will is an illusion. This can have damaging implications for people with psychological issues. For example, a patient with a phobias may feel that because their phobia was conditioned, they cannot get rid of it and therefore their motivation to participate in treatment is diminished

The theory is supported by research from Bandura et al (1961) and Bandura & Walters (1963). However, these were laboratory experiments and so the task may not reflect the way the participants behaved in daily life, limiting the external validity of findings

SLT views all behaviours as environmentally determined, but some behaviours such as innate phobias not resulting from personal experience, may be better explained by biological or evolutionary explanations

Bandura's bobo doll study: 

At this young age, parents would guide childrens' understanding of the situation and moderate their behaviour; this was not the case in the studies as the children were on their own. The children were aggressive towards the doll, which they know does not feel pain and cannot retaliate; their behaviour may be different towards another child. Furthermore, the children were in an unfamiliar environment so they may have thought they were expected to behave like the model (demand characteristics). Perhaps, adults and older children may not have imitated the aggressive behaviour as they have more developed moral values. The theory also does not explain why the boys imitated the physical aggressive behaviour more than girls; other factors may have been involved such as biological factors like testosterone

SLT can explain the difference of behaviour between different cultures. If a behaviour is not displayed then it cannot be imitated. This can help to explain why groups such as the Amish are non-violent

SLT can be used to explain the influence of the media on aggressive behaviour. For example, when a character is rewarded for killing someone in a video game such as Call of Duty, this acts as vicarious reinforcement for the individual playing the game

It is a more complete explanation of human behaviour than conditioning as it takes into account cognitive factors in learning. However, it does not consider free will and moral values

Hard determinism: behavioural approach assumes all behaviour is learnt from the environment through classical and operant conditioning. We are the sum total of our previous conditioning

Soft determinism: SLT recognises an element of choice as to whether we imitate a behaviour or not

Nurture: Behaviourism argues that all behaviour, apart from a few innate refelexes and the capacity for learning, is learnt from the environment. SLT also argues that we learn our behaviour from role models in the environment. 

Reductionist: The behaviourist approach and SLT  both isolate parts of complex behaviour to study. Behaviourists take the view that all behaviour, no matter how complex, can be broken down into the fundamental processes of conditioning

Nomothetic: Behaviourism views all behaviour as governed by the same laws of conditioning. However, it does account for individual differences and explain them in terms of differences in the history of conditioning

Scientific: Behaviourism uses lab experiments which are highly controlled therefore they are replicable. Furthermore, it measures observable behaviours, therefore no interpretation is required therefore the data is objective. However, animals are used and it is assumed that humans learn in the same way

The concept of Id, ego and superego are very abstract and difficult to test experimentally, so evidence is obtained from case studies (Little Hans and Anna O). However, the sample used in these studies is mainly Austrian so lacks population validity. To add to this, these case studies mainly used unstructured interviews and so yielded qualitative data. The need for interpretation of the material gathered means that it is biassed on the part of the researchers as they tend to interpret data in a way that supports their theory

Eysenck conducted a meta-analysis of thousands of psychoanalytic patients and found that 66% of patients recovered from their neurotic disorders when they had treatment, compared to 70% of the control group. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of psychoanalysis at treating neurotic disorders and thus Freud's ideas. 

The theory is not falsifiable as if people behave in the way predicted by the theory it is viewed as support, and if they do not then it is argued that they are using defence mechanisms. 

The individual is not seen as responsible for their disorders, however as the conflicts which lead to the disorder are unconscious there is nothing they can do about it without an analyst; they are disempowered

It cannot explain the biological symptoms observed in some disorders such as enlarged ventricles in people with schizophrenia

The approach is deterministic as it rejects the idea of free will. Behaviour is determined by their unconscious motives which are shaped by their biological drives and early experiences

It recognises the influence of social and cultrual factors as it proposes that we are driven by innate, biological instincts (nature) but that the way they are expressed is shaped by our social environment (nurture)

Hard determinsim: Views behaviour as caused entirely by unconscious factors over which we have no control

Nurture and nature: Recognises the influence of social factors but also argues that we are driven by innate biological instincts, represented by the Id (nature), but the ways these instincts are expressed is shaped by our social and cultural environment (nurture). So the approach is interactionist

Idiographic and nomothetic: Freud argued that human behaviour is governed by universal processes that apply to all individuals. e.g. the tripartite structure of the mind (nomothetic). He also proposed that the ways in which these processes manifest themselves in the individual are unique (idiographic)

Not scientific: The concepts proposed by Freud cannot be tested empirically. The theory is not falsifiable as if peiple do not behave in the way predicted by the theory it is viewed as support and if they do not it is argues that they are using defence mechanisms

It has given rise to a new way to look at people's needs, for example Maslow's hierarchy of needs is widely used in health and social work as a framework for assessing clients' needs. This has led to the development of client-centered therapy; this has helped many people overcome difficulties they face in life, which is a significant contribution to improving people's quality of life

The approach uses non-scientific research methods. As its aim is to understand people's subjectivity, it uses methods that yield qualitative data such as unstructured interviews or participant observations. These are difficult to replicate and the interpretation of data is influenced by researcher bias. 

It proposes a positive view of human nature, however, it could be argued that this might not be very realistic when considering the everyday reality such as domestic violence and genocide. 

Furthermore, the approach may be culturally biassed to individualistic Western cultures that prioritise success and achievement, so may not apply to collectivist cultures where group success is more important. Humanistic psychologists may therefore view individuals from collectivist cultures as less able to self-actualise and thus view them as inferior

Free will and determinism: It explicitly states that people have free will, but its position on determinism is incoherent. On one hand, it argues that people have free will but on the other hand it argues that behaviour is determined by the way that other people treat us (whether we feel we are valued and respected)

Nurture and nature: The approach recognises both the influence of nature and nurture (interactionist). Nurture - the influence of experiences on a person's ways of perceiving and understanding the world. Nature - the influence of biological drives and needs (Maslow's hierarchy)

Holistic: it views the individual as a whole and does not attempt to break down behaviours into simplistic components

Idiographic: This approach views the individual as unique and it does not attempt to establish universal laws about the causes of behaviour

Not scientific: As the approach views the individual as unique, it does not believe that scientific measurements of their behaviour are appropriate