1. Issues and Debates

2. [1] Gender Bias
Outline: Psychologists seek to discover facts that are objective, value free and consistent across time and culture (universal). However bias is sometimes inevitable. Gender bias occurs when research doesn’t accurately represent men and women. Alpha bias exaggerates the gender differences as they are presented as real, enduring, fixed and inevitable. They are more likely to devalue women than men. For example:
Wilson - explained human sexual attraction through survival efficiency – males seek to impregnate as many women as they can, whereas women are more preservative with which male’s they have a child with. Sexual promiscuity is therefore naturally selected in males and if a woman were to do the same thing, they'd be going against their nature.
Outline: Beta bias minimises gender differences by ignoring or underestimating them. This usually occurs when women don’t participate in studies of behaviour. For example:
Early research into fight or flight was based on male animals and it was assumed that it was a universal response to a threatening situation. However, Taylor et al: suggested that females have evolved to inhibit fight or flight and shift their attention to their offspring instead (tending) and form friendships with other females (befriending).
One consequence of beta bias is androcentrism. When we use all male samples to study behaviour, behaviour deviating from the standard is seen as abnormal. Therefore certain female behaviours may be seen as needing medical attention. For example, pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) is a diagnosis given to women that display anger, but explained in hormonal terms. Anger in men is seen as normal.
Eval 1: Problems of gender bias in psychological research – research could lead to assumptions about female behaviour and validate discriminatory practices. It may deny women opportunities in the workplace or in wider society (e.g. due to PMS). Not only is gender bias a methodological issue, but it can also have damaging affects on the lives of real women.
Eval 2: Promotes sexism in research process – there is a lack of women in senior research level, so female concerns may not be reflected in research questions asked. Male work is also more likely to be published. Women are also in an unfair relationship with male researchers in lab studies, where they can be told that they are irrational or can’t complete a task. This shows that psychology may support institutional sexism.
Eval 3: Understanding gender bias leads to reflexivity – Researchers understand the effects of value on their work (reflexivity) and see it as an important part of research rather than a problem. In Dambrin and Lambert’s study on the lack of women in executive positions in accounting firms, they found that women’s gender related experiences affected influenced their understanding of events. Reflexivity is important to psychology as it leads to greater awareness of the role of bias.
Eval 4: Essential arguments are common in gender-biased research – many psychologists take an essential perspective (gender differences are inevitable and fixed in nature). Walkerdine: found that scientific research from 1930s showed that intellectual activity harmed a women’s chance at giving birth (shrivelled ovaries). Essentialist perspective is politically motivated and disguised as biological facts. This can lead to double standards.
Extra Evaluation Point: Feminist psychologists propose how gender bias can be avoided – Worell and Remer: there is a criteria which psychologist can follow in order to avoid bias. Women should be studied in meaningful real life contexts and participate in research instead of being subjects. Differences within women should also be studied rather than being compared to men. There should be greater emphasis on collecting qualitative data. This method is a less gender-biased alternative to lab based research.

3. [2] Cultural Bias
Outline: Cultural bias occurs when research only applies to particular groups or people. A lot of studies wrongly claim to be universal. For example, non-western replications of Milgram and Asch's study produced different results. Culturally different behaviour is seen as abnormal if behaviour is judged from one standpoint.
Ethnocentrism is the view that ones own cultural group is superior to others – culturally different behaviours are seen as deficient or underdeveloped.
Outline: An example of ethnocentrism is Ainsworth’s strange situation which only reflected American culture. She stated that those with an ideal attachment (secure) showed moderate separation and stranger anxiety. This led to the view that other forms of attachment means that rearing practices are poor. For example, German mothers were seen as rejecting, but they were just encouraging independence.
Researchers can avoid cultural bias if they make sense of research from specific cultures.
Berry argued that:
Etic: is an approach that looks at behaviour outside a culture and makes universal claims
Emic: an approach that looks at behaviour within a culture and makes claims about that culture
Eval 1: Distinction between collectivism and individualism – Psychologists refer to culture in terms of collectivism and individualism. Collectivism emphasizes interdependence and group where as individualism emphasises independence. However, critics argue that this distinction no longer applies. For example, Takano and Osaka: found that 14/15 studies comparing US and Japan found no distinctions between the two types of cultures. This means that this form of bias is less of an issue than it once was.
Eval 2: Recognition of both cultural relativism and universals – ‘imposed etic’ shows that no behaviour is culturally relative, but we shouldn’t assume all behaviour is culturally relative and not universal. Ekman: said that basic facial expressions and some features of human attachment is universal. To fully understand human behaviour we must study universals as well as culturally relative behaviour.
Eval 3: Cross-cultural research prone to demand characteristics – In western cultures, participants are more familiar with general aims and objectives. However, cultures with no experience of research may be more affected by demand characteristics. Therefore, unfamiliarity with research may decrease validity of it – cultural bias.
Eval 4: Difficulties with interpretation of variables – variables may not be experienced in the same way by members of different cultures. For example, invasion of personal space is normal in china but threatening in the west. this may reduce the validity of findings as it may affect the interaction between participant and researcher.
Extra Evaluation Point: Cross-cultural research challenges Western assumptions – conducting cross-cultural research challenges western assumptions of the world. If we understand that knowledge and concepts we take for granted aren’t shared by others, it may promote sensitivity to cultural relativism and individual differences. This makes is so that conclusions drawn are more likely to have high validity as the role of culture is recognised.

4. [3] Free Will and Determinism
Outline: Free will is the notion that humans are free to choose their thoughts and actions. The humanistic approach emphasises free will and the fact that we can reject biological and environmental influences. Hard Determinism is the notion that all human actions are determined by external or internal influences and these causes can be identified. This makes it compatible with science. Soft Determinism is the notion that all humans actions have a cause but they have a conscious control over their behaviour.
Biological Determinism is the view that behaviour is determined by physiological, genetic and hormonal processes. For example, high levels of testosterone may cause aggressive behaviour.
Outline: Environmental Determinism is the view that behaviour is determined by conditioning. Skinner stated that free will is an illusion and that all behaviour is due to conditioning. We may think that we act independently, but our behaviour is shaped by environmental events and agents of socialisation (e.g. parents, teachers etc).
Psychic determinism is the view that behaviour is determined by unconscious conflicts. Freud stated that biological drives and instincts underpin psychological responses.
A basic principle of science is that events can be explained by general laws that can predict behaviour and control events. In psychology, lab experiments help researchers find causal effects by removing extraneous variables.
Eval 1: Determinism is consistent with the aims of science – Determinism emphasises the fact that laws can explain behaviour. This puts in on equal footing with more established sciences, increasing its credibility.
The prediction and control of human behaviour has also led to the development of treatments and therapies (e.g. for schizophrenia). The fact that people suffer from schizophrenia shows that some behaviours are determined as no one ‘chooses’ to have it.
Eval 2: Hard Determinism isn’t consistent with the legal system – according to the law, offenders are morally accountable for their behaviour. Only in rare circumstances is the judge more lenient (e.g. mental illness – law of diminished responsibility). Determinism is also not falsifiable as it is based on the idea that all behaviour has a cause even if it hasn’t been found. This shows that determinism may not be scientific.
Eval 3: We often make choices in real life – everyday experience gives the impression that we are constantly making choices everyday. This give the idea of free will face validity. Even if we don’t have free will, thinking that we do will have a positive affect on behaviour. Roberts et al: showed that those who were fatalistic were more likely to develop depression.
Eval 4: Free will isn’t supported by neurological evidence – brain studies provide evidence against free will. Libet and Soon found that brain activity related to pressing a button with either the left or right hand occurs 10 seconds before participants are able to be consciously aware of their decision. This shows that even basic actions are determined by our brain before we are even aware of it.
Extra Evaluation Point: A compromise in the middle-ground position – Approaches with a cognitive element such as the SLT tend to adopt a soft determinism position. Bandura stated that the environment can influence our behaviour, but we are free to choose whether we want to perform behaviours and when to perform them. This middle ground approach is helpful in understanding aspects of human behaviour which aren’t a straightforward choice between determinism and free will.

5. [4] The Nature-Nurture Debate
Outline: Early nativists argued that human behaviour is innate and the result of heredity. The general figure for the heredity of IQ is .50 (50%). That fact that it isn’t 1.0 (100%) suggests that both genetics and the environment are important factors in IQ.
However, empiricists argue that the mind is a blank slate upon birth which experience (environment) writes. Lerner identified different levels of the environment which are prenatal and postnatal.
The nature-nurture debate is impossible to answer as there are environmental influences early in a child’s life. Practically and theoretically, it makes no sense to split the two (e.g. concordance rates in twin studies due to environment and genetics)
Outline: Nowadays, the focus is on the relative contribution of each influence. For example, the interactionist approach of attachment suggests that both are involved in bonds between infant and parent. A child’s temperament influences how their parent behaves towards them and the parents responses may also influence the infants behaviour.
The diathesis-stress model states that mental disorders are caused by a biological vulnerability (diathesis) expressed when coupled with an environmental trigger (stressor). Tienari et al: found that Finnish adoptees were more likely to develop schizophrenia if they had relatives that had the disorder and a dysfunctional relationship with their adoptive family.
Interactionism states that there is a third element called epigenetics which is a change in genetic activity without changing genetic code. Lifestyle and events we encounter such as smoking leave epigenetic marks which tell us which genes we should ignore - this may be inherited by children.
Eval 1: Interaction has real-world implications – Extreme beliefs that either nature or nurture determines behaviour has led to negative implications. For example, assuming genetics determine behaviour has led to controversy linking race to eugenic policies. Recognising that both nature and nurture is a more reasonable way of studying and managing human behaviour.
Eval 2: Confounding factor of unshared environments – Evens siblings raised within the same family will not have identical upbringing – there are shared and unshared environments. Dunn and Plomin: suggest that individual differences mean that siblings experience events such as parental divorce differently. This explains why even MZ twins reared together don’t show perfect concordance rates.
Eval 3: Gene-environment interactions explained constructivism – constructivism is when people pick their environment according to their nature. For example, an aggressive person will be more comfortable with similar children. The environment then affect their development. Plomin called this niche-picking and niche-building. Constructivism shows that it is illogical to separate nature and nurture.
Eval 4: Evidence from gene-environment interaction – Scarr and McCartney: outlined three types of gene-environment interaction – passive, evocative and active. The interaction is different for each type. For example, in passive interaction, parent’s genes influence how they treat their children.
This shows that there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture.
Extra Evaluation Point: Understanding nature-nurture relates to other debates – believing in either nature or nurture determining behaviour corresponds to a belief in hard determinism. For example, nativists believe that only genetics determine behaviour whereas empiricists believe that it is only the environment. These are examples of biological and environmental determinism, showing how nature-nature links to other debates.

6. [5] Holism and Reductionism
Outline: Holism is the view that people and behaviour should be studied as a whole system. Gestalt psychologists argued claimed that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of parts’. This view is shared by the humanistic approach that see successful therapy as bringing together aspects of the whole person.
Reductionism is the view that behaviour should be broken down into constituent parts in order to be understood. It is based on the scientific principle parsimony – all phenomena should be explained using the most basic principles.
There are levels in explaining phenomena, some of which are more reductionist than others: Socio-cultural Level, Psychological Level, Physical Level, Physiological Level and Neurochemical Level.
Outline: Psychology can be replaced by a hierarchy of reductionism where the more micro are at the bottom (physics) and the more macro are at the top (sociology). Researchers that prefer a reductionist approach, see psychology as replaced by explanations lower down in the hierarchy.
Biological reductionism is the view that our behaviour is determined by our physiological structures and processes and can be explained by neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences. This has successfully been applied to mental illnesses.
Environmental reductionism is the view that our behaviour is determined by learning. The behaviourist approach shares this view. It is concerned with the physical level.
Eval 1: Holism can explain key aspects of social behaviour – some aspects of behaviour only emerge within a group context and can’t be understood when observing an individual. This includes de-invidualisation which can only be researched if studying a group as interactions between people are important. This shows that holistic explanations are needed for a more complete understanding of behaviour.
Eval 2: Holism is impractical – holistic explanations don’t usually lend themselves from scientific testing. They become more vague as they become more complex. For example, if we assume that there are a lot of factors contributing to depression, we wont know which factor is most influential which therapy needs to be based on. This shows that in order to find real world solutions, lower level explanations are applicable.
Eval 3: Reductionism has scientific credibility – reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research. Reducing target behaviours to constituent parts create operationalised variables. This means that experiments can be conducted and observations can be recorded in meaningful ways. This gives psychology greater credibility and places it on equal footing with natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.
Eval 4: Reductionist approach lack validity – explanations at the level of genes oversimplify phenomena and lose validity. They don’t analyse the social context of the behaviour which is where it derives its meanings. Physiological processes in pointing ones finger is the same in every context. But analysis of these processes don’t tell us the reason behind the finger point. This shows that reductionism can only form part of an explanation.
Extra Evaluation Point: Interaction approach is a strength for both holism and reductionism – interactionism considers how different levels of explanation combine and interact. For example, the diathesis-stress model shows how mental disorder can be triggered by environmental factors (stressor) in someone that has a genetic vulnerability (diathesis). This model has led to a more multi-disciplinary and holistic approach to treatment and is associated with lower relapse rates.

7. [6] Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches
Outline: The Idiographic Approach – aims to describe the nature of the individual (study of unique experience). People are studied as unique entities with their own subjective experiences and values. There is no attempt to compare them to larger groups. This approach is associated with research methods that seek qualitative data such as case studies, unstructured interviews and other self-report measures. The approach aims to describe the richness of human experiences and insight into ones unique way of seeing the world.
The humanistic approach and the psychodynamic approach are examples of an idiographic approach. Rogers and Maslow were interested in documenting the conscious experiences of ones self. Freud used case studies, however he did assume to have identified general laws.
Outline: The Nomothetic Approach – aims to produce general laws of behaviour which provide a benchmark against which people can be compared, classified and measured. Future behaviour can also be predicted and controlled. This approach is associated with research methods that seek to produce quantitative data that are scientific and replicable such as questionnaires. They usually involve large samples which data gathered is analysed for statistical significance. The behaviourist, cognitive and biological approach are examples of nomothetic approaches.
Eval 1: Provides rich data – the idiographic approach provides a complete and global account of the individual such as HM. Single cases may generate hypotheses for further study. The case of HM helped understand that some procedural memories are more resistant to amnesia. Findings from unique cases may reveal important info about normal functioning which may contribute to our overall understanding of behaviour.
Eval 1: Scientific value of research – processes involved in nomothetic research is more scientific and mirrors methods used in natural sciences. They use standardised procedures and assess reliability and validity to demonstrate significance. This gives psychology greater scientific credibility.
Eval 2: Lacks scientific rigour – the idiographic approach is subjective and restrictive. For example, Freud developed concepts such as Oedipus complex from a single case study. Meaningful generalisations can’t be made from one single case – which conclusions rely on the subjective interpretation of the researcher, so is open to bias.
Eval 2: Loss of the whole person – the nomothetic approach focuses on forming general laws and predicting behaviour, so is accused of losing the whole person. Lab studies treat people as a set of scores rather than an individual. Knowing that there is a 1% chance of developing schizophrenia tells us nothing about what life is like with it. This shows that the nomothetic approach may overlook the importance of human experience.
Overall Evaluation: Both processes may be complementary, not contradictory – rather than seeing both approaches as alternatives, we can consider them both depending on the nature of the question. E.g. research on gender development attempts to establish patterns of behaviour alongside case studies of atypical development. Modern psychology attempts to provide rich, detailed descriptions of behaviour as well as explaining it within the framework of general laws.

8. [7] Ethical Implications of Research Studies and Theory
Outline: Ethical issues arise when there is a conflict between psychology’s need for valid and valuable research and preserving the rights and dignity of participants. Researchers can control the methods they use and how they treat participants but they have less influence on how findings are presented in the media and how this impacts the life of real people.
Socially sensitive research has potential social implications. For example, research on genetic basis and criminality may affect people that the sample represent. Some topics such as race or sexuality attracts attention from the public.
Outline: Researchers should not shy away from socially sensitive research as it is important so they may have a social responsibility to carry on.
Sieber and Stanley identified 3 concerns for socially sensitive research:
Implications: research may lead to discrimination/prejudice
Uses/public policy: research may be used in the wrong place. E.g. to shape public policy
Validity of research: studies that may have claimed to be objective may be fraudulent
Burt's research on IQ had consequences as it led to the introduction of the 11+ exam. Burt stated that IQ was genetic, but it was later found that he made much of his data up.
Eval 1: There are benefits of socially sensitive research – Scarr: argues that studies on under-represented groups may promote greater understanding to help reduce prejudice and encourage acceptance. Socially sensitive research has benefited society for example the unreliability of EWT reduces the risk of the wrong person getting arrested.
This suggests that socially sensitive research plays a valuable role in society.
Eval 2: Understanding how to frame questions – Sieber and Stanley: suggest that ways research questions are worded may influence the way findings are interpreted. Kitzinger and Coyle: research into ‘alternative relationships’ has been guilty of heterosexual bias as homosexual couples were judged according to heterosexual norms. This suggests that researchers need to enter research with an open mind to avoid misrepresenting minority groups.
Eval 3: Understanding potential damage from socially sensitive research – socially sensitive research has been used by governments to shape policies. Packard: claimed that Coca-Cola and popcorn sales increased when flashed on cinema screens too quick for people to notice. It was later found that he mad this up. Research that seeks to manipulate the public has ethical implications. It may look to benefit a certain group by negatively affecting others.
Eval 4: Socially sensitive research may be used for social control – in the 1920s and 30s a large number of US states enacted laws that led to the sterilisation of many citizens. These people were judged as ‘feeble-minded’ and some were labelled as unfit to breed. Socially sensitive research has led to discriminatory practices so some are against it.
Extra Evaluation Point: Costs and limitations may be difficult to predicts – research regarding ethical implications are scrutinised by the ethics committee as it is their job to weigh up the costs of the research with its benefits. However, some social consequences involving vulnerable groups are difficult to anticipate. The assessment of the worth of research is subjective and impacts of research is only ever known once it has been made public.