Idiographic & Nomothetic - Evaluations Flashcards
What are the strengths of the idiographic approach?
- It allows for a detailed and in-depth understanding of individual behavior.
- It is valuable for theory evaluation, exposing limitations in existing theories.
- It provides rich, context-specific descriptions.
What are some weaknesses of the idiographic approach?
- Limitations in producing general laws or predictions about human behavior.
- It is often time-consuming.
- May introduce subjectivity and bias.
- It faces criticism for being less scientifically rigorous.
How do proponents respond to criticisms of the idiographic approach?
Proponents emphasise the evidence-based nature of their descriptions and conclusions. They argue that the validity of findings can be more secure than approaches relying solely on statistical analysis. They highlight the importance of understanding individual behavior for predicting their actions.
Why might critics argue against the idiographic approach?
Critics may argue that the idiographic approach lacks generalisability, is time-consuming, introduces subjectivity, and is criticised for its scientific rigor. Some see it as scientifically limited in its ability to explain variations in the fewest possible terms.
Give an example of when the idiographic approach was used to evaluate a psychological theory.
The case of Patient KF exposed a limitation in the Multi-Store Model of Memory, revealing that short-term memory consists of multiple components.
What limitation is associated with the case study method and other qualitative methods?
Case studies and qualitative methods, while powerful, are time-consuming. The detailed nature of these approaches, such as Freud’s case study of Little Hans, involves extensive data collection and analysis, making them resource-intensive.
What did Freud’s case study of Little Hans lead to, and what criticism does it face?
Freud’s case study of Little Hans contributed to universal theories of personality development during childhood. However, it is criticised for being based on limited and unrepresentative case studies, questioning the generalisability of the findings.
What distinguishes the nomothetic approach from the idiographic approach in terms of scientific perception?
The nomothetic approach is generally considered scientific due to its use of experimental (quantitative) methods, controlled measurement, predictability, and replication. These qualities align with key features of science and contribute to psychology’s recognition as a scientific discipline.
How does the nomothetic approach contribute to predicting and controlling behavior, particularly in the context of psychological disorders like OCD?
Nomothetic approaches, as seen in biological psychology, contribute to predicting and controlling behavior, such as in explaining obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). For instance, the claim that OCD is caused by specific neurotransmitter imbalances leads to the development of drug therapies (e.g., SSRIs) designed to address these imbalances.
What criticism is directed at drug treatments based on the nomothetic approach, and what alternative is suggested?
Some psychologists argue that drug treatments, based on the nomothetic approach, may not be universally successful. They propose alternative treatments, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), grounded in an idiographic approach, which seeks to understand and explain the disorder from an individual’s perspective.
According to critics, what does the nomothetic approach potentially overlook, and what example is provided to support this criticism?
Critics argue that the nomothetic approach may lose sight of the ‘whole person’ due to its emphasis on quantitative data and statistical analysis. An example is Milgram’s research on obedience, where the focus on percentages and quantitative results fails to provide a deeper understanding of individual motivations for obedience.
What argument do idiographic researchers present in response to the limitations of the nomothetic approach in predicting individual behavior?
Idiographic researchers argue that understanding an individual is crucial for making accurate predictions of individual behavior. They contend that nomothetic approaches, like Milgram’s research, provide predictions at a group level but lack precision in predicting individual actions, emphasizing the importance of individual understanding.
What does Holt (1967) argue regarding the ideographic/nomothetic distinction, and what perspective does he offer on their relationship?
Holt (1967) argues that the ideographic/nomothetic distinction is a false distinction. He suggests that many approaches in psychology can benefit from both approaches, viewing them as complementary rather than contradictory.
How do cognitive psychologists demonstrate the integration of both ideographic and nomothetic approaches in their research?
Cognitive psychologists typically adopt a nomothetic approach to create general laws of cognitive processes, such as the Working Memory Model. However, they also make use of the idiographic approach by using case studies (e.g., Patient KF, Shallice and Warrington, 1970) to provide specific evidence for particular theories.
What is the key idea conveyed by the statement “the two approaches can be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory”?
The statement suggests that rather than being in opposition, ideographic and nomothetic approaches in psychology can complement each other. They can work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior, with each approach contributing valuable insights.
