DEBATES - HOLISM vs REDUCTIONISM Flashcards
(17 cards)
define holism
an approach or theory that looks at behaviour as an indivisable whole containing all of its parts
we need to understand the whole exp to fully understand complex behav
eg. biol and envi influences on behav, fam, friends, leisure and job context
define reductionism
the belief that the best way to research and unnderstand behaviour is by ‘reducing’ it down to component parts
eg. the genetic explanation of sz breaks the disorder down to a neurotransmitter such as dopamine for its key role in the disorder
define lvls of explanation
there are diff ways of viewing the same behaviour
higher = less sci and consider a range of factors affecting behav
lower = more reductionist and more sci, looking at behav in terms of one basic aspect or unit to exp behav
levels of explanation - higher
more holistic
social and cultural exp
eg. how groups affect behav
levels of explanation - middle
psychological exp
eg. sz involves thought disorder
levels of explanation - lower
more reductionist
biol exp
eg. hormones and genes
applying lvls of exp to OCD
can look at OCD in diff ways.. eg. if its in line w/ social norms or whether OCD has a genetic basis
higher: social and cultural - produces behav seen as unusual/irrational in most contexts
middle: psychological - involves obsessive thoughts
lower: biol -
-physical lvl - sequence of movements involved in hand washing
-physiological - hypersensitivity of the basal ganglia has to be involved
-neurochemical - underproduction of the neurotransmitter seratonin must be involved
example 1 - holism - humanistic psych
subjective exp can only be understood by considering whole person
sense of unified identity = important
person needs to feel a sense of ‘wholness’ to stay mentally healthy
Rogers’ CCT aims to bring together all aspects of the whole person
example 2 - holism - gestalt psychology: perception
these psychs argued that what we see can only make sense by considering the whole of an image not just the individual parts
define parismony
= all phenomena should be explained using the most basic principles
what are the three types of reductionism
biol (break down into biol units - eg - genes, hormones, brain structure etc)
envi (reduce complex behavs to units of stimulus and response - eg - learning through experience, behaviourism)
not on spec:
experimental (variables are isolated - eg - cognitive psychologists assess memory using lists of words and nonsense words recalled in a set amt of time)
use sz as an example and identify contributing factors to it using the levels of exp
higher - social and cultural - background of family dysfunction
middle - psychological - dysfunctional thought processing
lower - genetic predisposition - parent w/ sz diagnosis
example of how diff lvls of exp can interact at the same time in sz - the diathesis stress exp for sz
diathesis stressor
——-> ——> sz
gen. predispos. new job
low high
reductionist exp for sz - closer to being holistic than genes etc, but isnt the same thing
AO3: hol vs red: strength: application
holistic stance in research has led to strategies that benefit people in society
Rogers’ CCT works on the view that as far as possible, you need to see the person as a whole
this gives councillor context to work w/ client as a unique individual to close gap of incongruence
by understanding a whole person as in Maslow’s HoN managers can aim to provide a context that helps employees meet their needs in the workplace - increasing prodictivity
good app = work place satisfaction
AO3: hol vs red: strength: red supports sci research
lower lvls of exp understand behav in terms of biol units like neurotransmitters and genes and stimulus response units in learning described in behaviourism.
biol approach –> researchers isolate these testable units and study variables in an objective and controlled way - allowing for research to be replicated.
tf, red stance is valuable in psych as leads to the formation of testable theories that can be generalised to many ppl
giving increased validity and sci credibility
AO3: hol vs red: limitation: narrow view of the individual
understands behavs like F/F or mental illness in terms of hormones, neurotransmitters, genes and brain structures
behav approach suggests the formation of attachment and devel of phobias can be understood in terms of responses learned through CC and maintained through OC
these views give a narrow account of the individual
red viewpoints are seen to have limited validity as they do not reflect the whole person or the range of factors influencing their behav eg. social contex and experience
AO3: hol and red: limitation: both are limited in exp human behav
hol approaches –> we cant measure behav as an indivisable whole
red exp –> too narrow to exp the complexity of human behav
a stronger alternative is the use of interactionist theories that use more than one lvl of exp at a time
eg. diathesis stress for sz (or OCD)
tf, while both hol and red approaches have contributed to our understanding, there is greater validity in the use of interactionist exp because they consider a range of factors that influence behav and the way they might work together
