Holism versus reductionism Flashcards
(13 cards)
AO1 – What is the holism-reductionism debate in psychology?
The holism-reductionism debate is the question of whether holism or reductionism is the better approach to use in order to understand human behaviour. The holistic approach is about studying the whole. As soon as you start to break down a holistic approach, it isn’t really holistic any more. Therefore, unlike the other debates you study, there is no continuum between holism and reductionism.
AO1 – How does the holism-reductionism debate differ from other debates in psychology?
This debate is more about a preference for either holism or reductionism and the different approaches in psychology take sides. For example humanistic psychologists take a holistic approach whereas behaviourists are reductionist. Within the reductionist approach there is a continuum.
AO1 – What does the holistic approach involve and which psychologists support it?
The holistic approach looks at a system as a whole and sees any attempt to subdivide behaviour or experience into smaller units as inappropriate. This was the view of Gestalt psychologists who argued that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore knowing about how the parts (such as the characteristics a person may have) does not help us understand the essence of that person.
AO1 – How do humanistic psychologists apply the holistic approach in practice?
Humanistic psychology focuses on the individual’s experience, which is not something that can be reduced to, for example, biological units. Humanistic psychologists use qualitative methods to investigate the self whereby themes are analysed rather than breaking the concept into component behaviours.
AO1 – What is reductionism and what principle is it based on?
Reductionism seeks to analyse behaviour by breaking it down into its constituent parts. It is based on the scientific principle of parsimony - that all phenomena should be explained using the simplest (lowest level) principles.
AO1 – What are the levels of explanation in psychology, using OCD as an example?
There are different ways to explain behaviour - some more reductionist than others. For instance, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may be understood at a: - Socio-cultural level, e.g. OCD interrupts social relationships. - Psychological level, e.g. the person’s experience of anxiety. - Physical level - movements, e.g. washing one’s hands. - Environmental/behavioural level - learning experiences. - Physiological level, e.g. abnormal functioning in the frontal lobes. - Neurochemical level, e.g. underproduction of serotonin. Which of these provides the ‘best’ explanation of OCD is a matter of debate, but each level is more reductionist than the one before.
AO1 – What is the hierarchy of science in relation to psychology and reductionism?
Psychology itself can be placed in a hierarchy of science. Researchers who favour reductionism would see psychology as ultimately being replaced by explanations derived from those sciences lower down in the hierarchy.
AO1 – What is biological reductionism and how does it apply to OCD?
Biological reductionism includes the neurochemical and physiological levels and also evolutionary and genetic influences. It is based on the premise that we are biological organisms. Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological. Biologically reductionist arguments often work backwards. For example, drugs that increase serotonin have been found to be effective in treating OCD. Therefore, working backwards, low serotonin may be a cause of OCD. We have reduced OCD to the level of neurotransmitter activity.
AO1 – What is environmental reductionism and how do behaviourists use it?
The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism, proposing that all behaviour is learned and acquired through interactions with the environment. Behaviourists explain behaviour in terms of conditioning which is focused on simple stimulus-response links, reducing behaviour to these basic elements. For example, the learning theory of attachment reduces the idea of love (between baby and person who does the feeding) to a learned association between the person doing the feeding (neutral stimulus) and food (unconditioned stimulus) resulting in pleasure (conditioned response).
AO3 – What is one limitation of the holistic approach in terms of practical value?
Point: One limitation of the holism approach is that it may lack practical value. Evidence: Holistic accounts of human behaviour tend to become hard to use as they become more complex. Explain: This can present researchers with a practical dilemma. If we accept, from a humanistic perspective, that there are many different factors that contribute to depression (the person’s past, their present relationships, their job and family circumstances) then it becomes difficult to know which is most influential. It is then difficult to know which to prioritise as the basis of therapy, for instance. Link: This suggests that holistic accounts may lack practical value (whereas reductionist accounts may be better).
AO3 – What is one strength of the reductionist approach in terms of scientific method?
Point: One strength of reductionist approaches (and limitation of the holistic approach) is that they often form the basis of a scientific approach. Evidence: In order to conduct well-controlled research we need to operationalise the variables to be studied - to break target behaviours down into constituent parts. Explain: This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is objective and reliable. For example, research on attachment (the Strange Situation) operationalised component behaviours such as separation anxiety. Link: This scientific approach gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences.
AO3 – What is a limitation of reductionism regarding oversimplification?
Point: Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to reduced validity. Evidence: Explanations that operate at the level of the gene or neurotransmitter do not include an analysis of the social context within which behaviour occurs - and this is where the behaviour may derive its meaning. Explain: For instance, the physiological processes involved in pointing one’s finger will be the same regardless of the context. However, an analysis of these will not tell us why the finger is pointed - it might be to draw attention to some object or person, as an act of aggression, etc. Link: This suggests that reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation.
AO3 – Why might higher level (holistic) explanations sometimes be more valid?
Point: One limitation of reductionism is that some behaviours can only be understood at a higher level. Evidence: Often, there are aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood in terms of the individual group members. Explain: For instance, the effects of conformity to social roles in the prisoners and guards in the Stanford prison study could not be understood by observing the participants as individuals. It was the interaction between people and the behaviour of the group that was important. There is no conformity gene (that we know of) so social processes like conformity can only be explained at the level at which they occur. Link: This suggests that, for some behaviours, higher level explanations (or even holistic ones) provide a more valid account.
