holism vs reductionism evaluation

Question 1

Case for holism

Answer 1

Holism can be used to explain group contexts such as conformity to social roles and de-individuation. For example in the SPE we can use the holistic approach to explain why some people acted they way they did and how the findings of the SPE can be explained by understanding the individual as a whole. This shows that the holistic explanation provides a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approach

Question 2

Case against Holism

Answer 2

Holistic explanations do not lend themselves to open for rigorous scientific testing can can become Vague. e.g. Humanistic approach takes the holistic view of behaviour but it tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical testing. Higher level explanations can lead to practical dilemmas for example if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to say depression it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use. Therefore this is a limitation as it shows that when it comes to finding real life solutions for real world problems lower level explanations may be more appropriate.

Question 3

Reductionism- More scientific

Answer 3

Most reductionist approaches tend to form the basis of scientific research.In order to operationalise variables you need to break it down to its constituent part. This allows for experiments to be conducted and behavioural categories to be devised. E.g. the behaviourist approach tends to use the stimulus response reductionist view (environmental reductionism). (explain how using environmental reductionism).

This gives psychology greater scientific credibility as placing it closer to natural sciences on the reductionist hierarchy.

Question 4

Interactionist approach

Answer 4

Alternative approach fro reductionism could be the interactionist approach. The interactionist approach explains how different levels of explanation may combine and interact. Common example of IA is the diathesis-stress model which is used to explain schizophrenia and depression. it states that these mental illnesses are triggered by predisposition and some environmental stressors. (study from Gottsman and shield)

Question 5

Study from Gottsman and Shield.

(to support the interactionist approach) (use within Interactionist paragraph)

Answer 5

Studied schizophrenia in twins and found concordance rates of 48% for MZ twins and 17% for DZ twins for schizophrenia. If schizophrenia was explained on a biological level than you would expect that 100% of MZ twins to have schizophrenia. However this is not the case so this suggests that genes alone are not responsible for schizophrenia, so the environment must play some role, for example a stressful family environment may be the stressors that trigger the genetic predisposition.

This shows support for the interactionist approach as it may be a more appropriate way to explain illnesses and behaviour rather than using the reductionist view or holistic.

Question 6

Evidence against environmental reductionism

Answer 6

Main limitation is that it uses Animal study because this approach is built upon the behaviourist approach. Humans are different to animals and function different so this means that the research cannot be generalised to humans. In other words there’s extrapolating issues with the behaviourist approach.

This means that environmental reductionism ignores other potential human influences such as social context and human emotions.

Question 7

Environmental reductionism: Research that contradicts Watson’s theory of sub vocal speech

Answer 7

Watson referred to the mind as a black box and said that the process of thinking is a sub vocal speech. However Smith et al proved this theory wrong as he ingested curare which is a drug that paralyses your muscles. This meant that this prevented him from speaking and made it impossible to think. He was kept alive by using artificial oxygen but he was able to recall solving a cognitive puzzle which he completed while paralysed.

This shows that If thinking was merely sub-vocal speech then Smith would not be able to solve the cognitive puzzles presented to him, he would not be able to think due to his muscles being paralysed. Therefore reductionism explanation of behaviour lacks validity