issues and ethical debates Flashcards
(24 cards)
how many types of gender bias are there
2
what are the 2 type of gender bias
alpha bias and beta bias
alpha bias
when differences between genders are overexaggerated
beta bias
difference between males and females are minimalised or ignored
what does bias mean
showing favouritism to one group
gender bias
showing favouritism towards or prejudice against a particular gender
what is it called when theories are centered on or dominated by males. normal behaviour is judged according to males standard and females behaviour are often judged as abnormal
androcentrism
androcentrism
theories are centered on or dominated by males. normal behaviour is judged according to males standard and females behaviour are often judged as abnormal
alpha + beta bias are consequences of
androcentrism
strengths of gender bias
strength of gender bias in psychological research is that it allows researchers to propose solution to the problem.
e.g. some psychologists attempt to develop theories that emphasises the importance and value of women rather than belittle them.. This is supported by cornwell et al who noted that females are better learning as they were more attentive and organised. This types of research helps to reduce or challege gender sterotypes.
limitations of gender bias
1) it could create misleading assuimption as maccoby and jacklin has found that girls had better verbal abilities and boys had spatial abilities and these where are innate.
however joel et al carried our brain structure and found no difference in brain structure. Therefore we must be careful in assuming research findings biological facts when they be better explained at social stereotypes
cultural bias definition
tendency to judge ppl interms of one’s own cultural assumption
definition of ethnocentrism
seeing the world only from one’s own culture perspective is both normal and correct
etic approach
assume to apply in one culture, universally
imposed etic approach
when a construct of one culture is seen inappropriate to each other
emic approach
only applied to one culture, so they can vary from places to place
cultural relativism
regarding beliefs and values, practices cultures from that viewpoint
one strength of culture bias
one strength is the emergence of cultural psychology which is the study of how people are shaped by their cultural experiences. This field incorporates work from other disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and political science. They aim to to avoid ethnocentrism assumption by taking an emic approach and conducting research and focuses on cross culture. these suggest that modern psychologist are mindul of modern implication and trying to avoid them.
limitation of culture bias
one limitation is that most studies in psychology are culturally biased. for example Asch and Milgrams studies were carried out in America on had used white, middle classed males. However replication of their studies have found other results. Replication of Aschs studies in a collectivist culture found higher conformity level than the original study which was individualist culture. This suggests that research carried out in social influence should only be applied to indiviualist culture.
🔹Free Will
Suggests that humans are self-determining and free to choose their thoughts and actions. Implies that behavior is not determined by biological or external forces. Often linked with the humanistic approach (e.g., Carl Rogers, Maslow). Emphasizes personal responsibility and agency.
🔹 Determinism
Proposes that behavior is controlled by internal or external forces rather than an individual’s will. Implies predictability: if we know the causes, we can predict behaviour. There are types of determinism:
1. Biological Determinism:
Behavior is governed by biological factors (genes, hormones, brain structures).
- Environmental Determinism
Behaviour is shaped by environmental influences (e.g., conditioning). Linked to behaviourist approach (Skinner: free will is an illusion). - Psychic Determinism
Behaviour is driven by unconscious conflicts, as proposed by Freud. Childhood experiences pre-determine adult behavior. - Hard Determinism
All behaviour has a cause; no free will. Behaviour is fully determined and predictable. - Soft Determinism
Introduced by William James. Suggests that behaviour is determined, but there is room for conscious choice within boundaries. A compromise between hard determinism and free will.
🔹 Evaluation of Free Will
✅ Strength 1: Face validity and everyday experience
One major strength of the free will argument is that it aligns with our everyday subjective experiences. Most people feel they are in control of their decisions and actions, which gives free will strong face validity. For example, when choosing a university course or career, individuals often perceive themselves as autonomous agents. This experience is deeply ingrained in Western moral and legal systems, which assume individuals are responsible for their behaviour. This is particularly relevant in law, where accountability hinges on the belief that people could have acted differently. However, subjective experience alone is not scientific proof. Just because people feel free does not necessarily mean they are free; it could be an illusion.
✅ Strength 2: Link to positive mental health
Free will is also supported by psychological research into mental health and wellbeing. Studies have found that individuals with a strong internal locus of control—believing they control their own fate—are more likely to be mentally healthy. For instance, research by Roberts et al. (2000) found adolescents with an external locus of control were more likely to experience depression. This supports the view that the belief in free will has practical benefits, even if it’s not completely true, and suggests it can act as a protective factor against psychopathology.
❌ Limitation 1: Neurological evidence undermines free will
Despite its appeal, scientific evidence challenges the idea of free will. Notably, Libet (1985) found that brain activity (called the readiness potential) occurs several milliseconds before a person reports consciously deciding to move their hand. More recent studies, such as those by Soon et al. (2008), show that the brain can predict choices up to 10 seconds before conscious awareness. This suggests that what we perceive as a conscious decision is actually initiated by unconscious processes, which undermines the idea of free will.
This supports a biological deterministic viewpoint, implying that behaviour is not as freely chosen as we believe.
❌ Limitation 2: Incompatible with scientific psychology
Free will is also difficult to test using the scientific method. Because it is non-observable, it lacks falsifiability, making it difficult to study empirically. This makes it problematic from a scientific psychology perspective, which values objectivity, replicability, and causal relationships. This contrasts sharply with the deterministic approaches that allow for predictions and control, as seen in biological and behaviourist psychology.
🔹 Evaluation of Determinism
✅ Strength 1: Scientific credibility and real-world application
One key strength of determinism is its alignment with the aims of science. Deterministic approaches, such as those in the biological and behaviourist traditions, seek to establish cause-and-effect relationships, which are crucial for developing treatments and interventions. For example, understanding how neurotransmitters like serotonin influence depression has led to effective drug therapies (e.g., SSRIs). Similarly, behaviourist principles have been used in token economy systems to manage behaviour in prisons and psychiatric wards. The predictive power of deterministic approaches makes psychology more rigorous and evidence-based.
❌ Limitation 1: Legal and moral issues
A major criticism of determinism is its implications for moral responsibility. If all behaviour is determined by internal or external forces, it becomes difficult to hold people accountable for their actions. For example, in cases of violent crime, a deterministic argument might suggest the offender’s behaviour was caused by genes, brain damage, or childhood trauma. While this might reduce culpability, it raises ethical concerns—can someone truly be punished if they had no control? This could undermine the justice system and the concept of free will in moral responsibility.
❌ Limitation 2: Reductionist and oversimplified
Determinism is often criticised for being reductionist because it breaks complex human behaviour down into simple causal explanations, such as genes or environmental stimuli. While this is useful for scientific study, it often ignores holistic factors like context, social influence, and conscious thought. For example, saying schizophrenia is entirely caused by dopamine imbalance ignores the role of stress, family dynamics, and cognition. Thus, deterministic explanations risk being overly simplistic and incomplete.
❌ Limitation 3: Unfalsifiability of some deterministic theories
Some deterministic approaches, especially psychic determinism (from Freud), are also accused of being unfalsifiable. Freud’s theory argues that behaviour is driven by unconscious conflicts, but these cannot be directly observed or tested. This makes such explanations unscientific by Popper’s criteria, as they cannot be empirically disproven. Therefore, while deterministic, not all deterministic theories meet the standards of scientific inquiry.
The nature–nurture debate concerns the relative contribution of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture) to human behavior, traits, and development.
🔹 Nature (Heredity)
Refers to the influence of genetic and biological factors. Behaviour is seen as innate or biologically determined at birth.
Key evidence:
- Twin studies (e.g., concordance rates for schizophrenia are higher in MZ than DZ twins).
- Genetic explanations for conditions (e.g., OCD linked to the SERT gene, schizophrenia linked to dopamine).
🔹 Nurture (Environment)
Refers to the influence of external factors after conception, such as experience, learning, and culture. Behaviour is shaped by environmental stimuli and social interaction.
Key evidence:
- Classical and Operant conditioning (e.g., Skinner’s rats and Pavlov’s dogs).
- Social learning theory (e.g., Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment).
🔹 Interactionist Approach
Modern psychologists see nature and nurture as interacting. Neither acts in isolation — they influence each other in complex ways.
Supported by:
Diathesis-stress model: Genetic vulnerability (nature) + environmental trigger (nurture) = mental illness. Example:
- Schizophrenia may result from a genetic predisposition and stressful life events.
- Epigenetics: Environmental factors can affect gene expression.
This perspective rejects the idea of strict either/or and focuses on how nature and nurture work together.
✅ 1. Empirical support for both sides – but neither is sufficient alone
Both the nature and nurture positions are supported by scientific evidence, which gives credibility to each side of the debate.
On the nature side, twin and adoption studies consistently show that genetics play a significant role in many psychological characteristics. For example, Gottesman found that the concordance rate for schizophrenia was 48% in MZ (identical) twins compared to 17% in DZ (non-identical) twins. This suggests a genetic basis, as MZ twins share 100% of their DNA, while DZ twins share around 50%. Similarly, family studies of depression, intelligence, and aggression all show a strong heritable component.
However, these concordance rates are not 100%, even among MZ twins raised together. This strongly implies that environmental factors also contribute. For example, two genetically identical individuals may develop different mental health outcomes based on upbringing, trauma, or stress exposure.
On the nurture side, behaviorist theories such as those by Skinner and Bandura argue that all behavior is learned from the environment through conditioning or observation. Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children imitated aggression after watching adults behave violently—clear evidence of environmental influence.
✅ Therefore, both sides have scientific merit, but neither fully explains behavior in isolation, reinforcing the value of an interactionist perspective.
✅ 2. Support for the interactionist approach: Diathesis-Stress and Epigenetics
One of the strongest arguments in this debate is that nature and nurture interact, rather than act independently. This is supported by the diathesis-stress model, which is widely used in understanding mental illnesses like schizophrenia, depression, and PTSD.
According to this model, individuals may have a genetic predisposition (diathesis), but that vulnerability is only triggered by specific environmental stressors. For example, someone may inherit a gene variant linked to schizophrenia, but not develop the disorder unless they experience significant stress, such as childhood trauma or drug abuse.
Further support comes from epigenetics, a field that explores how environmental experiences can influence the expression of genes. For instance, research has shown that poor maternal care in rats can turn off genes responsible for stress regulation in offspring. This suggests that life experiences can literally alter how genes function, and that these changes can be passed on to the next generation.
✅ This makes the interactionist approach the most comprehensive, as it acknowledges the dynamic, two-way relationship between genes and the environment.
❌ 3. Problems with separating nature and nurture – Gene-environment correlations
A major limitation of this debate is that it’s often impossible to fully separate genetic and environmental influences. This is known as the problem of gene-environment correlation.
For example, a child with a genetically-based tendency for high intelligence might seek out more stimulating environments—such as reading more books or asking more questions. This process, called niche-picking, means that what appears to be an environmental influence is actually driven by the child’s genetic makeup. In this case, genes are shaping the environment, not the other way around.
Similarly, passive gene-environment correlations occur when parents provide both genes and environment. A musically gifted child may be raised in a home filled with music not just because of exposure, but because the parents also carry the relevant genes.
❌ These overlapping effects make it methodologically difficult to draw clear conclusions in research, especially from twin studies, which assume that environments are equal for MZ and DZ twins. If MZ twins share more similar environments, higher concordance rates might reflect this, not just genetic similarity.
✅ This supports the idea that trying to quantify nature vs nurture as separate influences is outdated, and that their relationship is more intertwined than the traditional debate allows.
❌ 4. Socially sensitive implications of both sides
Another serious issue in the nature vs nurture debate is the potential for socially sensitive interpretations of research findings.
Historically, biological (nature) explanations have been used to justify racism, sexism, and eugenics. For instance, during the early 20th century, the eugenics movement promoted sterilisation of people deemed “genetically inferior.” If we claim certain traits like intelligence or criminality are purely inherited, this can reinforce stereotypes and lead to discrimination.
On the other hand, nurture-based theories can also have problematic implications. If a psychological disorder like autism is blamed entirely on upbringing (as in the outdated “refrigerator mother” theory), this places unfair blame on parents, particularly mothers. This not only adds emotional burden but also may delay appropriate medical or therapeutic interventions.
✅ Psychologists therefore have a responsibility to interpret data carefully, acknowledging the complexity of causality and avoiding reductionist conclusions that could have harmful societal consequences.
The holism vs reductionism debate considers whether psychological phenomena are best understood by looking at the whole system (holism) or by breaking them down into simpler components (reductionism).
🔹 Holism
Holism is the view that human behaviour should be viewed as a whole integrated experience, not just the sum of its parts.
Emphasises the importance of context, the interaction of different influences, and emergent properties (qualities that only appear when all parts are considered together).
Associated with the humanistic approach (e.g. Maslow and self-actualisation).
Holism is often used in clinical psychology and group dynamics.
🧠 Example: Humanistic psychology considers the individual’s subjective experience, focusing on personal growth and free will, rather than breaking behaviour into biological or cognitive parts.
🔹 Reductionism
Reductionism breaks down complex behaviour into simpler components.
Based on the assumption that behaviour can be explained by basic units such as biology, learning, or cognition.
Follows the principle of parsimony (the simplest explanation is best).
Makes behaviour more scientifically testable and easier to investigate.
There are different levels of reductionism in psychology:
- Biological Reductionism
Explains behaviour in terms of genes, hormones, neurochemistry, or brain structure.
Example: Schizophrenia explained by dopamine dysregulation or genetic vulnerability.
- Environmental (Stimulus–Response) Reductionism
Explains behaviour in terms of learned associations from experience.
Example: Phobias explained by classical and operant conditioning (e.g. Little Albert).
- Psychic Reductionism
Based on Freudian theory, reducing behaviour to unconscious motives and drives.
Example: Anxiety caused by conflicts between the id, ego, and superego.
- Levels of Explanation
Introduced by Rose (1976) — suggests behavior can be explained at multiple levels:
Highest level: Social and cultural explanations (e.g., societal pressures).
Middle level: Psychological explanations (e.g., thoughts, emotions).
Lower level: Biological explanations (e.g., genes, neurotransmitters).
✅ AO3: Evaluation (Holism vs Reductionism)
✅ 1. Holism can explain complex behaviours better than reductionism
Holism provides a more complete and realistic understanding of complex human behavior. It recognises that social, cultural, and interpersonal factors can interact in unique ways.
For example, in group behaviour, such as conformity or obedience (e.g., Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment), it’s hard to fully explain what occurred by looking only at individuals or their biology. A holistic view considers emergent social roles, norms, and context, which are lost in reductionist approaches.
✅ Therefore, holism is especially useful when explaining behaviour in real-world settings, like therapy, social influence, or mental health, where individual parts alone don’t capture the full picture.
❌ 2. Holism lacks scientific rigour and testability
Although holism is rich in context, it can be imprecise and difficult to test. Holistic theories are often vague, making them hard to measure or falsify using the scientific method.
For example, humanistic psychology has been criticised for its lack of empirical evidence. Terms like “self-actualisation” are difficult to operationalise, making the approach unscientific.
❌ This limits its practical application, especially in areas that require clear interventions or measurable outcomes (e.g., drug treatment, cognitive therapy).
✅ 3. Reductionism enables scientific research and practical application
One of the key strengths of reductionism is that it supports the scientific method. By reducing behavior to simple components, psychologists can conduct controlled experiments, make precise predictions, and test hypotheses.
For example, biological reductionism has led to effective treatments for mental illness. SSRIs for depression and antipsychotics for schizophrenia were developed by targeting specific neurochemical imbalances.
✅ Therefore, reductionism has real-world benefits, particularly in clinical psychology and neuroscience, making it a practical and testable approach.
❌ 4. Reductionism oversimplifies complex human behavior
Although reductionism can be scientific, it often oversimplifies behaviour by ignoring important factors such as emotion, environment, and social context.
For example, explaining depression purely in terms of serotonin ignores how life events, cognitive processes, and relationships contribute. Similarly, behaviourist explanations of learning ignore internal thought processes and biological predispositions.
This is particularly problematic in mental health, where reducing symptoms to biology might result in treating the symptom rather than the cause (e.g., giving antidepressants without addressing trauma).
❌ Therefore, reductionist explanations lack validity when trying to understand the full complexity of human experience.
The idiographic vs nomothetic debate concerns how psychologists study human behaviour:
The idiographic approach focuses on individuals as unique entities.
The nomothetic approach aims to produce general laws of behaviour that apply to many people.
🔹 Idiographic Approach
Focuses on understanding the subjective experience of individuals.
Emphasises qualitative data: unstructured interviews, case studies, diaries, open-ended questionnaires.
Doesn’t aim to generalise findings to others — instead aims for deep insight into human behaviour.
🧠 Examples:
Humanistic psychology (e.g. Maslow, Rogers): Focus on the whole person and their experience.
Psychodynamic approach (to some extent): Freud used detailed case studies (e.g. Little Hans).
🔹 Nomothetic Approach
Seeks to develop universal laws or principles of behaviour.
Uses quantitative methods, such as experiments, statistics, and large sample sizes.
Emphasises objectivity, replicability, and scientific rigour.
🧪 Examples:
Biological approach: Research into brain structure, genes, neurotransmitters.
Behaviourist approach: Controlled experiments (e.g. Skinner’s rats).
Cognitive approach: Models of memory tested on large groups (e.g. MSM).
🔹 Can they be Combined?
Yes — many psychologists argue the best approach is a complementary interaction:
The idiographic can generate insights and hypotheses.
The nomothetic can test these on a larger scale.
Example: Cognitive psychology uses case studies (e.g. patient KF) to inform and refine general models of memory.
✅ AO3: Evaluation (16-marker level)
✅ 1. Idiographic approach provides rich, detailed understanding
A key strength of the idiographic approach is that it provides a deep and holistic understanding of individuals, including rare or unique experiences. This is especially valuable in areas such as clinical psychology or when studying unusual cases.
For example, Freud’s detailed case study of Little Hans provided insight into phobias and psychosexual development, and patient HM helped psychologists understand memory structures. These individual cases often reveal new phenomena that can’t be captured by large-scale studies.
✅ Therefore, the idiographic approach is important for theory development and for recognising individual variation in human behaviour.
❌ 2. Idiographic methods lack scientific rigour and generalisability
One major criticism is that idiographic methods are often subjective, unreliable, and difficult to replicate. Case studies rely heavily on interpretation and may be affected by researcher bias. For instance, Freud’s conclusions about Little Hans were based on unobservable unconscious processes.
Furthermore, because idiographic research studies individuals or small samples, it’s hard to generalise findings to the wider population.
❌ This limits its usefulness in creating universal laws or treatments, especially in areas like pharmacology or public health where nomothetic data is essential.
✅ 3. Nomothetic approach is scientific and highly useful
A major strength of the nomothetic approach is its use of standardised, scientific methods, which allow for predictions, replication, and practical applications.
For example, biological psychology has used large-scale studies to identify the genetic basis of mental illnesses, leading to drug treatments for disorders like depression (SSRIs) and schizophrenia (antipsychotics). Behaviourists used controlled experiments to understand learning and develop therapies like systematic desensitisation.
✅ This makes the nomothetic approach particularly valuable in applied psychology — it allows findings to be replicated, verified, and used to inform public policy or healthcare.
❌ 4. Nomothetic approach may oversimplify the human experience
Despite its scientific strengths, the nomothetic approach can be reductionist. By focusing on averages and general laws, it may ignore individual differences and the subjective, personal meaning behind behaviour.
For example, using a statistical model of depression may help in diagnosis, but not explain why a particular person became depressed, or how their life experiences shaped their condition.
❌ This makes the nomothetic approach less valid in understanding the complex, contextual nature of human thought and behaviour.
✅ 5. Interaction is often the most useful approach
In practice, many psychologists adopt a complementary perspective that integrates both idiographic and nomothetic methods.
For example, in cognitive psychology, general laws about memory (e.g., MSM, WMM) are supported by idiographic case studies (e.g., patient KF). In mental health, idiographic clinical interviews are used alongside nomothetic diagnostic tools like DSM-5.
✅ This combined approach allows for a balance between generalisation and personalisation, providing both theoretical and practical benefits.
Ethical implications refer to the wider effects of research and theory on individuals, society, and particular groups.
This goes beyond the ethical treatment of participants (like consent or protection from harm) and focuses on:
Long-term consequences of the research being published.
How findings or theories are interpreted or applied in society.
The potential for misuse or misunderstanding of research.
🔹 Socially Sensitive Research (SSR)
Term introduced by Sieber and Stanley (1988).
Refers to studies that tackle controversial or socially sensitive topics, such as:
Race
Sexuality
Gender
Mental health
Criminality
❗ Socially sensitive research may be scientifically valid, but still raise ethical concerns if it leads to stigma, discrimination, or political consequences.
🔹 Four Ethical Considerations in SSR (Sieber & Stanley)
The research question – Is it potentially damaging to even ask?
E.g., “Are there racial differences in IQ?”
The methodology used – Could participants be harmed or labelled?
E.g., deception, confidentiality breaches.
The institutional context – Who funds or uses the research?
E.g., could governments or corporations misuse findings?
Interpretation and application – Could findings be used to justify discrimination or policy?
E.g., policies based on intelligence or genetics.
🔹 Ethical Implications of Theories and Research Studies
✅ Theories with potential ethical implications:
Attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby’s maternal deprivation):
Suggested that mothers must be present continuously during early years.
Led to mother-blaming and social pressure on women.
Genetic explanations of intelligence or mental illness:
Could lead to deterministic thinking, e.g., “criminals are born, not made”.
May result in eugenics or stigmatisation.
✅ Research studies with ethical/social impact:
Milgram’s obedience study:
Raised serious concerns about deception and psychological harm.
Also revealed how ordinary people can commit atrocities under authority—important for understanding historical events like the Holocaust.
Rosenhan’s study on being sane in insane places:
Criticised psychiatric diagnosis and led to reform in mental health systems.
But also damaged public trust in psychiatric institutions.
Loftus & Palmer (eyewitness testimony):
Showed how memory is malleable, affecting how eyewitnesses are treated in court.
Ethical concern: could lead to mistrust in legal systems or false convictions.
✅ AO3: Evaluation of Ethical Implications (16-marker level)
✅ 1. Socially sensitive research can lead to valuable real-world benefits
While SSR raises ethical challenges, it can lead to positive societal change when handled responsibly. For example:
Loftus and Palmer’s research improved understanding of eyewitness unreliability, influencing police and legal procedures to reduce miscarriages of justice.
Rosenhan’s work prompted reforms in psychiatric diagnoses and treatment, highlighting the need for more accurate mental health practices.
✅ This shows that avoiding sensitive topics may limit progress, and that carefully conducted SSR can benefit vulnerable groups and society.
❌ 2. Risk of misuse by governments, media, or institutions
One major risk of SSR is that findings can be misinterpreted or abused. For example:
Goddard (1917) used intelligence testing to argue certain races were less intelligent, fuelling the eugenics movement in the US.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation, although well-intentioned, was used politically to discourage women from working, reinforcing gender stereotypes.
❌ This shows how theories can have unintended negative consequences, and that psychologists must consider how their work may be used or weaponised.
❌ 3. Stigma, discrimination, and harm to participants or groups
SSR can lead to harmful social consequences:
Research into the genetic basis of criminality could lead to stigma against certain communities.
Studies on intelligence differences between ethnic groups may reinforce racism or prejudice, even if findings are scientifically flawed or taken out of context.
Participants may suffer psychological harm, labeling, or social consequences if confidentiality is breached or the topic is too personal.
❌ Psychologists must therefore weigh the potential harm against the benefit, and ensure ethical guidelines are strictly followed.
✅ 4. Guidelines exist to reduce harm
Modern ethical frameworks (e.g., BPS guidelines) help manage ethical risks. Ethical review boards (ERBs) assess:
Informed consent
Right to withdraw
Anonymity/confidentiality
Debriefing
Ethics committees also assess the wider impact of proposed research, helping to balance scientific value with ethical responsibility.
✅ This means that, although ethical issues can arise, researchers are now more aware and better equipped to handle them responsibly.
❌ 5. Ethical concerns can limit valuable research
A downside of strict ethical control is that it may discourage research into important issues:
Researchers may avoid topics like sexual abuse, racial differences, or terrorism for fear of backlash or controversy.
This creates gaps in psychological knowledge and could hinder progress in fields that most need ethical insight.
❌ Therefore, ethics must strike a balance between protection and progress.
