Issues and debates
Psychology as a science
Assess whether the learning theories approach demonstrate that
psychology is a science (8)
One argument for learning theories demonstrating that psychology is a science is
the use of controls to establish a cause and effect relationship. Controls ensure that
only the independent variable is affecting the dependent variable, so that causation can
be established. For example, Pavlov (1927) tied up the dog in a harness in a sealed
room to prevent other extraneous variables of sound or researchers being associated
with the food. This helped Pavlov to ascertain that the dog associated the sound of the
metronome with the food, and not with the researcher or other external sounds, hence
establishing a cause and effect relationship was possible. This makes research into
learning theories scientific as causation between the independent and dependent
variable could not only be established, but also checked through subsequent
replications for reliability. On the other hand, this experiment had low ecological validity
since the dog was in unusual circumstances (being tied up in a harness in a box and cut
off from other dogs and humans). This meant that the dog’s reactions might have not
been normal because he was not in its natural environment. This suggests that
experiments about learning theories may not be applied to the real world where people
would normally be subject to a range of stimuli.
One argument against learning theories demonstrating that psychology is a
science is the decreased degree of reductionism in social learning theory. Reductionism
is the idea of breaking down a complex phenomenon into simpler components that
could be more easily studied. For example, the learning approach often focuses on
studying observable behaviour as this can be more easily investigated. However,
, 2
research into social learning theory may not be reductionist since the individual’s
cognitive processes have an influence on their chances of imitating their role model. For
example, in Bandura’s (1961) study, the girls might have imitated fewer physically
aggressive acts than boys because they may have already learned cultural expectations
around their gender, hence they acted in a way that was expected from them. However,
these cognitive processes of thinking could not have been measured by the researchers
in an objective way, therefore they had to interpret the findings in a subjective way. By
doing so, a more holistic explanation of imitating observed aggressive behaviour can be
achieved, even though the scientific credibility of such research may be lessened as
objective and reliable data about the cognitive stages of social learning theory may be
hard to gain. Nonetheless, Bandura had employed standardised procedures such as the
same checklist categories for aggressive and non-aggressive acts shown by the
children after observing the role model. This enables the reliability of the data obtained
to be checked since further replications of this study could be possible due to the
standardised controls.
In conclusion, the learning approach could demonstrate that psychology is a
science by investigating observable phenomena such as the dog’s salivation after the
sound of the metronome, which could help to determine a cause and effect relationship.
However, social learning theory may be the least scientific theory as it is less
reductionist by considering also the cognitive processes which are difficult to measure.
To what extent is biological psychology scientific (12)
Biological psychology may be scientific due to reductionism in studies.
Reductionism is the idea of breaking complex phenomena down into small and
observable parts, and this idea in science is fundamental in order to better understand a
phenomenon by first studying its parts. For example, Dabbs et al. (1988) focused on the
role of testosterone in prisoners as a variable in aggression, hence reducing aggression
to levels of testosterone in the brain. They found that testosterone was highest for
prisoners that acted on unprovoked violence, but it was lowest when violence was used
for self-defence such as in domestic abuse. This is important as it enabled the
researchers to determine if testosterone had an effect on aggressive and violent
behaviour in prisoners, considering that determining what affects a complex behaviour
like aggression would be more difficult if the variables were not isolated. This makes
biological psychology scientific in terms of employing reductionist methods.
Nonetheless, a cause and effect relationship could not be established between
, 3
testosterone levels and aggression. For example, it could be that violence increased
testosterone levels so it’s the effect of violence not the cause. There is no way of
determining this since the prisoners would have to be screened before committing a
crime in order to find any differences in their testosterone levels after the crime. This
suggests that establishing causation may be a challenge affecting the scientific status
of biological psychology.
However, some aspects of biological psychology may not be so scientific, in
particular psychodynamic explanations for behaviour. Scientifically credible research
needs to be objective, reliable and valid in order to be considered seriously by
researchers. Freud’s psychodynamic approach though may be criticised for being
unscientific. This is because there is no objective evidence for the 3 personality
components of ID, ego and superego in brain scans, hence they cannot be studied in an
objective way. This suggests that the psychodynamic approach may not be scientific as
there is no evidence for the personality components being scientifically credible. On the
other hand, Gorka et al. (2013) hypothesised that certain brain structures could
represent the 3 personality components. For example, the limbic system, in particular
the amygdala, may represent the ID as it generates basic desires like aggression, and
the prefrontal cortex could represent the ego given that it handles decision making. This
implies that the psychodynamic approach may be credible if evidence from brain scans
suggests so.
Biological psychology may be scientific due to the frequent use of brain scans.
Gathering objective data is important so as to ensure that it is scientifically credible and
valid. For example, Raine et al. (1997) conducted PET scans on 21 offenders pleading
not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRIs) to see whether there were any structural
differences in their brains compared to the 20 controls that were not offenders. In this
way, he gathered reliable and objective evidence for the differences in brain structure
which meant his research was scientifically credible. This indicates that brain scans in
psychology may be the most scientific method of gathering credible evidence. On the
other hand, the images from the PET scans in Raine (1997) were hard to comprehend,
so researchers had to interpret them. This introduces the potential for subjectivity in the
results as different researchers will interpret the results differently, hence making them
less objective and scientific.
, 4
In conclusion, biological psychology can be scientific in some aspects such as
gathering objective data from brain scans after reducing a certain type of behaviour to
hormone levels and brain structure and activity. However, in other aspects such as in
the psychodynamic approach, it may not be as scientific as much given that it may not
be possible to gather objective and reliable evidence.
To what extent do cognitive and biological psychology show that
psychology is a science (12)
Cognitive and biological psychology may show that psychology might be a
science due to often gathering objective data. This could focus on the biological
aspects of behaviour such as brain structure and activity or hormone levels. For
example, Tulving (1986) found through brain scans on 6 volunteers that the frontal
lobes were active when episodic memory was used, whereas the back cortex was active
when semantic memory was used, offering evidence for long-term memory having 2
separate systems. Similarly, Montag et al. (2011) found through fMRI scans, that people
who often played violent games had lower levels of activity in certain parts of the brain
when they were exposed to pictures of negative emotion. These scans collected
objective and credible data, which helped them to draw scientifically credible
conclusions. This indicates that both cognitive and biological psychology could show
that psychology is a science if they both use brain scans. However, this may not be true
if the images from the scans may be hard to comprehend. This is because in this case,
the images would have to be interpreted by different researchers, which would
introduce subjectivity in the results. This suggests that brain scans may not always
gather completely objective data.
Cognitive and biological psychology may not show that psychology is a science
due to low ecological validity in their studies. This refers to when the findings of a study
can be confidently applied to real life situations. This is harder in cognitive psychology,
where memory tasks like recalling a string of words are often used to study memory,
even though they may not resemble real life use of memory, which could be recalling a
shopping list or a phone number. Similarly, in biological psychology, Raine et al. (1997)
employed the continuous performance task (CPT) to offenders in order to investigate
their levels of brain activity, even though it wasn’t similar to a real life task. This implies
that the findings may not be valid and credible since the participants were investigated
in an unnatural environment, hence their behaviour was unlikely to be natural. This
suggests that the findings cannot be applied to the real world, which makes psychology
