Summary of the Debate
Psychology is a science if the research it produces is
- Falsifiable
- Objective
- Replicable
- Quantitative data
- Experiment
|
Model Answer
|
Exemplar Answer
|
|
To decide whether psychology is a science, we have to define a ‘science’. A science is ‘objectively obtaining data and organizing it into theories’. A science follows a process. Firstly, inductive reasoning takes place whereby the investigator looks at the science/idea around its subject. Secondly, a generalization is made about that subject matter and a hypothesis is formed. Next, deductive reasoning takes place where by the subject matter is tested, and either verified or falsified. A science is characterised by the fact that it is objective and the variables tested need to be testable.
Firstly, objectivity – for a subject to be a science, it needs to be objective in that the researcher imposes no ideas, which may be biased to what they believe in their study. For example, behaviourist, biological and cognitive theorists all use lab studies when they investigate their theories, which are largely controlled and unbiased by the researchers own beliefs. However, psychodynamic theorists, when investigating subject matter use, in the majority, case studies. These are generalized and involved the biased interpretation of the researcher. So, from this point of view, depending on which psychological is carrying out the investigation, depends on the matter of whether the method is objective. A second argument that could be used is the process of operationalising variables. In chemistry and physics, variables are obviously established. They use voltage, amps and grams when carrying out research, which are easily established. However, when psychologists investigate, they cannot establish such things. For example, if they are looking at stress, they may find indirect variables, such as sweat, but they cannot firmly say that this is a direct variable linked to stressful situations. So, again, from this argument, it is difficult to say that psychology can be a science, as they cannot very well establish causality. The third argument is causality. This means that a cause and effect relationship, in that the IV had an effect on the DV. In sciences, most use laboratory experiments, which are controlled and show this cause and effect relationship. To some extent, psychology can also establish causality. In the behavioural, biological and cognitive approaches, lab experiments are often used and so they can establish causality in their highly controlled conditions. However, again, psychodynamic theorists raise problems when they are investigating as they mainly use case studies. This means causality cannot be properly established even when lab experiments are used to investigate psychological phenomena, there are problems raised. Lab experiments lack ecological validity) and can create demand characteristics. They can also lack internal validity when the P does not believe in the experiment. A final argument is the use of theory. Sciences have paradigms (general theories that encompass many smaller theories), such as physics’ theory of relativity. However, psychology does not have any of these paradigms. Instead, it has levels of explanations that are used to explain different phenomena. Kuhn (1990) said that this means ‘psychology is a pre-science’ - not quite reached the stage of being a science, but may do one day. However, paradigms can change, so does psychology really need one? It is not really important that it does not have a paradigm as its different levels of explanation make up for this fact. In conclusion, there are both arguments for and against psychology as a science. However, on the whole, the research method used to investigate the phenomena will establish, to a certain extent whether psychology is a science. Looking at the definition of a science – ‘objectively obtaining data and organizing it into theories’, psychology as a whole is a science, with the exceptions of psychodynamic theorists. |
Considering psychology as a science allows for objective, quantitative data to be gathered. This data is in numerical form and therefore less open than qualitative data to the influence of either researcher bias or researcher error. Quantitative data allows for easy comparison between individuals and/or groups of individuals. For example, Bandura gathered quantitative data which made it easy to compare the results of participants placed in the aggressive model, non-aggressive model and no model groups as well as differences between boys and girls in relation to the display of aggressive acts. He found that those children who witnessed aggressive acts by the model produced more aggressive acts on a subsequent occasion than children who either saw a non-aggressive model or no model at all. He also found that overall boys produced more imitative physical aggression than girls. This allowed Bandura to suggest that aggressive behaviour can be learned from observing significant others.
On the other hand, considering psychology as a science by gathering objective, quantitative data often leads to findings lacking qualitative data. Findings are therefore fairly superficial as researchers fail to get an in-depth understanding for why the behaviour occurred. Although Bandura gathered quantitative data he failed to find out from the children why they behaved the way they did. He merely presumed the aggressive acts were imitated because the children had watched an adult model behave aggressively and so the children had learnt to be aggressive, whereas, in fact, the children may have realised that a Bobo doll should be ‘bashed’ and were merely playing with the doll in an expected fashion. This may limit the usefulness of considering psychology as a science as without a full understanding for why behaviours occur one may draw inappropriate conclusions. Considering psychology as a science allows for the use of experiments where IVs can be manipulated and cause and effect inferred. For example through the use of a natural experiment in which he manipulated the IV of whether the participant had a split brain or not (this control group was a hypothetical group because the functions and abilities of the visual fields and hemispheres of non split-brain individuals were already known), Sperry was able to show many visual and tactile limitations of split-brain patients. For example, if an image was flashed to the left visual field of a split-brain patient they insisted either that they did not see anything or that there was only a flash of light on the left side whereas a ‘normal’ individual would be able to name the object. This suggested that the inability of the splitbrain patients to name in speech or writing an image flashed to their left visual field was due to them having had their hemispheres deconnected. However a problem of considering psychology as a science by using experiments means that studies may lack ecological validity. Although Sperry was able to identify numerous visual and tactile limitations in split-brain patients, the study was conducted in an artificial, contrived environment with participants undertaking unrealistic tasks and so lacked realism. It is not realistic to sit an individual in front of a tachistoscope and flash an image to either their left or right visual fields for 1/10 second and expect them to be able to identify the image in speech and writing. This may limit the usefulness of considering psychology as a science as the way people behave in such artificial environments may not reflect they would behave in a real-life situation |
Comparing the Debate with Other Debates
Free Will / Determinism
Determinism aims to be scientific however it can never lead to perfect predictions due to the complexity of human behaviour and the difficulty isolating variables completely. Determinism does use many more scientific methods compared to freewill.
Nature/nurture
The nature view links with Psychology as a science because it wants behaviour to be predictable and uses a scientific approach to explain human behaviour.
Reductionism / Holism
Being scientific tends to make the research and explanations of behaviour reductionist.
Individual / situational explanations
Areas of psychology that use individual explanations of behaviour (e.g. the cognitive area), often use scientific methods that are highly controlled whereas situational explanations often find it harder to establish such high control.
Usefulness
Being scientific gives provable evidence, which can be trusted and relied upon. This makes it useful to offer new treatments.
Ethics
The BPS guidelines encourage psychologists to have respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. This should encourage them to take a scientific approach to research.
Socially Sensitive Research
Research must try to be scientific if it is to be trusted and to reduce implications of socially sensitive research such as incorrect interpretations of data.
Free Will / Determinism
Determinism aims to be scientific however it can never lead to perfect predictions due to the complexity of human behaviour and the difficulty isolating variables completely. Determinism does use many more scientific methods compared to freewill.
Nature/nurture
The nature view links with Psychology as a science because it wants behaviour to be predictable and uses a scientific approach to explain human behaviour.
Reductionism / Holism
Being scientific tends to make the research and explanations of behaviour reductionist.
Individual / situational explanations
Areas of psychology that use individual explanations of behaviour (e.g. the cognitive area), often use scientific methods that are highly controlled whereas situational explanations often find it harder to establish such high control.
Usefulness
Being scientific gives provable evidence, which can be trusted and relied upon. This makes it useful to offer new treatments.
Ethics
The BPS guidelines encourage psychologists to have respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. This should encourage them to take a scientific approach to research.
Socially Sensitive Research
Research must try to be scientific if it is to be trusted and to reduce implications of socially sensitive research such as incorrect interpretations of data.
| comparing_the_debates.pptx |
