PSYCHOLOGY WIZARD
  • Home
  • Unit 1 FOUNDATIONS
    • Biological >
      • Adoption & Twin Studies AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Gottesman & Shields AO1 AO3
        • Kety AO1 AO3
      • Aggression AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Evolutionary Psychology AO1 AO2 AO3
      • The Brain AO1 AO2 >
        • Drugs & the Brain AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Brendgen AO1 AO3
      • Development (Maturation) AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Freud's Psychodynamic Theory AO1 AO3 >
        • Aggression & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
        • Development & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
        • Individual Differences & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Raine AO1 AO3
      • Biological Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Cognitive >
      • Baddeley AO1 AO3
      • Multi Store Model AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Reconstructive Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Schmolck AO1 AO3
      • Tulving's Long Term Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Working Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Cognitive Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Learning >
      • Bandura AO1 >
        • Bandura AO3
      • Becker AO1 AO3
      • Classical Conditioning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Operant Conditioning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Pavlov AO1 AO3
      • Social Learning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Therapies for Phobias >
        • Flooding
        • Systematic Desensitisation
      • Watson & Rayner AO1 AO3
      • Learning Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Social >
      • Agency Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Burger AO1 AO3
      • Situational Factors AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Milgram AO1 >
        • Milgram AO3
      • Realistic Conflict Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Sherif AO1 >
        • Sherif AO3
      • Social Impact Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Social Identity Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Social Key Question AO1 AO2
  • Unit 2 APPLICATIONS
    • Clinical >
      • Depression AO1 AO2 >
        • Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Non-Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Biological Treatment AO1 AO2
        • Psychological Treatment AO1 AO2
      • Diagnosing Abnormality AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Diagnostic Manuals AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Carlsson AO1 AO3
      • Kroenke AO1 AO3
      • HCPC Guidelines AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Rosenhan AO1 AO3
      • Schizophrenia AO1 AO2 >
        • Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Non-biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Biological Treatments AO1 AO2
        • Psychological Treatment AO1 AO2
      • Clinical Key Question AO1 AO2
      • Issues & Debates >
        • Social Control AO2 AO3
  • Evaluation
    • Ethics AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Individual Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Brain Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Personality AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Mental Health Differences AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Differences in Obedience & Prejudice AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Memory Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Loftus study AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Nature vs Nurture AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Scientific Status AO1 AO2
  • Methods
    • Animal Studies AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Case Studies AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Bradshaw AO1 AO3
      • Scoville & Milner AO1 AO3
    • Content Analyses AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Experimental Method AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Experimental Variables AO1 AO2
    • Hypotheses AO1 AO2
    • Inferential Statistics AO1 AO2 >
      • Chi-Squared Test AO1 AO2
      • Mann-Whitney U Test AO1 AO2
      • Spearman's Rho AO1 AO2
      • Wilcoxon Test AO1 AO2
    • Longitudinal Design AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Quantitative Data & Analysis AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Research Design AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Sampling AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Self Report Method AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Brown et al. AO1 AO3
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Resources
Picture

WHAT IS IT TO BE SCIENTIFIC?

The scientific method is used by scientists to find out about the world. It has brought humanity huge insight into the natural world and has helped us develop powerful technologies, from space ships to vaccines.

Moreover, sciences attract great respect from the public and funding from companies and governments. So, it’s worth asking whether Psychology is a science or not.
​
  • Science tries to be objective. This means that scientists try to stay detached from what they are studying and don’t let their feelings or emotions affect their conclusions. One way it does this is by focusing on quantitative data.
  • Science tries to be replicable. This means that other scientists can repeat your research and check your results; this is called the peer review process and it is part of what makes science objective. They can also use your techniques to build on your research. A really scientific procedure ought to work the same way every time is used.
  • Science tries to discover underlying laws that govern what goes on in the world. A really scientific theory ought to make successful predictions about what will happen in real-life situations.

Psychologists often decide how scientific a piece of research is by asking whether it is reliable and whether it is valid.

IS IT RELIABLE?

A reliable procedure should always work the same way whenever you use it, and should produce the same results every time it’s used on the same people.

For example, an interview is reliable if you always ask the same questions, in the same way and in the same order. If you change the way you word the questions for certain people, or even just change your tone of voice or body language, you might make the interview unreliable.

In general, research is reliable if it is well-designed with standardised procedures that can be replicated accurately. It is unreliable if the researchers have to make on-the-spot decisions, use their imagination or bring personal bias into the study.

Even if research is reliable, that doesn't mean it has to be valid...

IS IT VALID?

A valid procedure gives true results because it’s studying what it’s meant to be studying.

For example, a valid IQ test really will measure your intelligence and only your intelligence. A lot of IQ tests are invalid because you can get extra points for being well-educated, having a lot of general knowledge or coming from a certain background – things that don’t necessarily have anything to do with intelligence.

In general, research is valid if the behaviour being studied is natural and realistic and not influenced by outside factors. Research becomes invalid (and un-scientific) if there are lots of other possible explanations for the results that are just as plausible as the one being offered.


  • Internal Validity is whether the study is properly controlled; if it lacks internal validity, then outside forces (extraneous variables) may be causing the results instead
  • External validity is whether the study is natural and realistic; if it lacks external validity, it the results cannot be generalised to other settings or situations
  • There's also Predictive Validity, which is whether the study predicts what will happen in similar situations in the future; if it lacks predictive validity, the circumstances of the research are unlikely to happen again

A valid test automatically has to be reliable… but just because a test is reliable, that doesn’t automatically make it valid.

DOES IT TEST HYPOTHESES?

Science is often described as more than just a focus on objective, reliable and valid research. It is a particular way of understanding the world that follows a distinct procedure. This is the hypothetico-deductive model. 

This procedure involves beginning with a research question from which a hypothesis is formed; this hypothesis is tested empirically (with physical evidence) and from this a theory is formulated: the theory then produces more questions, more hypotheses and more testing.
Picture
Let's get it right. You have one HYPOTHESIS but several HYPOTHESES. There's no such word as 'hypothesises'

IS IT EMPIRICAL?

Empiricism is the idea that true information comes to us through the 5 senses: stuff we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Empirical facts are physical facts: they are backed up by physical evidence and can be measured in an objective (unbiased) way.

Science is an empirical discipline. Hypotheses have to be tested against the facts to see if a theory can be formulated. If the physical facts contradict a theory, it will have to be changed or scrapped.

A problem for Psychology is that some psychological subjects don't seem very empirical at all: thoughts, memories and feelings cannot be observed or recorded and don't leave physical evidence,

One solution is to stop researching these things. This was the view of the Behaviourist school of Psychology in the 20th century. Behaviourists like B.F. Skinner argued that psychologists should study behaviour (which can be observed) and the environmental stimuli that cause learned behaviour, not thoughts.

Cognitive Psychologists insist that mental processes can be studied in a scientific way, even if they are unobservable. After all, there are things that the natural sciences study that cannot be directly observed (eg gravity, black holes, the Big Bang).

The Biological Approach suggests that, even if thoughts and memories cannot be observed, changes in brain states can be observed with new brain scanning technology. If there is a link between mental processes and brain states, then this might give us empirical evidence for theories about thought and memory.

IS IT FALSIFIABLE?

A key idea in science was developed by Karl Popper. Popper pointed out that the best scientists do not try to prove theories; they try to disprove (falsify) them.

This is sometimes shown with the example of swans. You might think all swans are white, but it only takes the appearance of one black swan to disprove that theory.
Picture
In order to be considered scientific, Psychology should offer falsifiable theories. These would be theories that could be proved false... but haven't yet. If there's no way for a psychological theory to be falsified, then it isn't really a scientific theory.

For example, many believe that humans think and feel because they have souls that live on after they die. This might be true, but it's not a scientific theory, because it can't be falsified. Souls can't be seen or touched and they can't be detected with equipment and recorded or measured. This is why psychologists prefer to focus on concepts that are falsifiable, like memory stores or conditioned behaviour, because these ideas are falsifiable.
Picture
Not scientific.

IS IT TOO REDUCTIONIST?

The belief that science is the only way to discover truths is called positivism, but not all psychologists are positivists. Some would argue that science is not the best way to understand human experience. They would argue that it's not just difficult for Psychology to be fully scientific, but it's wrong for it to try.

This is because science is reductionist. Reductionism means reducing everything to the simplest possible explanation: bare physical facts, numbers, the brain. It involves taking things apart and looking at what they're made of, but missing out on the bigger picture.

Some people would say humans are more than just blobs of biochemistry and brains or bundles of conditioned behaviours. Human experience is much more complex than any dots on a graph can show; this is why we have art and poetry and music to get across what "aggression" or "memory" or "fear" is like.

The opposite of reductionism is holism. Some people argue that Psychology needs to be more holistic because human beings are "more than the sum of their parts". However, holistic psychological theories are, by definition, much less scientific.
Picture

APPLYING PSYCHOLOGY TO THE ISSUE OF SCIENCE
AO2

There may be no such thing as a "perfect science". Even the natural sciences have their hoaxes and false theories. However, it's much easier to be scientific when you are studying inanimate objects like rocks and acids. When you start to study people, it becomes more difficult, because people are self-aware and react to being studied, while the experimenter enters a relationship with them too. Then there are controversial topics that psychologists study, like aggression or suffering or sexuality, where it might not even be morally right to stay completely objective. Nonetheless, most psychologists try to make their research as scientific as possible, even if they accept it can never be 100% scientific.

REPLICABILITY, RELIABILITY & VALIDITY

Psychologists make research replicable by following standardised procedures and scripting their interactions with participants.
  • Baddeley (1966b) followed the same procedure with every recall test, showing participants the same words on each trial for the same amount of time, followed by the same interference task.
  • Milgram (1963) scripted the "prods" that the experimenter (Mr Williams) used with the learners, so that they always heard him reply in the same way. If Gina Perry's criticisms are true and Mr Williams often deviated from this script, that undermines the scientific credentials of Milgram's variations.
  • Sherif et al. (1954) could not follow an entirely standardised procedure or script all the interactions with the boys. In fact, Sherif's ability to change his plans and adapt to how the boys behaved was a strength of the study, but it makes it less scientific. Despite this, Sherif tried to remain objective:  his camp counselors would not suggest any actions to the boys but would help them with decisions they had already come to.

Two good examples of replication would be Bandura's Bobo Doll studies, which replicated the basic procedure involving the rolemodel, the Bobo Doll and the one-way mirror, and Burger's replication of Milgram's study, which followed all the procedures for Milgram's Variation #5 except for stopping at 150V and improving the ethical safeguards. Other examples would be the studies on Pavlov's dogs and the Skinner Box used to test Operant Conditioning.

Reliability and validity are discussed in the AO3 section of each study on this site. The main technique used by psychologists is the use of experimental controls. Controls make the study more reliable if they rule out "one-off" events occurring. They increase the internal validity if they help ensure that the IV is the only variable causing changes in the DV.
  • Watson & Rayner (1920) tested Little Albert with the white rat before doing any conditioning and observed no fear response. This control makes it clear that, when Albert did show fear later (the DV), it must have been because of the conditioning (the IV). This is internal validity.

HYPOTHESIS-TESTING & EMPIRICISM


You can see a good example of the hypothetico-deductive model in action in Bandura's Bobo doll studies. Bandura's research question is, do we learn aggressive behaviour from role models? From this he forms a hypothesis, that children exposed to an aggressive role model will go on to show more aggressive behaviour than children exposed to a passive role model or no role model.

In fact, Bandura tests several related hypotheses, about children being more likely to imitate a same-sex role model and everyone being more likely to imitate a male role model and the effects of different sorts of modelled aggression.

Bandura tests his hypotheses against the facts by observing aggressive behaviour. This is empirical testing, because the behaviour can be observed. Because he observes the increased aggression in the aggressive-model condition, he creates a theory - Social Learning Theory - which states that complex behaviour is learned through observing and imitating role models.

This leads to more research questions: do role models on TV or in cartoons have the same effect as live human role models? what is the effect of seeing a role model being rewarded or punished?

Bandura's 1963 and 1965 studies form hypotheses based on these questions and test them. The results are used to amend Social Learning Theory, adding in features like vicarious learning, inhibition and disinhibition. SLT becomes stronger as a theory each time more empirical evidence comes out of a study to support it.

Other theories don't fare so well. Freud's theory of the unconscious mind suffers from a lack of empirical evidence: you can't observe the unconscious mind, the ego or the id, and you can't measure their strength. This makes Freud's theory less scientific. However, Freud carried out many case studies on patients to test hypotheses about unconscious conflicts leading to mental health problems and he adjusted his theories in the light of these studies: this is the hypothetico-deductive model in action.
An introduction to hypothesis testing
Monty Python satirizes the hypothetico-deductive model

FALSIFICATION

Popper's ideas about falsification are important for psychologists. It is often said that Freud's theories are unfalsifiable: the id or the ego can't be challenged with evidence; there's no way of disproving the theory that they are responsible for aggression. Popper argues that theory that cannot be disproved is not a scientific theory.
Picture
However, Freud's ideas aren't completely unfalsifiable. For example, Freud believed that watching aggression would be cathartic, reducing the pent-up aggression in the unconscious mind (a bit like "letting off steam"). This is the sort of idea that you could try to disprove. And, sure enough,  Bandura's Bobo Doll studies showed the opposite taking place: children who watched an aggressive role model showed more not less aggression.

This would seem to falsify part of Freud's theory, but in a way that's not a bad thing for Freud, because it means that Freud's theory must be partly scientific.

Another example would be Burger's replication of Milgram's study. Now in fact, Burger's results were consistent with Milgram's Agency Theory, which strengthens the theory. But they could have falsified it if lots of participants had refused to obey the orders from the authority figure to give a 165V shock. This shows that Agency Theory is falsifiable (even though it hasn't actually been falsified yet) which suggests it is a proper scientific theory.

REDUCTIONISM

In their attempts to be scientific, psychologists sometimes go too far in breaking down human experience to its component parts, missing out on the "big picture". Another aspect of this is focusing on quantitative data at the expense of qualitative data.

This criticism is often leveled at the Cognitive Approach. For example, Baddeley's memory studies focus entirely on scores in a (rather strange) memory recall test and Schmolck et al.'s study on semantic memory uses picture cards rather than personal memories. Theories like Working Memory break memory processes down into smaller sub-processes, like the Visuo-Spatial Sketch Pad or the Phonological Loop.

The Biological Approach is also criticised for treating humans as "meat machines" whose thinking is governed entirely by the laws of biology. For example, the study by Raine et al. (1997) can be accused of viewing human morals entirely as brain functioning (though Raine would deny he is taking such a simplistic view).

Gestalt Psychology is a school of Cognitive Psychology that rejects reductionism and tries to study mental processes in a more holistic way. Reconstructive Memory is an approach that has more in common with Gestalt Psychology than reductionist theories like Working Memory. Schemas are a very "Gestalt" idea because they suggest that we reconstruct memories "as a whole", using our expectations to fill in the gaps, rather than recalling each separate detail of an event or an image.
Picture

EXEMPLAR ESSAY
How to write a 8-mark answer

Assess how scientific the Learning Approach in Psychology may be said to be. (8 marks)
  • A 8-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for describing the scientific method (AO1) and 4 marks for applying the Learning Approach to this (AO2). You need a conclusion to get a mark in the top band (7-8 marks). "Scientific status" turns up in the Specification for the Learning Approach but you need to know the scientific status of all the Approaches.

Description
The scientific approach involves gathering empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is evidence from the 5 senses: things you can see, hear, touch, taste or smell.
Scientists try to follow the hypothetico-deductive model. This involves testing a hypothesis against the evidence and using it to form a theory, which then produces new hypotheses.
Scientific procedures will be as objective as possible, trying to avoid personal interpretation or bias.
They will also aim to be highly replicable. This is important because the research needs to be done by other scientists as part of peer review. It also needs to be carried out again so that the theory can be further tested.

Application
The Learning Approach is strictly empirical because it studies behaviours instead of feelings. For example, Watson & Rayner studied the way Little Albert's behaviour changed, not his feelings about the white rat.
The way Bandura developed SLT is a good example of the hypothetico-deductive model. He replicated the same procedure with the Bobo Doll to test different hypotheses about role models.
Many studies in the Learning Approach were filmed so that other people could see the results (eg Watson & Rayner, Skinner, Bandura). This helps establish the objectivity of the findings.
The Learning Approach has very replicable procedures. For example, Watson & Rayner replicated Pavlov's basic procedure with the dogs but used it on a human baby to show that conditioning works on humans too.

Conclusion

The Learning Approach is a strongly scientific branch of Psychology. In fact, Behaviourists like Skinner argued that studying behaviour scientifically was the only proper way to do Psychology.
  • Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything about science. I haven’t mentioned falsification or the different types of validity. But it is a balanced answer - half description, half application.
Home
Blog
Contact

PSYCHOLOGYWIZARD.NET
  • Home
  • Unit 1 FOUNDATIONS
    • Biological >
      • Adoption & Twin Studies AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Gottesman & Shields AO1 AO3
        • Kety AO1 AO3
      • Aggression AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Evolutionary Psychology AO1 AO2 AO3
      • The Brain AO1 AO2 >
        • Drugs & the Brain AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Brendgen AO1 AO3
      • Development (Maturation) AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Freud's Psychodynamic Theory AO1 AO3 >
        • Aggression & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
        • Development & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
        • Individual Differences & Freud AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Raine AO1 AO3
      • Biological Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Cognitive >
      • Baddeley AO1 AO3
      • Multi Store Model AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Reconstructive Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Schmolck AO1 AO3
      • Tulving's Long Term Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Working Memory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Cognitive Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Learning >
      • Bandura AO1 >
        • Bandura AO3
      • Becker AO1 AO3
      • Classical Conditioning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Operant Conditioning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Pavlov AO1 AO3
      • Social Learning AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Therapies for Phobias >
        • Flooding
        • Systematic Desensitisation
      • Watson & Rayner AO1 AO3
      • Learning Key Question AO1 AO2
    • Social >
      • Agency Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Burger AO1 AO3
      • Situational Factors AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Milgram AO1 >
        • Milgram AO3
      • Realistic Conflict Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Sherif AO1 >
        • Sherif AO3
      • Social Impact Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Social Identity Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Social Key Question AO1 AO2
  • Unit 2 APPLICATIONS
    • Clinical >
      • Depression AO1 AO2 >
        • Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Non-Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Biological Treatment AO1 AO2
        • Psychological Treatment AO1 AO2
      • Diagnosing Abnormality AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Diagnostic Manuals AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Carlsson AO1 AO3
      • Kroenke AO1 AO3
      • HCPC Guidelines AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Rosenhan AO1 AO3
      • Schizophrenia AO1 AO2 >
        • Biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Non-biological Explanation AO1 AO2
        • Biological Treatments AO1 AO2
        • Psychological Treatment AO1 AO2
      • Clinical Key Question AO1 AO2
      • Issues & Debates >
        • Social Control AO2 AO3
  • Evaluation
    • Ethics AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Individual Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Brain Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Personality AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Mental Health Differences AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Differences in Obedience & Prejudice AO1 AO2 AO3
      • Memory Differences AO1 AO2 AO3 >
        • Loftus study AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Nature vs Nurture AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Scientific Status AO1 AO2
  • Methods
    • Animal Studies AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Case Studies AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Bradshaw AO1 AO3
      • Scoville & Milner AO1 AO3
    • Content Analyses AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Experimental Method AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Experimental Variables AO1 AO2
    • Hypotheses AO1 AO2
    • Inferential Statistics AO1 AO2 >
      • Chi-Squared Test AO1 AO2
      • Mann-Whitney U Test AO1 AO2
      • Spearman's Rho AO1 AO2
      • Wilcoxon Test AO1 AO2
    • Longitudinal Design AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Quantitative Data & Analysis AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Research Design AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Sampling AO1 AO2 AO3
    • Self Report Method AO1 AO2 AO3 >
      • Brown et al. AO1 AO3
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Resources