Gender Bias
AO1
Bias can lead to misrepresentation
Androcentric - male dominated
Alpha bias - exaggerating differences e.g. Freud - can devalue one gender
Beta bias - minimising differences e.g. Fight or Flight response - may misrepresent
Is a threat to universality
AO3
- Androcentrism in research process
+ Acknowledges differences
- Are males / females different?
- Lack of publication of research which challenges gender bias
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Nature v
nurture
AO1
Nature: biological factors, heredity e.g. Bowlby's evolutionary theory
Nurture: environmental factors e.g. learning theory of attachment
Interactionist approach e.g. Diathesis-Stress Model
Modern argument is the relative contribution of each
AO3
+ Empirical evidence - adoption studies
+ Support for epigenetics - sz babies of Dutch Hunger Winter
+ Real world application - mental health disorders
- Hard to disentangle factors of nature & nurture
Ethic implications
AO1
Socially sensitive research leads to change in perception of a group
Examples: Burt - IQ tests led to Hadow Report - 11+ exams
Bowlby (theory) - socially sensitive for mothers & fathers
Milgram (study) - socially sensitive for destructive authority
Considerations: Posing research question, dissemination of findings, reflexivity, ethical guidelines
AO3
+ Deeper understanding of minority groups
+ Now a greater understanding & only 50% of SSR passes ethics
- In past SSR has led to discrimination (cost v benefit)
- Need to consider who is benefitting from the research
Culture Bias
AO1
Bias can lead to misrepresentation
Ethnocentrism e.g. Ainsworth - leads to an imposed etic bias
Cultural relativism e.g. IQ tests - takes an emic approach
Bias is a threat to Universality
​
AO3
+ Psychology recognises it today e.g. 67% of ppts are USA Psychology students
- Hard to operationalise variables when studying another culture
+ Academics are exchanging cultural ideas at conferences
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Holism v
Reductionism
AO1
Holism - humans should be studied as integrated experience e.g. Humanism, qual. methods
Reductionism - breaking a complex behaviour into component parts
Levels of explanations
Biological -lowest level e.g. neurotransmitters: OCD
Environmental - mid level e.g. behaviourism: phobias
AO3
+ Reductionism = scientific
- Ignores the complexities
+ Holism considers wider context
- Holism is unscientific
Free will v
determinism
AO1
Determinism - free will = illusion external forces control behaviour
Free will - free choice in behaviour e.g. Humanism
Hard determinism - incompatible with free will e.g. causal explanations
Soft determinism - constrained by forces but element of free will
Biological - innate /genes e.g. OCD high dopamine & low serotonin
Environmental - conditioning by environment e.g. phobias
Psychic - childhood & innate drives e.g. psychodynamic approach
AO3
Free Will
+ Face validity
- Libet - evidence to support determinism
Determinism
+ Consistent with laws of science
- Legal system assumes free will
Idiographic v
Nomothetic
AO1
Idiographic: focus on the individual. Use of case studies, unstructured interviews etc.
Example: Case study HM
Nomothetic: concerned with studying large groups to create universal laws. Use of experiments.
Example: Drug treatment OCD
Holt (1967) a combined approach should be used
AO3
+ Nomothetic approach, quantitative data, objective findings
- Nomothetic ignores individual differences
+ Idiographic approach: case studies can be a powerful tool
- Idiographic: less scientific
Contact
Like what you see? Get in touch to learn more.