Is Psychology a science?

Here’s another question I might get in my exam… I’m killing two birds with one stone; revision and blogging ūüėõ

 science.JPG

When considering whether Psychology is a science it is imperative to take in to account which factors constitute a science. I will take these factors to be, whether it uses a scientific method, whether it is objective, whether it is falsifiable, whether it takes a nomothetic approach, and finally I will consider Kuhn’s theory of a science and whether or not Psychology has developed a paradigm.

Laboratory experiments could be said to be the only true experimental method; they are the only method which manipulates an¬†independent¬†variable (IV) and¬†measures it’s effect on the dependent variable (DV), whilst controlling confounding variables, and gathering empirical data. Most Psychologists, to a certain extent, use a scientific method as¬†they all try to gather evidence which will support their theories; this is unlike philosophers or theorists who purely develop theories. However, of course certain approaches within psychology use a more scientific method than others. For example, the behaviourists, cognitive and physiological psychologists all use pure scientific methods such as laboratory experiments and brain scans which produce empirical, numerical and scientific data. Other methods such as the correlational techniques (e.g. twin studies), field experiments and¬†natural experiments all haven elements of a scientific method but¬†fall down¬†in other areas such as controlling confounding variables and manipulating an IV. The Psychodynamic approach probably uses the least scientific methods; its theory is based wholly on interviews, case studies and analysis. It is important to remember though that none of these approaches are purely hypothetical, even the Humanistic approach which prides itself on being idiographic has carried out experiments such as those by Coopersmith into self-esteem in children. Therefore, in terms of using a scientific method only certain Psychological approaches can be labelled truly scientific, although all do maintain elements.

If Psychology was completely objective this would mean¬†that it did not involve any feelings or personal biases, i.e. it is the complete opposite of being subjective. Perhaps the most objective approach to Psychology is that taken by the behaviourists. They decided to focus on purely observable behaviour and not focus on what was in the ‘black box’ or the inner depths of the mind. The cognitive and physiological approach could be said to be slightly less objective as they do not concern themselves solely with observable behaviour, but look into inner cognitive processes, the role of genes and the nervous system. However, they do this using experimental methods which greatly reduces this element of subjectivity. On the other hand, the Psychodynamic approach is almost completely subjective; it is the role of the individual observer or therapist to analyse the unconscious of the patient¬†and the symbols in their dreams. This is obviously going to be largely affected by the therapists own feelings and biases, therefore¬†there is¬†a large degree of subjectivity. However, Popper has proposed an argument as to how subjective any science or observation can be. He states that nobody ever observes without some idea, or hypothesis, of what they are looking for; therefore, there is always a certain amount of subjectivity. In Psychology, it is once again apparent that some approaches are more scientific and objective than others, even if nothing can ever be¬†purely objective.

A large element of science is falsifiability; it has been argued by Popper that this, the ability to prove something wrong, is what sets science apart from pseudo-sciences and religion. Most theories developed in Psychology are falsifiable, in that evidence could be produced which would counteract a theory. For example, Koluchova’s case of the ‘Czech twins’ falsified Bowlby’s¬†maternal deprivation hypothesis¬†and proved that the effects of maternal privation could be reversed. There is, however, one main psychological theory which can not be disproved no matter what the evidence; that is Freud’s theories of defence mechanisms. If somebody answered yes to a question it could be said this was genuinely what they meant, however, if this answer contrasted with one of his theories it could be said that this personal is in denial and using a defence mechanism to say yes, when really they meant no. So once again it can be seen that some psychological approaches are more scientific than others, however, the majority of theories¬†are falsifiable.

Another factor separating a science from a non-science is whether or not it develops a nomothetic approach. This means whether or not it aims to establish general laws of behaviour which can be used to predict and control future situations. Most of the approaches in Psychology do have a nomothetic approach, after all¬†Psychology is the study of behaviour and mental process;¬†it would be impossible to study everyone in the¬†entire world, therefore, it can be assumed that most approaches aim to generalise their findings to the general population.¬†The humanistic approach which¬†aims to focus on the individual and¬†believes that every individual is different even maintains elements of a nomothetic approach. For example Roger’s theory of depressions states a general law of depression being that a person has a gap between their ideal self and their actual self. Therefore it can be seen that most of the psychological approaches do¬†hold a nomothetic approach.

Thomas Kuhn stated the most important factor in¬†defining a science is having a paradigm; this means “a general theoretical orientation that is accepted by most scientists in the discipline”. Considering Psychology is split up in to many different approaches, which use different research methods and develop different theories it is clear that Psychology has not yet developed a full paradigm. According to Kuhn this therefore means¬†that Psychology¬†is a pre-science, and I would agree with this.

Soon to come… should Psychology be a science!

Watch this space ūüėõ

 

Tribal Child Development

406278546_6fc89a8c741.jpg

406278546_6fc89a8c741.jpg

Stimulation, contact and play; all things essential to ordinary child development. Or are they?

 In western culture it has gradually become imprinted on us that children need constant love and care in order to develop. This was origionally sparked off by the developments of Harlow and Bowlby, who found that deprivation of these key factors could lead to detrimental and permanent effects on children. Their works have been further developed, by many a parenting programme and pop psychology book, to tell us exactly what children are programmed to recquire. Up until now I had always assumed that, because they seem so logical, these needs would be universal. However, after reading a psychology article in Psychology Review (a magazine recommended on my course) this view has been challenged.

Kagan and Klein (1973) studied children from the island of San Marcos in Guatemala. Here children in their first year of life were often kept in small dark huts, rarely being taken outside as it was thought to be far to dangerous. Even whilst in the hut the mothers were recorded as rarely playing, or talking to their children. The toddlers were found to display similar behaviour to that found in institutionalised children in the West. Dramatically though, by the time they were aged 5-12 years there was no reported lasting mental damage; the children were able to perform at the same level as ordinary children in the West. Remarkably they were also found to be happy, bright children!

Schieffelin and Ochs (1983) challenged the common thought that children need to be “bathed in language” in order to learn to speak. They observed The Kaluli of Papua New Guinea where mothers were recorded as rarely talking to their babies; out of the belief that they could not understand what was being said. If Western ideas¬†are to be believed the children should have developed at a much later rate, or even become linguistically retarded. However, the children were found to be completely fluent in their native language well within the normal range expected.

These studies don’t suggest all babies should be kept in dark huts, under total silence; just that perhaps our ideas of what babies need is not as universal as it may seem.¬†Perhaps they even provide¬†an argument for nurture over nature?¬†