1
Q
Practical issues- General
A
Psychodynamic- uses case studies and dream interpretation (so issues of subjectivity, falsifiability, qualitative data etc)
Brendgen Kety Correlation Twin studies Adoption studies Brain scans
2
Q
Practical issues- Raine
A
- Matched pairs with control group removes PVs
- Couldn’t match on all things i.e. lefthandedness/brain damage
- Small sample…but largest of its type up to this point
- Brain scans empirical
- Brain scans replicable
- Raine identified there was some subjectivity in analysis
- Low ecological validity
- Multiple techniques (box and cortical peel) used to get better understanding
- Problems with cause and effect
3
Q
Development Over Time- General
A
- Darwin evolutionary explanation of aggression
- Psychodynamic Biological explanations of aggression
- Evolution discovery of genes
- Discovery of testosterone (1935) hormones and aggression
- NT discovered (1921) explanation of drug addiction treatments rat park
- Phineas Gage Brain explanations Raine
- Brendgen- one of the first looking at social aggression concordance
- Kety found concordance of SZ
- We still use twin studies & adoption studies
- Invention and development of brain scans
4
Q
Development Over Time- Raine
A
- Phineas Gage Brain explanations Raine
- Case studies brain scans…which are even better now
- Raine’s findings (PFC, amygdala etc) were developments
- Phrenology brain areas being responsible for behaviour
5
Q
Nature/Nurture- General
A
- Biological is mostly nature
- Evolution shows that many traits are coming from your genetics
- However, genes are selected for based on the environment you are in (EEA) which means nurture plays an important role
- Brain structures and activities effect behaviour i.e. high activity in Amygdala leads to violence therefore nature
- But the strength/activity/size of these are effected by environmental factors (brain plasticity/cause and effect argument) which shows the importance of nurture
- Hormones influence are nature
- Raine identified we don’t necessarily have cause and effect in his study (environment could cause the brain differences)
- Raine matched them on Sz (a biologically based illness) which takes into account biology
- Drugs influence Dopamine etc which could be seen as nurture
- The euphoria they bring however could be argued it is due biology
- Learning approach is an opposing view for aggression and addiction which shows nurture…which biological obviously ignores
- Rat park shows that the environment is important for addiction therefore nurture
- Kety showed Schizophrenia is genetic
- We use Twin and Adoption studies to measure what is nature/nurture
- Brendgen showed that physical aggression was due to nature (MZ had a higher concordance than DZ)
- Social aggression is due to nurture (MZ and DZ concordance similar)
6
Q
Nature/Nurture- Raine
A
- Brain structures and activities effect behaviour i.e. high activity in Amygdala leads to violence therefore nature
- Raine identified we don’t necessarily have cause and effect in his study (environment could cause the brain differences)
- Raine matched them on Sz (a biologically based illness) which takes into account biology
- Learning approach is an opposing view for aggression and addiction which shows nurture…which biological obviously ignores
- Handedness wasn’t accounted for- this is a biological factor which might influence brain structure/activity
7
Q
Reductionism- General
A
- The biological explanation is reductionist in the sense that all human behaviour is fragmented and explained in the simplest sense by our biology. The biological approach, for example, sees behaviour as arising from neurological/neuroanatomical factors.
- As this is about science, then it is not surprising that a scientific approach to study is used. Also, as humans are complex, perhaps studying in a reductionist way is a strength as it enables the study of aspects of humans that would otherwise not be reachable. The study of how lower serotonin levels, which is linked to greater aggression is carried out using animals and human studies. These studies support each other.
- A scientific study of biological psychology is to take one element, such as how the brain works chemically (neurotransmitters) and to study it in detail.
- Biological psychology covers brain functioning and structure, genes, hormones and issues like evolution.
- Biological psychology links very closely to biology, chemistry and science and, like them, involves studying aspects of a person not the whole.
- Reductionism applies to biological psychology when neurotransmitter functioning is studied because the brain is a lot more complex than that, so this is about looking at one specific part of the working of the brain.
- Reductionism applies to biological theories in that they study aspects such as biochemistry, genetics and neuroanatomy
- Looks at individual brain areas rather than the complexity of the whole brain/whole brain interaction
- Evolution takes into account the environment and its influence on genetic structure
- Evolution, hormones and brain structure can all be linked as an explanation of aggression which may make it more holistic
- Ignores upbringing/life events as a factor in causing behaviour
8
Q
Reductionism- Raine
A
- Looks at individual brain areas rather than the complexity of the whole brain/whole brain interaction e.g.
- Ignores upbringing/life events as a factor in causing behaviour e.g.
- The biological explanation is reductionist in the sense that all human behaviour is fragmented and explained in the simplest sense by our biology. The biological approach, for example, sees behaviour as arising from neurological/neuroanatomical factors.
- A scientific study of biological psychology is to take one element, such as how the brain works chemically (neurotransmitters) and to study it in detail.
- Reductionism applies to biological theories in that they study aspects such as biochemistry, genetics and neuroanatomy
- Scientific methodology used to eliminate EVs and help ascertain cause and effect
- Even ignores other biological factors which could be an influence such as hormones
9
Q
Psychology as a science- General
A
- Lots of Lab experiments like Raine, Beeman etc
- Uses correlations which has EVs, problems with cause and effect, internal validity etc
- All empirical and objective (hormones, brain activity/glucose level, gene testing, blood tests etc)…however it is much harder to test evolution in the same ways since behaviour doesn’t fossilise
- Brendgen used opinion measures on aggression which isn’t objective/empirical
- Falsifiable- again all theories except evolution (even using twin studies and adoption studies)…Kety blind test helps show it was falsifiable because it was objective
- Reductionist- ignores environment, Brain activity focuses on individual parts not interplay between them, only looking at hormones alone instead of in interaction with other factors
- Testing hypotheses- All studies are doing this Brendgen for example was about social aggression and physical aggression relationship to one another and nature/nurture
- Control- Matched pairs in Raine, blind study in Kety
- Replicability/ Reliability- Raine Brain scans
- Internal validity- You can’t really show DCs with many of these studies like Kety and Raine…also controls like matched pairs, Lab experiments removing EVs
10
Q
Psychology as a science- Psychodynamic
A
- Uses case studies, interviews, projective tests ala inkblots and dream analysis- which pretty much don’t meet any science criteria
- Not Empirical- You can’t measure unconscious, Id etc
- Objective- All interpretation and therefore subjective
- Falsifiable- unfalsifiable i.e. you say you like someone, this suggests you might be supressing your dislike into the unconscious
- Reductionist- simplifies concepts BUT does take both nature (Id being natural etc) and nurture (upbringing) into account
- Hypothesis testing- it can test hypotheses….but doesn’t always
- Reliable/replicable- individual case studies are not reliable/replicable
- Internal Validity- No controls, lots of EVs, very subjective etc
11
Q
Psychology as a science- Raine
A
- Lab experiment and Brain scans are going to meet most of the criteria
- Empirical- testing brain activity/glucose metabolism/radiation therefore empirical
- Objective- Generally because it is measurable but Raine identifies that the brain activity in PET scans are interpretation i.e. how do you know why its lighting up/ it isn’t precise
- Hypothesis testing- yes about brain activity in NGRI murderers
- Falsifiable- yeah they could have found no difference in brain activity disproving the hypotheses
- Reductionist- looks at individual brain regions rather than as a whole
- Controls- Matched on various things i.e. age, gender and Sz but not everything i.e. handedness, race, brain damage
- Reliable/replicable- Yes standardised
- Internal Validity- Can’t really be effected by DCs, EVs eliminated in Lab…low in mundane realism
12
Q
Ethics- General
A
- Consent (informed)- Brendgen used children, Kety didn’t tell ppts and families about using their records (though this is ok in Danish law), it is unlikely teachers and children in Brendgen knew the true purpose of the study (looking at the twins in their class)
- Deception- no deception in any of the studies
- Confidentiality- not really an issue in experiment but we don’t know who they were
- Debrief- Not likely in Kety or Brendgen
- Withdrawal- not mentioned in either Kety or Brendgen but unlikely given their sample/procedures
- Protection from harm- Possible harm in Brendgen from students being asked to think about physical and social aggression of people in their class/which could damage relationships (but it is a minor concern), case studies have naturally occurring damage, brain scan studies involve harm through injection and claustrophobia
- Privacy- reviewing medical records (but again it is legal)
- Animal studies like Beeman could be harmful due to castration, injecting testosterone, Olds & Milner, Kluver-bucy syndrome and they’d have to make sure they obeyed the rules about caring for animals and having them destroyed….but we do this research on animals because it would be unethical on humans
13
Q
Ethics- Raine
A
- Consent (informed)- people with brain damage and those who are NGRI might not be able to consent, control group didn’t know what their brain scans were used for (having been in a previous study)
- Deception- None
- Confidentiality- not really an issue in experiment but we don’t know who they were
- Debrief- not needed
- Withdrawal- not mentioned really but they weren’t any withdrawals…we have to question their ability to withdraw however given their mental state and the power differential
- Protection from harm- Stopped medication for a week and injection of FDG
14
Q
Social Control- General
A
- Hormones- we can alter hormones to increase and decrease aggression i.e. chemical castration, oxytocin levels, medication to raise serotonin
- Evolution/Genetics- eugenics to alter genetic traits (there is a big argument about genetic screening of Down’s Syndrome at the minute)
- Twins & Adoptions- if we figure out what is nature and nurture we are more likely to alter nurture factors
- Brain activity- whether people are responsible for their own behaviour/ sentencing/ culpability
- However, we can’t alter brain activity (YET) so maybe it isn’t socially controlling
- Social control-(all biology stuff) how much people are responsible for their aggression/own behaviour (NGRI/ culpability) and sentencing
- Drug addiction- Social control in what is acceptable/unacceptable drug usage
- We could change NT level by using certain medications Buprenorphine Vs Methadone Vs Heroin
- Drug treatment- controlled by the doctor/prescriber rather than the patient themselves
- Should we not be socially controlling though if they’re unable to make reasoned decisions based on their illness
- Medication demonstrates social control where therapy/counselling may be more beneficial in some situations
- Brendgen- if we figure out what is nature and nurture we are more likely to alter nurture factors i.e. school programmes to lower social aggression amongst children
15
Q
Social Control- Psychodynamic
A
- Can be used in advertising to appeal to unconscious
- Influence of unconscious has impact on culpability for actions/crimes
- Can be used as social control through therapy- subjective analysis etc
- Tells parents how to raise children
- Can’t test or prove it however so might not be an issue of social control at all
16
Q
Social Control- Raine
A
- Raine et al. (1997) found abnormal cortical/subcortical brain processes in murderers which could be used to screen the population.
- Identifying potential criminals through brain scanning could lead to interventions being put in place which could help prevent serious crimes like murder.
- The sample used in Raine et al. (1997) may lack generalisability so any form of screening may not be useful for most of the population.
- The continuous performance task (CPT) and being in a brain scanner in Raine et al. (1997) may not be valid compared to real life so any measures of social control may not be useful.
- The difficulty of isolating a single brain region for violent behaviour means that screening the population for violent behaviour would be very difficult and subjective.
- Just because we can’t alter brain activity in vivo yet doesn’t mean that will beyond our capability in future years- this research could be very influential
17
Q
Usefullness- General
A
- Biological psychology can aid our understanding of why individuals may become addicted to drugs such as heroin or why they may relapse.
- The use of methadone treatment to help treat those with heroin addiction can reduce the impact of addiction on society, but is only helpful to treat the addiction and not prevent it i.e. social factors (but for that we have studies like Rat park)
- fMRI and PET scans are useful for finding out what various parts of the brain are for which can be helpful for people having problems (speech problems, maths, semantic dementia, aggression)
- The same is true for brain explanations of aggression
- Biological (brain activity in particular) is influential in knowing about culpability for crimes and influences the legal profession
- However, since we can’t actively change them (YET) it might be less useful
- fMRI however can’t be useful for people with pace makers
- CAT scans show areas of damage which are useful for surgeons and people with brain damage themselves
- All brain scans are low in ecological validity so not useful. However, they are empirical
- Evolutionary explanations are useful in explaining where behaviours come from
- Understanding neurotransmitters can help with medication to help Schizophrenia and Depression
- Understanding neurones and brain structure are useful for explaining dementia by highlighting how plaques, tangles and gaps cause issues
- Understanding how hormones effect mood and behaviour can help with things like HRT and castration of aggressive animals
- Twin and adoption studies are useful for ascertaining whether things are due to nature or nurture…which can help us with helping people who are at risk/focusing on things we can and can’t change
- Brendgen could lead to focused interventions to help children with social aggression displays
18
Q
Usefullness- Psychodynamic
A
- Has been influential on child rearing
- Useful for therapy via uncovering the unconscious
- Useful for advertising
- However not empirical
- Often uses case studies
- Subjective so perhaps not useful for society
19
Q
Usefullness- Raine
A
- fMRI and PET scans are useful for finding out what various parts of the brain are for which can be helpful for people having problems (speech problems, maths, semantic dementia, aggression)
- The same is true for brain explanations of aggression
- However since we can’t actively change them (YET) it might be less useful
- NGRI might not apply to others
- Some subjectivity in the analysis
- Biological (brain activity in particular) is influential in knowing about culpability for crimes and influences the legal profession
20
Q
Socially Sensative- General
A
- Raine et al. (1997) found differences in murderers’ brains compared controls which could be used in society as evidence that violent acts are beyond their responsibility, which may increase violent acts.
- With no confidentiality the participants of research into brain functioning or genes may be targeted by the media or public and labelled as violent or extreme, which may lead to little/no future participation and also could put the participant in danger.
- Hormones- we can alter hormones to increase and decrease aggression i.e. chemical castration, oxytocin levels, medication to raise serotonin- this could be socially sensitive for people if we can influence these things
- Evolution/Genetics- eugenics to alter genetic traits (there is a big argument about genetic screening of Down’s Syndrome at the minute)- this could be socially sensitive if we try to influence/alter this
- If we look at drug addiction as being biological/environmental or how much a person is responsible is going to be socially sensitive
- We could change NT level by using certain medications Buprenorphine Vs Methadone Vs Heroin
- Drug treatment- controlled by the doctor/prescriber rather than the patient themselves
- Brendgen- if we figure out what is nature and nurture we are more likely to alter nurture factors i.e. school programmes to lower social aggression amongst children- this research could be socially sensitive about what the child/parents/teachers are or are not responsible for or how they can be changed
21
Q
Socially Sensative- Psychodynamic
A
- Can be used in advertising to appeal to unconscious- this could be socially sensitive if people are being sold things they don’t want/are bad for them
- ‘Blames’ parents for their children’s behaviour, relationships etc so is socially sensitive
- Influence of unconscious has impact on culpability for actions/crimes
- Tells parents how to raise children
22
Q
Socially Sensative- Raine
A
- Socially sensitive if it is seen as influencing the decisions about culpability, guilt and responsibility of criminals which might influence whether they are found guilty or not
- Raine et al. (1997) found differences in murderers’ brains compared controls which could be used in society as evidence that violent acts are beyond their responsibility, which may increase violent acts.
- With no confidentiality the participants of research into brain functioning or genes may be targeted by the media or public and labelled as violent or extreme, which may lead to little/no future participation and also could put the participant in danger.
- Poor generalisability might mean that the findings don’t apply to a wider group of people and therefore there are less issues with social sensitivity
- However, we can’t scan for brain abnormalities on such a large scale so less likely to be socially sensitive
- We’re unable to influence brain activity (so far) and therefore it will be less socially sensitive
23
Q
Culture and gender- General
A
- Biological things shouldn’t be effected by culture too much because they should be biological
- NT research about drug addiction shouldn’t be effected by culture or gender…or the effectiveness of their treatment
- Brain activity differences in causing aggression shouldn’t be different between culture and gender because it is biologically based
- Hormones do differ between genders and we look at this in our explanations of aggression (males being more aggressive)
- However, we might be downplaying differences in how hormones work differently in males and females (if its more difficult than just testosterone)
- Evolutionary theory acknowledges and tries to explain gender differences (alpha-bias?…or is it just them avoiding beta-bias?)
- Evolution ignores cultural differences in aggression assuming that people should be the same around the world i.e. ignoring differences between Kung-San and Yanomamo
- Brendgen tried to look for gender differences but didn’t have enough of a sample to do so
- Brendgen is ethnocentric because only focused in the US
- Brendgen did find differences between males and females (but wasn’t statistically significant)
24
Q
Culture and gender- Psychodynamic
A
- Freud does talk about gender differences i.e. penis envy vs Elektra complex and how that leads to differences in personality i.e. female gender identity being less stringent
- Doesn’t talk of explain gender differences in aggression (beta-bias)
25
Culture and gender- Raine
* Biological things shouldn’t be effected by culture too much because they should be biological
* Brain activity differences in causing aggression shouldn’t be different between culture and gender because it is biologically based
* Could you argue however that maybe it should be?- Amygdala levels may vary between genders because of testosterone influence
* Tasks in Raine were neither culturally or gender biased
* Sample was ethnocentric all from the US therefore what they found might not apply equally in other cultures
* NGRI sample was gender biased…however this might have been because men are more likely to be NGRI murderers
* Raine didn’t specifically look at gender differences therefore could be beta biased
26
Comparison of Themes- General
* Key theme being nature (which is different to Learning)….it can be seen in various parts of child, clinical etc
* UCSUCR from Learning approach however can show the impact of nature
* Bandura also acknowledged nature in assuming males would be naturally more aggressive (though this could have been through years of observation in real world)
* Neurotransmitters being important to the cause and treatment of addiction is a shared theme with Depression and Schizohprenia which also focus on neurotransmitters
* Dopamine function itself is particularly linked to the two theories
* Hormones and NT are biological/chemical functions which influence behaviour (aggression, attraction, love, stress etc) so hormones could be seen as a theme, this is shared with the focus on testosterone and autism
* Evolution is a theme used to explain aggression, group dynamics, relationships, taste in foods etc…Bowlby’s theory demonstrates evolution in child attachment
* Brain structure is a key concept for aggression/Raine which is the same as Autism (EMB), dementia etc
* Genetics i.e. Brendgen and aggression is an important theme shared with explanations of Schizophrenia
* All of these biological concepts/themes are very different from the learning approach which suggests it is not (insert whatever biological concept here) but rather learning from the environment through observation (SLT), Association (CC) and reinforcement (OC)
* Biological can explain phobias through evolution, fear hormones like cortisol or brain activity like the amygdala/limbic system where this differs to Psychodynamic and Learning explanations
27
Comparison of Themes- Psychodynamic
* Focus of behaviour being unconscious/out of our control could be seen within the theme of determinism which is shared with many theories from lots of approaches
* Focuses on mental processes such as cognitive
* Some things being nature i.e. the Id, Super-ego and ego is shared with biological
* How strong your Id, Super-ego and ego however comes from interactions with parents which could be seen as a theme of nurture with Learning (particularly for the Super-ego which you get from your parents)
* Theme of unfalsifiability could be said to be shared with some evolutionary theories (possibly, admittedly not the strongest point)
* Relationships with parents shaping your personality is a theme shared with Bowlby/Ainsworth
* Psychodynamic sees phobias as coming from unconscious links (usually related to unresolved problems from childhood) i.e. Little Hans which differs from evolutionary explanations and learning explanations (CC, OC, SLT, Little Albert)
28
Comparison of Themes- Raine
* Key theme being nature (which is different to Learning)….it can be seen in various parts of child, clinical etc (he obviously looked at biology with brain structure)
* Neurotransmitters being important to the cause and treatment of addiction is a shared theme with Depression and Schizohprenia which also focus on neurotransmitters (Raine kind of acknowledged the theme by measuring activity…which is just neurotransmission…but didn’t look at specific ones)
* Brain structure is a key concept for aggression/Raine which is the same as Autism (EMB), dementia etc (he looked at the Amygdala, PFC etc)
* All of these biological concepts/themes are very different from the learning approach which suggests it is not (insert whatever biological concept here) but rather learning from the environment through observation (SLT), Association (CC) and reinforcement (OC) (Raine didn’t really look at their life/upbringing but did mention that brain structure could be influenced by life experience…so might acknowledge this theme)
* Raine ignored brain damage differences (ignoring the theme of brain structure)
Biological
flashcards
Decks in class (10)
# Cards
