Edexcel Psychology for A Level Year 2: Student Book

Reductionism The debate: reductionism versus holism Definitions Reductionism is an explanation of a ‘whole’ (e.g. a system or an illness) in terms of the units of which that whole is built. In contrast, holism says that explanations should take a wider perspective, considering the interactions between the parts, such as between other individuals. Examples of reductionism Reductionism is seen easily in biological explanations. Take an emotion such as fear or a behaviour such as aggression. These might be associated with specific parts of the brain, the limbic system for example. Beyond this, there may be particular networks of neurons or specific neurotransmitters that are important. Cells (neurons) or chemicals (neurotransmitters) would therefore be the individual units from which the ‘whole’ is built. Genetic reductionism goes further, looking at the developmental origin of those neurons/neurotransmitters, that is the genes which control the production and/or function of those cells or chemicals. In cognitive psychology, humans are ‘reduced’ to processors of information. This leads to ‘machine reductionism’ – the belief that human functions are the result of the ‘units’ of activity in information processing systems, such as memory stores. Examples of holism Some approaches you have considered are more holistic than others. Social learning theory considers the influence of models in the environment as well as the cognitive characteristics of the individual. In comparison to the working memory model, which considers only ‘short-term’ memory, the multi-store model is more holistic, looking at three ‘levels’ of memory. Arguments for reductionism Simplicity One strength of the reductionist approach is that individual units are simple. They can therefore be more readily understood than the ‘whole’ into which they are built. By studying each ‘unit’ or store of a memory system, psychologists can isolate particular functions that work independently (such as short- and long-term memory) and different biological structures that may be involved (such as the hippocampus). By breaking the whole of ‘memory’ down into smaller elements it becomes easier to see, and explain, the different processes that are occurring. Easy to study A related strength is the simplicity with which the units can be studied. When different units are isolated, as in laboratory studies where variables can be controlled and precise measurements can be made, it is more likely that a whole can be understood because outcomes are not being confused by many factors acting at once. For example, in explaining working memory, it is essential to control the effects of the amount or duration of phonological and/or visuo-spatial information to identify what factors are influential. This makes the research more objective and therefore more valid. Arguments against reductionism Ignores interactions One weakness of the reductionist approach is that it represents complex behaviour in basic ways. By explaining a ‘whole’ exclusively in terms of its units, it is likely to be perceived as a simple arrangement of those components, like the bricks of a wall. This simplicity can ignore the interactions between the components, which would affect the way they operate. For example, although the working memory identifies the visuo-spatial sketchpad and phonological loop as independent stores, less is known about how they may interact, for example through the central executive. By isolating the ‘units’, interactions within the system, and those from ‘outside’, are ignored, for example a biological explanation of aggression lacks a consideration of social or environmental factors. Overlooks complexities Precisely because human systems are complex, the isolation of variables for study is very difficult (such as in highly controlled lab experiments). The outcome of such highly controlled research is that it produces theories that cannot explain the complex interactions. This is particularly evident in the use of animals as human models. Because animals have simpler behavioural systems, they are easier to study in controlled experiments. But that same simplicity means that animal models may not be representative of the human condition because their behaviour does not result from the interplay between cognitive and social factors that is seen in human behaviour. Applying your knowledge An example of a synoptic exam question linked to reductionism: Assess whether learning theories and clinical psychology are reductionist. (20) The paragraphs below illustrate how you might answer this: Learning theories and clinical psychology are both reductionist to some extent as they use explanations that focus on breaking ideas down into smaller and smaller ideas. In learning theories, the ‘stimulus’ and ‘response’ are fundamental building blocks of both classical conditioning and operant conditioning. These are environmental factors and behaviours. In contrast the reductionist view of many psychological disorders is that they are biological, for example neurotransmitters and receptors. Although the units themselves are quite different in learning and clinical psychology, their simplicity has made both easier to understand so has allowed researchers to develop effective theories in each area. (100 words) However, reductionism is problematic in some respects: simplistic explanations cannot hope to reflect the complexities of human learning or mental illness. In the explanation of schizophrenia, evidence shows that other neurotransmitters, such as GABA and glutamate, are critical to a full understanding (Carlsson et al . 2000). Likewise, the study of learning has, over time, moved on from the simplistic ‘black box’ of the behaviourists to include wider factors such as cognitive ones in social learning theory (Bandura 1977). These intricacies and interactions are likely to be ignored in reductionist approaches. (90 words) Holistic medicine seeks to treat the whole person. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When answering a synoptic question try to avoid using the same example for every point you make. You can demonstrate ‘thorough knowledge’ by showing that you can apply the issue or debate to different topics or different ideas within one topic. 19