Is Psychology Reductionist and Is This a Bad Thing?

Is Psychology reductionist and Is This a Bad Thing?Reductionism shadow be defined as a theory that reduces either complicated phenomena into a number of transparent psychological components or principles and hence identifies or excuses these phenomena merely in monetary value of those funda amiable parts (Sloane, 1945 Peele, 1981 Ausubel, 1982 Barendregt Rappard, 2004 Vul, 2011). For instance, in psychological studies reductionism tend to oversimplify each cognitive processes, benignant deportment or brotherly activity into more than basic component, and so disregard the complexities of human mind. The reductionist approach has guide to several vital discoveries in scientific studies as they compromise simpler score for a complicated phenomenon and, the effects of one variable heap be solely isolated and tested, in order to discover causative relationships. For example, in order to develop an concord of song the nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal syst em postulate to be studied (Minton, 1994). Rose (1997, as cited in Nagel, 1998) introduced a few(prenominal) types of reductionism philosophical reductionism, which implies that if all science is unitary psychological science should easily meld into other sciences, thencomplex psychological demeanor needs to be broken bug out to forcible laws (Jessor, 1958). Methodological reductionism for instance, in order to find out approximately the temper of retrospect and specifically deduce something related to the structure of long-run keeping, (Hulme, Maughan Brown, 1991) conducted a study based in a laboratory, giving participants a list of familiar and unfamiliar words to remember.Based on the findings a stimulus oecumenicisation of how human long- bound memory functions whitethorn be made. However, these kinds of researches in psychology are at the reductionist level.Currently the type of reductionism that is of most spare-time activity in psychology claims that all con ducts should be reducible to biology (Oppenheim Putnam, 1958 Peele, 1981), message that most mental phenomena (consciousness) are equated with biological phenomena. In this essay the liking of reductionism get out be analysed through psychological research and a finish can then be made based upon conclusion to nail down whether psychology is a reductionist or not.Reductionism tends to be applicable when let offing behaviour in basic terms, with the more foc apply sciences at the top and general sciences at the bottom. Behaviours can be explained at different levels, ranging from molecular (physics), followed by the intracellular (biochemistry) then parts of individuals (physiology), pecks behaviour (psychology) and finally the behaviour of groups (sociology).For instance, mental disorders may be explained by neurotransmitters (physiology) or in terms of the mind (unconsciousness) and in terms of social systems (dysfunctional family). However, when explaining behaviour all l evel of accountings needs to be fixn into sexual conquest. For example, by taking physiological explanation into account schizophrenic psychosis is compositors cased by unembellished levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine located in the mentality (Howes Kapur, 2009 Jentsch, Robert Roth, 1991). The certify for the involvement of dopamine comes from drugs, much(prenominal) as amphetamines (when taken by people without psychiatric disorder) cause behaviour that resembles the positive symptoms of schizophrenia (Angrist, Rotrosen Gershon, 1980). The drug has the effect of increasing dopamine levels in the mind-set. However, one problem with this dopamine hypothesis is that not every patient with schizophrenia who takes drugs to reduce dopamine levels has their symptoms minify, and to a fault everyone who takes drugs that increases levels of dopamine may not show the symptoms. This clearly shows that individual differences are difficult to explain by reductionists, mainly because despite being in its smallest constituent, behaviour is oversimplified. This declare oneselfs that dopamine cannot be the only explanation, as every human being is uniqueand consequently all respond differently. So, reductionist explanation is limiting, because the same symptoms or behaviour in two persons may be caused by different factors, such as environmental or biological factors (Walker Diforio, 1997).However, The best solution is in all likelihood the diathesis stress pretence, which combines all approaches together. The diathesis-stress model indicates that physiological explanations tend to offer a predisposition to mental ailmentes. Also, an alternative explanation is that a stressful sprightliness regular(a)t causes the onset of mental disorders (Walker Diforio, 1997 Eberhart, Auerbach, Bigda-Peyton Abela, 2011). The individual may assimilate a predisposition to the disorder exclusively only people who suck a go at it stressors will develop the disor der. The diathesis stress model can be applied to the cognitive and biological explanation, suggesting that people may lose photo for mental illness but the disorder only manifests itself when triggered by life events or when a person misinterprets other peoples behaviour.Although physiological explanation can be seen as reductionist and simplistic, they do offer explanations of mental disorders behaviour. concord what is going on in abnormal behaviour by relating it to tidy behavioural processes is undeniably reductionist, but sometimes reductionism helps psychology to devise handling strategies for mental illnesses. They are not intended to provide exhaustive explanations for wherefore these symptoms exist. They do however offer some kind of insight into what it efficacy feel like to experience such disorders. For instance, offering anti-depressants to treat patients hapless from depression may seem like an optimum solution but the underlying cause may be disregarded, such a s unconscious mental process or personal experience. However, physiological reductionism attempts to consider a more humane tactic to treat certain mental illness, as the individual with mental illness are not to be fiendish and the patients exact essentially no control or choice in the matter. Nevertheless, most of these theories are merely reductionist-oriented explanation.In addition, in that respect is some evidence proposing that mental disorders are inherited or at least there is a significant genetic component (Petronis, 2004). Family, twin and adaption studies feed been used to investigate this genetic explanation. If the cause of mental disorders were entirely genetic, then the concordance rate among MZ twins would be 100% (Evans Martin, 2008). However, Evans Martin (2008) research have not put together100% concordance so it clearly shows that other factors must be entangled in the onset of certain disorders. It is impossible to isolate the effects of genes (nature ) from rise up (shared environment) when studying behaviour. Therefore, studies that indicate the concordance rates for disorders must be hardened with caution, to avoid impractical cause and effect links.Furthermore, Bandura (1965) claimed that social learning has an potent role on childrens warring behaviour. However, biological explanations of aggression have stressed factors that have nothing to do with social learning butmore to do with biological influences, such as the role of hormonal mechanisms. For example, high levels of testosterone have shown to be associatedwith aggressive behaviour (Archer, 1991). These findings emphasise that aggressive behaviour cannot be purely base on a learned behaviour. Also, this explanation neglects to take into account various approaches to explain certain behaviour and therefore being a reductionist.Additionally, there are significant methodological problems in these observational researches, as research usually does not equate to real world, which could then precede to falsification of the findings. Also, using the social learning theory (Bandura, 1965) to isolatecertain behaviour into various chunks may not provide a full understanding of how behaviour functions as a whole. This suggests that reductionism may be appropriate for simpler systems quite than a complex human behaviour.However, Morley and Hall (2003) argue that genetic vulnerability associated with anti-social behaviour only inadequately predict an increased risk of aggressive behaviour in an individual than the general population.Other factors (such as environmental influences) baffle whether aggressive behaviour is displayed in a especial(a) situation. Similarly, (Hines and Malley-Morrison, 2005)claim that some people are more likely to commit anti-social behaviour as a result of their genotype. Alternatively, suggesting that genetic influences are probabilistic rather than reductionist. Twin researchers likewise assume that MZ and DZ twins rai sed in the same environment experience the same experience with their co-twin, therefore any greater similarity amongst MZ twins must be due to the greater genetic similarity. However, Evans and Martin (2003) suggest that parents, teachers and peers treat MZ twins more similarity than DZ twins therefore greater similarity in terms of aggressive behaviour may also be due to the greater similarity of their experiences. In this respect, various approaches needs to be considered to explain behaviour, as using simple explanations may be inappropriate.Having said that reductionism can be appropriate for some levels of explanation, it makes more intellect to use cellular biology to explain living cells, rather than psychology.But if all animals and humans are made of atoms, then their behaviours can be reduced to a physical level. Researches believe that the two types of units including the physical brain and physical mind interact with each other (Pandya, 2011). Also suggesting that the mind can have an influence on physiology. For example, Martin, Martin, Rai, Richardson and Royall (2001) found that same level of serotonin was altered in the brain of depressed patients who have psychotherapy and those who received drug as a treatment.On the other hand the multi-store model (MSM), which was proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) uses mechanistic, computer analogies to explain cognitive processes such as attention, memory and problem solving. This model is using reductionism to explain how memory functions, as the brain is equated with acomputer system. This model plays a restricted role in understanding evolution or memory, as it describes memory at a reductionist-level. Also, research associated with memory often involves memorising a list of nonsense words to measure the capacity or the while of long-term and short-term memory, and the findings often offer an absurd explanation of memory in general (Hulme Maughan Brown, 1991).Researches have found extra evidence for long-term memory. The finding to such studies should not be generalised, as the key variable is oversimplified.However, some research have found evidence for long-term memory, Bahrick, Bahrick and Wittlinger (1975) investigated recall of high school yearbooks photos to find out the duration of long term memory, they found 90% accuracy of long term memory, mainly because the information was meaningful to the participants.In addition, reductionism overlooked the notion of emotion, generally because it is difficult to determinehow someone is feelingbylooking at neurotransmitters located in the brain. Nevertheless, studies have found that certain hormones such as noradrenalineleads to better memory performance in an individual (Stegeren, 2008). This yield to the conclusion that possibly there may be an association between biology and behaviour (emotion). However, while it is possibleto observe how human brain responds to certain sounds by looking into a scanner, the scan ner cannot break dance how the person feels when they hear a particular sound. For instance, (Schmidt and Trainor, 2001) found that certain prick of the brain associated with happiness is stimulated while listening to a particular sound, however this does not mean that the person is happy. In this respect, using reductionism may not be an unacceptable way of assessing feelings.There are galore(postnominal) arguments against the idea of reductionism in psychological studies. A prime example of these disagreements involves the discussions of nature versus nurture that whether environmental factors have any involvement in do behaviour. Ecological influences can shape behaviour throughout the lifespan even if that person was born with certain genes associated with mental disorders environmental factors such as family and society play a major role in formation any tho behaviour. The diathesis stress models places an importance on the interaction between the person and their environ ment, suggesting the biological predisposition to any mental disorders is dormant until stress in the environment makes it active.The diathesis stress model brings together unrelated causal factors into a unified model. The flexibility of the model is that individual differences can account for various contributing factors of mental illnesses (Patten, 2013 Sloane, 1945). This means that the model can explain most instances of mental disorders. The source of stress could be genetic, or perhaps disrupted and inconsistent parenting and communication within family. All the factors above have been suggested as having a causal role in the development of mental disorders, although none of them alone is sufficient to cause the disorder. For example, it seems as though schizophrenia is a complex disorder reflecting problems with genetics and birth, as well as with more general problems living in a busy society. However, such factors do feed into the diathesis stress model described. Alongsid e with the biological explanation schizophrenia should also be treated at the level of experience.However, further research is sorely needed in the area of reductionism in psychology, as most of these explanations are inconsistentbecause in psychology human behaviour cannot be explained entirely in terms of one single factor, such as physiology, genetic, culture, ethnicity or cultural factors. Therefore, the all these factors should not be disregarded as most people suffering from mental illness may have distinct personality traits, specific genotype or abnormal brain structure, which makes them more vulnerable to develop certain type of mental disorder.Furthermore, reductionist theory fails to explain realism in psychology, as it only count a series of components rather than the whole, which can lead to inadequate explanations of the reality. peradventure acknowledging all phases of explanations such as physiological, ecological or emotional could lead to a better understanding o f the reality.Finally, the reductionist approach has been criticised by many, heretofore the fact that studying the brain allows a deeper understanding to the cause of most behaviour cannot be ignored.Word count 2200