Comparison of Approaches Psychology

Comparison of Approaches: Psychology

Comparison of approaches in psychology compares the various schools of psychology to identify where they differ and where they are similar. Examples include comparing the biological approach to the psychodynamic approach. Each approach attributes behaviour to different factors and uses various techniques to investigate these matters.

Comparing the approaches in psychology focuses on their stance in the following debates:

• Free will vs determinism
• Nature vs nurture
• Reductionist vs holistic
• Scientific research process
• Nomothetic vs idiographic

Psychology Approaches

The major psychology approaches are the behavioural, biological, cognitive, social learning, psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches. Each differs somewhat in its techniques, priorities, and strengths. For instance, the humanistic approach is considered holistic, whereas the cognitive approach is reductionist.

The science of psychology touches the entire sphere of human existence. As such, the field has endeavoured to be as inclusive as possible. This is why debates are so important in psychology.

Debates give us a richer perspective on the human condition and topics we may not have encountered. With new discoveries and technological advancements, psychology evolves accordingly by addressing and debating issues as they arise.

Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches

One of the most significant differences between approaches is whether they are based more on quantitative or qualitative analysis.

Quantitative research approaches include behavioural psychology, social learning theory, and cognitive and biological psychology. These approaches are nomothetic, meaning they attempt to gather large amounts of data to make generalisable inferences about the nature of human psychology. The psychodynamic approach carries out a little quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Qualitative research approaches are idiographic, meaning that they focus more on unique individuals and have a more holistic view of each person's psychological profile, as humans differ significantly from one another.

Fig. 2 - Qualitative and quantitative approaches change how studies are analysed.

Similarities Between the Biological and Humanistic Approaches

The biological and humanistic approaches are two very different approaches in psychology. Let's look at the differences and similarities between the biological and humanistic approaches.

The biological approach assumes that human behaviour results from biological, physical processes over which we have no control and may not even be aware. This idea is also known as biological determinism. Its applications mainly lie in drug treatments that aim to alter the biological processes behind our behaviour.

The biological approach is reductionist, using broad observations of human biology to make judgements about behaviour. It abides by the scientific method and typically uses lab experiments to gather data.

The biological approach is also nomothetic and creates generalised, prescriptive judgements about human psychology based on the fact that we all share physiology and may react predictably to specific treatments or activities in the brain.

On the other hand, the humanistic approach assumes that the self ultimately shapes human behaviour, and we can choose how we react to things and conduct ourselves to some degree. This makes the humanistic approach a free-will approach.

Because of its focus on individual clients and the belief that each person is different and must be individually understood, the approach is holistic. The humanistic approach considers scientifically-based approaches like the biological approach to be reductive, so it works outside of the scientific method.

The humanistic approach is idiographic and focuses on individual-focused, deep analysis of individuals rather than broad prescriptions about human psychology based on quantitative analysis.

Similarities Between the Cognitive and Behaviourist Approaches

The cognitive and behaviourist approaches have more in common than the previously discussed approaches. Let's look into them and discuss the differences and similarities between the cognitive and behaviourist approaches.

The cognitive approach assumes that our behaviour results from cognitive processes in the brain but that we have the final say on how we choose to act. This makes the cognitive approach a soft deterministic approach, as it leaves room for an element of free will while explaining most behaviour as being a result of things we don't control.

The cognitive approach's applications are mainly found in CBT - cognitive behavioural therapy, a style of therapy that aims to assist the client in changing how they think and react to feelings.

The cognitive approach is experimentally reductionist, offering experimental reasonings based solely on cognitive observations. The cognitive approach uses a combination of lab experiments and brain imaging techniques to understand human behaviour, so it abides by the scientific method and is, therefore, nomothetic. However, concerning case studies, it adopts the idiographic approach.

The behaviourist approach is reductive because of its focus on environmental stimulus/response relationships.

The behaviourist approach assumes that our behaviour results from simple stimulus/response combinations that occur when we interact and observe our surroundings. This makes it a determinist approach as it proposes that our environment is responsible for our actions.

The behaviourist approach abides by the scientific method and is nomothetic, generalising its findings around stimulus/response to the broader population.

It is on the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate, believing humans are born as blank slates (tabula rasa), and their experience of their environment determines behaviour.

Comparison of Social Learning Theory and the Psychodynamic Approach

Comparing these two approaches is not so simple, as the psychodynamic approach operates on a less black-and-white view of how psychology works. Let's look at the differences and similarities between social learning theory and the psychodynamic approach.

Social learning theory (SLT) assumes that our behaviour is learned and reinforced by others; this makes SLT an example of reciprocal determinism. It identifies that we are influenced by what we observe but that there are other factors at play that determine whether we learn the behaviour, and these factors are called mediators.

SLT abides by the scientific approach and is nomothetic, believing that we all learn behaviour in the same ways. SLT is an example of a nurture-based approach, as it highlights the importance of the environment in shaping our behaviour. SLT does not use animals in its research.

Freud's psychodynamic approach assumes that human behaviour results from formative experiences from childhood and innate 'drives' (described as the id, ego and superego). This is known as psychic determinism. The psychodynamic approach led to the creation of psychoanalysis, which was an early precursor to our more modern forms of talk therapy.

It doesn't abide by the scientific method and has idiographic and nomothetic elements. It also contains elements of both nature and nurture, as it believes in the importance of innate drives and that early life experience can also influence our behaviour.

Comparison of Approaches in Psychology: Table

The following table compares the different approaches and their similarities and differences.