I may be posting more of these, so keep checking back. If you have any other suggestions for the blog, leave a comment!
UPBRINGING
-
Situational perspective (S=useful for
government, W=reductionist)
-
Nurture perspective (S=easier to change than
biology, W=ignores biology)
-
Determinist explanation (S=follows scientific
laws as in physics, may encourage rehabilitation rather than punishment, W=ignores
freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)
-
Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us
to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic
of relationship between factors, may not be valid)
-
Runs in families; not necessarily upbringing
(S=easier to change environment than biology, W=may not have face validity)
-
For maximum validity, studies testing this explanation
need to be longitudinal (S=more in-depth, track development, W=attrition,
observer bias, ethics)
COGNITION
-
Dispositional perspective (S=suggests therapy
may be useful, W=reductionist)
-
Doesn’t specify nature or nurture; could be both
(S=holistic, W=unknown cause?)
-
Soft deterministic as it suggests that
cognitions determine behaviour but we have some freewill over our cognitions
(S=more holistic, W=to what extent can we blame the individual?)
-
Cognitions aren’t observable (S=more complex
than behaviourist approach, accepts that people have individual differences,
W=subjective, non-scientific, may be invalid)
-
Somewhat more holistic as cognition can be influenced
by situation as well as nature and nurture (S=likely to be valid as it looks at
a variety of factors, W=still reductionist in that biology and upbringing tend
to be overlooked, may not enable causality so may be less useful)
-
Relies on self-report (S=allows for attitudes
and cognitions to be accessed, qualitative and quantitative data, W=validity
may be poor due to demand characteristics, lying, and misinterpretation etc.)
BIOLOGY
-
Deterministic (S= follows scientific laws as in
physics, may encourage treatment rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill,
how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)
-
Reliance on correlation (S=more ethical than
manipulating biology, W=causality; how do we know whether brain
dysfunction/genes/serotonin is a cause or result of criminal behaviour?)
-
Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us
to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic
of relationship between factors, may not be valid)
-
Nature approach (S=more scientific, observable,
objective, W=harder to rehabilitate, reductionist)
This was extremely helpful for me, would it be possible to make a set of stress evaluative points for that section as this is what our class lacked good points for?
ReplyDeletehttp://ocra2psychologyg543.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/evaluation-points-for-stress.html
Delete