Reductionism

Reductionism is a really key issue in psychology because to some extent it can be applied to every theory, and every approach or paradigm. 

Reductionism refers to the breaking down of complex phenomenon into smaller components. It's the opposite of holism, where complex phenomena are looked at in their entirety.

Reductionism/holism is a continuum rather than an either/or description of a theory or approach. Some of the more reductionist approaches are behaviourism and the biological approach, whilst the more holistic approaches are humanistic psychology, the individual differences approach and social psychology.

Essentially, the more simplistically a behaviour is explained, the more reductionist the theory. 

Usefulness

Like many of the issues and key terms in psychology, we know the gist of this term but it's one that is pretty hard to answer in an exam situation. What does it mean, and what points can we make on usefulness?

Usefulness refers to whether a piece of research or a theory is useful, practical or applicable. A useful piece of research is one that can be accurately generalised to a wide population or the target population and benefit a number of people or causes.

Accurately generalised to a wide population. You can actually split this definition pretty cleanly into three evaluative points: internal validity, external validity (including population and ecological) and to what extent it takes a nomothetic approach. 

Internal validity
It encompasses a number of individual factors, and you'll have to really think about it in terms of the question to know what part is relevant to evaluate. Most of the time, it's either face validity (is it measuring what it intends to measure?) or construct validity (is the definition in the research actually accurate? Often a problem with stress is that it's hard to define stress, and often it's operationalised in a way that isn't truly accurate). If either are poor, a study isn't going to be very useful.

External validity
There are three main types: ecological validity (conducted in a real-life situation, i.e. has mundane realism), population validity (representative, large sample) and temporal validity (whether the research is only really applicable at one time). If any of these are poor, it's not going to be as useful as we would ideally like.

Nomothetic
Nomothetic in psychology refers to a theory which can be assumed to be a general law or principle of behaviour. If it is, it's more likely to be useful. The more "exceptions to the rule" there are, the less it's going to be useful. For example, Loftus et al's theory about weapon focus is pretty nomothetic, as is the theory about hassles causing more stress than life events. Findings from research that aren't nomothetic and can only be applied to a small number of people or situations aren't very useful. 

Issues and Debates in Psychology: How to answer "Compare..."

A lot of the part b) questions ask you to "compare" research, methods and theories. It's actually one of the easiest forms of question to answer because you can apply the issues you know best to the question, but it can be pretty daunting to think of them at first. 

Good issues to mention are:

• reductionism/holism
• to what extent do the theories/studies support psychology as a science?
• nomothetic/idiographic
• situational/dispositional
• to what extent are they subjective/objective?
• nature/nurture
• ethics
• application of research
• usefulness
• validity
• reliability
• approach
• determinism/freewill
• research methods

Some people use the GRAVER STANDERS acronym to help them but there's a few extra ones above just for good measure.

Personally, I think the most important ones are reductionism, validity, reliability, usefulness and situational/dispositional because you can apply them to most questions, but it's worth learning them all.

With regards to how to answer compare questions, here's an example:

b. Compare techniques for managing stress [15]

Intro: outline the three main approaches (cognitive, behaviourist and social support)

Main body: compare the approaches on the basis of (for example) whether they take a situational or dispositional approach, how useful they are, and how easily they can be applied. Use evidence from studies to support your arguments, and then evaluate one or two strengths or weaknesses. E.g. social support is situational which may be harder to change and may cause additional stress so may not be appropriate, but cognitive therapy is expensive and requires dedication, but the support offered may help to reduce stress more quickly and thus may be more efficient. Make sure you include similarities and differences and evaluate them on this basis. 

Conclusion: summarize the main points from each paragraph