|
14-06-2009: 14th June 2009 22:02
|
#1
|
|
|
|
Full Member
Thread Starter
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 133
|
|
HELP needed with PYA5 Debates :)
It's the day before the exam and I just finished revising debates. However, I'm not sure if I'm answering the questions as I'm supposed to. I'd be extremely grateful if someone with knowledge of the subject could let me know if I've answered the following questions correctly (and well enough to get 18-20/30):
Free will vs determinism debate:
Using psychological research to illustrate/support your answer, discuss arguments against free-will. (30 marks)
Free-will is the idea that human behaviour is unpredictable as people usually have some control over their situation. Determinists, however, disagrees with the view that free-will exists and argue that environmental, physiological, genetic and behavioural factors determine all behaviour. There is much psychological research which supports the determinist argument that free-will does not exist.
Behaviourism suggests that free-will is not involved in human behaviour. Behaviourists argue that human behaviour is learnt through different types of conditioning and reinforcement. Behaviourist research which supports the determinist approach to the debate can be found in the case of baby Albert. After being classically conditioned to associate white rats with a scary noise, baby Albert developed a fear of fluffy white objects. Whenever Albert saw a fluffy white object, such as cotton wool, he became frightened. Baby Albert did not have free-will to choose whether or not he became frightened, if the right environmental determinants were present it was beyond his control.
However, follow-up studies failed to replicate the findings of Watson’s Baby Albert study. It is possible that this is because the participants in the follow-up studies used free-will to stop themselves from becoming frightened, which goes against the deterministic behavioural approach to free-will.
However, the biological approach provides strong evidence against the existence of free-will. In Allen’s study, a concordance rate of 40% was found in identical twins suffering from depression, and a concordance rate of 11% in fraternal twins. This suggests that whether or not a person suffers from depression is genetically determined, and thus not affected by free-will. However, the fact that the concordance rate was not 100% in identical twins can be used in support for the existence of free-will, as it could be argued that the 60% of identical twins who did not suffer from depression had used their free-will to stop themselves from experiencing the disorder (for example through making an effort to go out and socialise to keep their spirits high).
Other biological research can also be seen as supporting the argument against free-will. It has been found that men between the ages of 15-25 are genetically predetermined to have increased levels in testosterone, which leads to aggression. This suggests that increased feelings of aggression among this age group are beyond their control and determined by their genes.
Further biological evidence against free-will is that argument that schizophrenia is caused by a biochemical imbalance where the neurones in an individual’s brain are over-sensitive to dopamine. This imbalance is innate, which suggests that their schizophrenic behaviour cannot be changed by free-will.
Jacobs’ found that men in prison often had an extra X chromosome. This has been linked to aggression, and suggests that they do not have control over their aggression. However, his study only used a small sample size, which means it’s findings may not be representative of the larger prison population. Furthermore, it is still possible that the prisoners could have used free-will to overcome their abnormally aggressive urges. Another major problem is that Jacobs’ findings take the blame away from the criminals and in a way treat them as victims. If we accept that criminals do not have free-will we cannot hold them accountable and punish them for their actions.
Another problem with the determinist argument against free-will is that even established sciences such as physics don’t use pure determinism. For example, the chaos theory shows how some things cannot be predicted or controlled.
However, it is still necessary for psychologists to follow the deterministic approach as it is the only way to establish a cause and effect relationship (without which important research such as finding cures for mental disorders would not be possible).
Nature-nurture debate:
Discuss psychological research in terms of it’s contribution to the nature-nurture debate. (30 marks)
Traditionally, the nature-nurture debate is the argument between nativists and empiricalists regarding whether human behaviour is determined by innate inherited characteristics or through life experiences and learning. However, the modern approach to the debate is that both nature and nurture play an important role in determining human behaviour.
Although at a glance the results of Torgersen’s study into specific phobias (which showed a concordance rate of 31% in MZ twins and 0% in DZ twins) suggest nature to be the only factor in determining whether or not someone will suffer the mental disorder, the fact that the concordance rate is not 100% suggests that other factors may also play a role. This supports the diathesis-stress model which argues that mental disorders are the result of an interaction between nature and nurture. It proposes that some people have a genetic predisposition to suffer a mental disorder, but it takes an environmental trigger (such as a stressful life event) to set the disorder into motion. Further support for this view can be found in Allen’s study of people suffering uni-polar depression, which shows a concordance rate of 40% in MZ twins and 11% in DZ twins. This shows that although there is a genetic link, other (possibly environmental) factors also play a role.
The diathesis stress model is also supported by the inherited disorder PKU. PKU is a genetic disorder where if the sufferer consumes certain proteins, they become brain damaged. Since these proteins come from the environment, there is an interaction between nature and nurture.
Plomin argued that there are different kinds of interaction between heredity and environment. He showed how some childrens’ intellectual development is determined by the environments in which they grow up. For example, a child with well-educated parents is likely to be encouraged to read and watch educational cartoons from a young age. Therefore their intelligence is affected both by their parents’ genes and the environments their parents create for them.
Cognitive psychologist Piaget was also interested in the connection between nature and nurture. He observed how although all children progress through the same mental stages as they progress towards adulthood; they do so at different speeds. He argued that although the mental stages are innate, they are affected by the environmental facilities such as the education system which facilitate learning and mental progression.
Another example of cognitive psychology’s contribution to the nature-nurture debate is Seligman’s research into learned helplessness. Seligman’s learned helplessness study showed how a lack of control over one’s experiences might lead to feelings of helplessness in a study which involved dogs learning that escape from a situation in which an electric shock was imminent was not possible, and then learning to not even attempt to escape even when put into situations where escape was quite easily possible. This feeling of helplessness was not caused by nature, as at the beginning of the study the dogs tried to escape the shocks. It was only after several attempts to escape the situation that the dogs stopped trying to escape, showing that nurture had affected their behaviour.
The behaviourist approach argues that all behaviour is determined by nurture. One example of this is Watson’s research study into the affects of social learning on baby Albert, in which a child was classically conditioned to associate a white rat with fear (which led to a phobia of fluffy white objects). In this example the child was not born with the phobia of fluffy white objects, but rather it was purely the result of nurture. However, this can be criticised with the argument that even the ability to learn is innate, which means that social learning is still an interaction between nature and nurture.
Thanks ^_^ |
|
|
| Register to remove banners from posts. |
|
Psychology discussion, revision and homework help.
Useful Resources:
HELP needed with PYA5 Debates :)
