What is psychology?

Welcome to the world of psychology. If you are like many students, you have signed up for this class with a sense of excitement – and yet, when asked, you may not yet have a clear understanding of what psychology really is, or why it is worth studying.

Psychologists want to understand why people behave the way they do. They believe that if we can discover the causes of behaviour, we will be able to explain them, and maybe also to control them.

There is no single definition of psychology that is universally acknowledged. A common definition is: Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behaviour. As you can see, this is a very broad definition.  

The first important part of the definition is the word “scientific”. This means a systematic and controlled study of human behaviour, with the hope of establishing either correlational or cause-and-effect relationships to describe behaviour. Psychologists do this through a range of research methods – such as experiments and observations.

 Teacher only box

The debate about whether psychology is a science rages on the Internet.  It is without a doubt that psychologists use the scientific method.  So, why the debate?

Unlike other sciences, psychology has failed to produce a cumulative body of knowledge that has a clear conceptual core that is consensually agreed upon by mainstream psychological experts.  It is the lack of a core, accepted body of knowledge that is problematic in psychology’s desire to be labeled a “science.”

• What are some of the core ideas that define other sciences – such as biology, chemistry, and physics? How are these core ideas most likely different from the study of human behaviour?
• Is it important that psychology makes use of the scientific method?  Why or why not?

Is psychology a science?

• Based on empirical evidence
• Psychologists attempt to be objective by minimizing bias
• Extraneous variables are controlled to help establish cause-and-effect relationships
• Employs hypothesis testing
• The goal is for research to be replicated to establish reliability
• Research has been applied to predict and change human behaviour.

• There is a replication crisis in psychology; psychologists have been unable to replicate key studies.
• Not all aspects of psychology are empirically based or falsifiable - e.g. Freudian theory, humanistic theory
• Problems with the observation of cognitive processes. This means that processes, such as memory, cannot be accurately measured.
• The inability to establish "laws" of human behaviour and simply noting trends that may change over time and place.
• It is argued that objectivity is impossible as research is based on theoretical perspectives.

Psychologists study “the mind” and behaviour. The mind is defined as the part of us that reasons, thinks, feels, perceives, and judges.  Behaviour, on the other hand, is defined as the coordinated responses of whole living organisms to internal and/or external stimuli – that is, what an organism does as a result of both internal factors or environmental factors.

But actually, the study of psychology is much more complex.  Psychologists study the interaction of many internal factors  - cognitive processes, physiology, attitudes, and emotions – that influence our behaviours.

For a long part of psychology’s short history, experts argued whether behavior was the result of biological factors (nature) or environmental factors (nurture).  Today, psychologists no longer believe that it is nature or nurture – but rather, nature and nurture.  They argue that behavior is the result of the interaction of both internal and environmental factors.  As a result, psychologists look at behavior through a number of different lenses.

The IB psychology course also takes an integrative approach to studying human behaviour. This means that we will look at psychological issues through three approaches

• The biological approach focuses on physiology, including genetics.
• The cognitive approach focuses on mental processes like memory, thinking, perception, and attention.
• The sociocultural approach focuses on how environment and culture affect behaviour.

An example of how these approaches are used can be seen in the study of clinical depression – or Major Depressive Disorder.  The biological approach would argue that depression is the result of biological factors – such as low levels of serotonin, high levels of stress hormones or certain combinations of genes.  The cognitive approach would argue that depression is the result of the way people think.  If your thinking is dominated by negative and pessimistic thoughts, then you are more likely to be depressed.  Finally, the sociocultural approach would argue that environmental factors – such as a stressful work environment, poverty, or war – could lead to depression. 

Obviously, it is much more complex than this, as you will learn throughout the course.

Research: Theories and empirical studies

When psychologists discuss their work, they refer to theories and make reference to empirical studies. These are some of the building blocks of scientific psychology.

A theory is an explanation for a psychological phenomenon. It is a statement used to summarize, organize, and explain observations. A theory can be used to make predictions about human behaviour. Most theories are built on concepts - that is, hypothetical constructs that must be carefully defined so that they can be tested. In order to test a concept, psychologists need to develop tools to measure it.

An example of a concept is Bandura’s self-efficacy. As a concept, self-efficacy is defined as one’s own belief as to whether one will succeed in something, based on previous experiences.

Bandura’s theory predicts that one’s self-efficacy will determine if and how hard one will try to do a certain thing. For example, a researcher might be interested in the role of self-efficacy in predicting if people will engage in regular exercise to improve their health. The researcher wants to find out if people who score high on a self-efficacy scale are more likely to engage in health-preserving behaviour than those who score low on the scale. On the basis of the findings, the researcher can either support the self-efficacy theory or question its usefulness in people’s health behaviours.

Theories in psychology are not like laws in the natural sciences. Psychological theories are probable rather than certain, and therefore they are always open to some degree of doubt. It is often the case that one theory cannot explain all aspects of a psychological phenomenon. Since this doubt is part of scientific psychology, it is necessary to evaluate theories, examining their strengths and limitations.

What makes a good theory?  A good theory is first and foremost “testable.”  This means that we could actually “prove it wrong.”  If it is not possible to test the validity of a theory, then the theory is “unfalsifiable,” and thus, not a good theory.   When we have personal experience that we can share that challenges or supports a theory, this is called anecdotal data.  For example, when I say that I know that hot weather makes people irritable and my evidence is that last week it was really hot and a shopkeeper was really unkind to me, this is anecdotal.  Psychologists do make use of anecdotal data, but in order to test theories, they use empirical evidence - that is, information acquired by observation or experimentation. 

 Teacher only box

1. This is testable.  Researchers have exposed people to the cold virus in different temperatures - for exmple, very cold and room temperature. There is no signficant difference in the susceptability to the cold virus depending on the temperature.  Students may want to discuss, however, if this is ethical, regardless of gaining consent.

2. Yes, this is testable.  It can be done with a simple survey.  However, the problem is that people who are married may feel a social obligation to be positive about their marital status.  This means that participant expectations may have an effect on the validity of their responses.

3. This is, theoretically, testable.  But it relies on a lot of assumptions.  First, you have to assume that we can measure how smart someone is.  This could be done with an IQ test or some other form of test - all of which are open for debate. In addition, this would have to be done over time.  It would not be something that could be accomplished in a single laboratory session.  Therefore, when the person is at home playing games, there is a lot of opportunity for other variables to interfere with the study.

4. This is also, theoretically, testable.  However, there are concerns about having people eat a diet high in sugar in order to test the hypothesis.

An early psychological theory was posited by Otto Rank in 1924 – The Trauma of Birth.  Rank argued that the anxiety that we experience is the result of the trauma of being expelled from our mother’s womb.  He argued that this was our first – and most significant – rejection. Even Freud was initially supportive of this theory.   But think about it – how would we be able to prove that this was not correct?  We would have to find someone who had “never been born” and test his or her mental health. In other words, there is no way of testing this theory.  There are several other theories that are not really testable.  Although these theories are often “accepted,” they are done so more as an act of belief than science.

The second characteristic of a good theory is that it has empirical support.  Empirical support may be in the form of an experiment, observations, interviews, or case studies.  But empirical support must be replicated in order for the theory to be well supported.  Conducting a single study that cannot be replicated, is not good support for a theory.  It is sometimes the problem in psychology that the results of a study are not replicated when different samples are used.

The third characteristic of a good theory is that it can be applied in many practical ways.  You will see that some theories have a lot of applications – or what we call high heuristic validity.  For example, you will see that a theory called “Social Identity Theory” can be applied to explain inter-group conflict, the origins of sexuality, one’s likelihood of supporting a charity and conformity to a group – as well as improve evacuation procedures in a disaster, reduce football hooliganism or changing one’s buying behavior. 

Another characteristic of a good theory is that its concepts are well defined and can be measured.  As you see in Bandura’s theory above, we have to be able to measure self-efficacy. How does one do that?  It is important that a test is designed and that researchers agree that the test does what it claims to do.  There are many things that psychologists study that can be problematic when it comes to how we measure them – for example, stress, anxiety, love, level of trust, self-efficacy, or intelligence.

It is also important that a theory not be biased.  There are several types of bias that a theory may have.  First, the research could be primarily done on students.  This means that we do not have good data on a range of ages.  In addition, studies may be biased to one gender, western culture, or a certain class of people.  Theories can also be biased because of the goals of the researcher – whether that be that the origin of depression is biochemical, as proposed by a drug company – or that homosexuality is purely genetic – as proposed by a gay rights activist.  This does not mean that the theory may not in the end have strong support, but such bias should make us raise our eyebrows.  Finally, the theory should take into consideration other factors.  If a biological theory ignores environmental variables, then the theory has a bias toward reductionism – that is, describing a complex phenomenon in terms of simple explanations or singular variables.

Finally, a good theory predicts behaviour. Even good theories are not able to predict an individual’s behaviour, but can predict trends within a population.

To remember what makes a good theory, you may want to use the following acronym:

Psychological theory in practice

As you begin your IB Diploma studies, here is a simple question: Do you believe in hard work or talent? Professor Carol Dweck from Stanford University in the USA has formulated a theory of the importance of people’s mindset in explaining success. Through systematic research, Dweck discovered that many talented people do not achieve their potential. She concluded that it is not talent or intelligence, as such, which is the key to understanding success. Rather, it is the way people explain things. She found that people tended to look at intelligence or talent as something that is either fixed or changeable. And those who saw intelligence as "fixed", were less likely to take risks and improve their learning.

According to Dweck’s theory, people with a fixed mindset believe that intelligence is static: because they want to appear smart; they avoid challenges, give up easily, and consider effort to be a waste of time. They tend to ignore useful negative feedback and feel threatened by the success of others. The consequence for these people is that often they do not achieve their full potential.

In contrast, people with a growth mindset believe that intelligence is not fixed: they think that it can be developed and therefore they do not mind challenges. They persist when they experience setbacks, consider effort to be part of the process of mastering something, learn from criticism, and find inspiration in the success of others. This approach reflects the belief that you can change things if you want to.

In order to test this theory, Dweck and Blackwell (2007) carried out an experiment with low-achieving students aged 12–13 years (seventh-graders). All students were given an introduction to the brain and study skills. Half of them also attended a neutral session on memory, while the other half attended a lecture on how intelligence can be developed through exercise - just as you can train your physical body. The result was that the students who were trained to adopt a growth mindset about intelligence were much more motivated, and this was demonstrated in their maths grades. Students in the group that did not attend the intelligence lecture showed no improvement, despite all the other interventions. According to Dweck, telling students that intelligence can be developed can have an incredible impact on their motivation to learn.

 Teacher only box

1. This will be a personal response.  Many students will talk about "not being an artist" or "being bad a languages."  One of the things to point out is that probably few of them have the idea that they are going to be a "poor psychology student." At this point, they have not drawn any conclusions about their ability and they may all be coming into the course with a growth mindset.

2. For exercise, a growth mindset would be that if we start small, we will be able to develop our endurance and strength.  Difficult days are seen as growth - rather than failure.  Health behaviour, for example, could be that "my whole family has a weight problem" so there is no point in trying to eat healthily.  Whereas a growth model sees failures as acceptable and part of life - but then refocus on their goal.

3.  This theory is criticized for several reasons.  First, it is very "Western" in its approach.  It assumes that I have control over my life and can "be all I want to be."  It also assumes that mindset is a key reason for people not to make progress - and it does not address the limitations that socioeconomic status and health issues may pose.  This may lead to people concluding that those who are not successful have only their "mindset" to blame.

 Teacher only box

The key to this activity is to get students to practice writing out the aim, procedure, and findings of a study.  In addition, they are to discuss the potential implications for your school.  This is the most difficult part for students - to think critically about what this study might mean rather than simply describing what the researchers did and found.

Checking for understanding

Fundamentals of research