Notes · PsychologyUK · A-Levels

Approaches in Psychology

An approach is a set of shared assumptions about what causes behaviour and how it should be studied. This chapter traces the emergence of Psychology as a science and compares the six approaches on the specification - behaviourist, social learning, cognitive, biological, psychodynamic and humanistic - examining what each assumes, how it explains behaviour, and its strengths and weaknesses.

6 sections~19 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 4 · Advanced 1

T·0555 / 17

Exam profile

AO1 · Describe the assumptions and key concepts of each approach and the origins of Psychology as a scienceAO2 · Apply each approach to explain behaviour in novel scenariosAO3 · Evaluate the approaches on determinism, reductionism, scientific status and application, and compare them

Operators:describeoutlineexplainapplyevaluatecomparediscuss

basic level

AS-Level covers the origins of Psychology and the behaviourist, social learning, cognitive and biological approaches.

higher level

The full A-Level adds the psychodynamic and humanistic approaches and a comparison of all six approaches on debates such as determinism and reductionism.

Depth

Text

Contents · 6 sections

Approaches in Psychology

Origins of Psychology: Wundt, introspection and the emergence of a science#

FoundationAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - origins of Psychology

Psychology grew out of philosophy and physiology, and its emergence as a distinct discipline is dated to 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt opened the first laboratory dedicated to psychological study in Leipzig. Wundt's significance is that he moved the study of the mind out of armchair philosophy and into a controlled laboratory, marking the beginning of Psychology as a science with its own methods.

Wundt's method was introspection - the systematic examination of one's own conscious thoughts and feelings. Participants were given a controlled stimulus (such as a ticking metronome) and asked to report their inner experiences, breaking consciousness down into its basic components of sensations and feelings, an approach called structuralism. The key point is that Wundt tried to make introspection rigorous by standardising the procedures so that the observations could, in principle, be repeated.

The emergence of Psychology as a science then advanced through the twentieth century. The behaviourists (Watson and later Skinner) rejected introspection as too subjective and unobservable, and argued that a science of psychology should study only observable behaviour under controlled laboratory conditions - this made Psychology more objective and scientific. The cognitive approach (from the 1960s) reintroduced the study of mental processes but insisted they be studied scientifically through inference from behaviour, and the biological approach brought in the technology of brain scanning. Each shift increased the reliance on the empirical method.

Wundt's contribution is evaluated in both directions. He is rightly credited as a pioneer whose standardised procedures paved the way for later controlled research. However, introspection itself is criticised as unscientific by modern standards: it relies on participants accurately reporting private mental states that cannot be independently observed or verified, so it is subjective and hard to replicate, and it cannot capture unconscious processes. These criticisms are exactly what led the behaviourists to reject it and push Psychology towards fully observable, measurable behaviour.

Worked example

Evaluating the scientific status of introspection

Explain one strength and one weakness of introspection as a scientific method.

Strength
Wundt standardised the stimuli and procedures, so the studies could be repeated under controlled conditions - a step towards a scientific psychology.
Weakness
Introspective reports concern private conscious experiences that cannot be observed or checked by anyone else, so they are subjective and not reliably replicable.
Conclusion
Introspection was a scientific advance for its time but falls short of modern standards of objectivity, which is why later approaches favoured observable behaviour.

Result: Introspection was rigorous for 1879 but is subjective and unverifiable by modern scientific standards.

Typical mistakes

Saying Wundt invented behaviourism - he used introspection, which behaviourists later rejected.
Describing introspection as simply 'thinking about thinking' without the controlled, standardised procedure Wundt used.

Active revision

Outline Wundt's role in the development of Psychology and give one reason introspection is considered unscientific.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

The behaviourist approach: classical and operant conditioning#

StandardAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - the behaviourist approach

Classical conditioning

Fig. 1A neutral stimulus (bell) paired repeatedly with an unconditioned stimulus (food) becomes a conditioned stimulus producing the conditioned response.

The behaviourist approach assumes that all behaviour is learned from the environment, that only observable behaviour should be studied (not the mind), and that the laws of learning are the same across species, which is why behaviourists studied animals such as dogs, rats and pigeons. It explains behaviour through two forms of conditioning.

Classical conditioning is learning through association, demonstrated by Pavlov (1927). Dogs naturally salivate (an unconditioned response, UCR) to food (an unconditioned stimulus, UCS). Pavlov repeatedly rang a bell (a neutral stimulus, NS) just before presenting food; after several pairings the bell alone (now a conditioned stimulus, CS) produced salivation (a conditioned response, CR). The key idea is that a previously neutral stimulus comes, through repeated pairing, to trigger a reflex response. Classical conditioning explains how we learn involuntary, reflexive responses such as phobias.

Operant conditioning is learning through the consequences of behaviour, studied by Skinner (1938) using the 'Skinner box'. A hungry rat placed in the box would eventually press a lever and receive a food pellet; the reward made lever-pressing more frequent. Skinner identified three types of consequence: positive reinforcement (adding something pleasant, e.g. food) strengthens behaviour; negative reinforcement (removing something unpleasant, e.g. switching off an electric shock) also strengthens behaviour; and punishment (adding something unpleasant) weakens behaviour. Reinforcement increases the probability that a behaviour will be repeated.

The behaviourist approach is evaluated as scientific but limited. Its strength is that it uses well-controlled laboratory experiments, giving it high internal validity and real-world applications such as token economies and behavioural therapies. Its weaknesses are that it is environmentally deterministic (it presents behaviour as entirely shaped by past reinforcement, leaving no room for free will), it is reductionist (it reduces complex behaviour to simple stimulus-response links), and its reliance on animal studies raises questions about generalising to the more complex behaviour of humans, as well as ethical concerns about the treatment of the animals.

The Skinner box

Fig. 2In the Skinner box, pressing the lever delivers a food pellet (positive reinforcement) or switches off a shock (negative reinforcement).

Worked example

Identifying types of reinforcement

For each scenario, name the type of consequence: (a) a dog gets a treat for sitting; (b) a person takes a painkiller and their headache stops; (c) a child is told off for shouting.

Scenario (a)
A pleasant stimulus (treat) is added and sitting increases - positive reinforcement.
Scenario (b)
An unpleasant state (headache) is removed and taking the painkiller increases - negative reinforcement.
Scenario (c)
An unpleasant consequence (telling off) is added to reduce shouting - punishment.

Result: (a) positive reinforcement; (b) negative reinforcement; (c) punishment.

Typical mistakes

Confusing negative reinforcement (removing something unpleasant, strengthens behaviour) with punishment (adding something unpleasant, weakens behaviour).
Muddling the classical-conditioning terms - the neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus, not the unconditioned stimulus.

Active revision

Using operant conditioning, explain how a child might learn to tidy their room, distinguishing positive and negative reinforcement.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

Social learning theory#

StandardAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - social learning theory

Bandura's mediational processes

Fig. 3Four mediational processes - attention, retention, reproduction and motivation - come between observing a model and imitating the behaviour.

Social learning theory (Bandura) agrees with the behaviourists that behaviour is learned from experience, but adds that much learning happens indirectly, by observing and imitating others in a social context. It bridges the behaviourist and cognitive approaches by including mental (mediational) processes between the stimulus and the response.

Learning occurs through modelling (observing a model's behaviour) and imitation. Vicarious reinforcement is central: we do not need to be reinforced ourselves, but learn by observing the consequences of a model's behaviour - if the model is rewarded, we are more likely to imitate; if punished, less likely. We are also more likely to imitate models we identify with (those who are similar to us, high status or attractive).

Bandura identified four mediational processes that come between observing a behaviour and performing it, remembered as attention, retention, (motor) reproduction and motivation. Attention: we must notice the behaviour. Retention: we must remember it. Reproduction: we must be physically able to perform it. Motivation: we must have a reason (such as expected reinforcement) to do it. The first two relate to learning the behaviour, the last two to performing it, which is why we can learn a behaviour without immediately showing it.

The evidence comes from Bandura's Bobo doll studies (1961), in which children who watched an adult behave aggressively towards an inflatable 'Bobo' doll later imitated that specific aggression, while children who watched a non-aggressive model did not - and children who saw the aggressive model rewarded imitated more than those who saw it punished (vicarious reinforcement). Social learning theory is evaluated as more complete than behaviourism because it includes cognition and explains cultural transmission of behaviour, but it relies heavily on controlled (and possibly demand-laden) lab studies, underplays biological factors in behaviour such as aggression, and can be criticised for still being somewhat deterministic.

Worked example

Applying the mediational processes

A child watches an older sibling praised for sharing toys and later shares her own. Explain this using social learning theory.

Modelling and vicarious reinforcement
The sibling is a model the child identifies with; seeing the sibling praised is vicarious reinforcement that makes imitation more likely.
Learning processes
The child attends to the sharing and retains a memory of it (attention and retention).
Performance processes
The child is able to reproduce sharing and is motivated by the expected praise, so she imitates the behaviour.

Result: Identification and vicarious reinforcement plus the four mediational processes explain the imitated sharing.

Typical mistakes

Confusing vicarious reinforcement (learning from a model's consequences) with direct reinforcement.
Omitting the mediational processes, which are what distinguish social learning theory from pure behaviourism.

Active revision

Using social learning theory, explain how a teenager might come to imitate a celebrity's behaviour.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

The cognitive approach and cognitive neuroscience#

StandardAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - the cognitive approach

The information-processing model of the mind

Fig. 4The cognitive approach treats the mind like an information processor: input is interpreted through schemas and produces output (behaviour).

The cognitive approach argues that to explain behaviour we must study the internal mental processes that come between a stimulus and a response - processes such as perception, attention, memory and thinking. Because these cannot be observed directly, cognitive psychologists study them scientifically by making inferences: drawing conclusions about mental processes from measurable behaviour (for example, inferring how memory is organised from patterns of recall).

A central concept is the schema - a mental framework of beliefs and expectations, built from experience, that organises and interprets information. Schemas let us process large amounts of information quickly by filling in gaps with expectations, but they can also distort perception and memory (leading us to see or remember what we expect). The approach also uses models to represent mental processes: theoretical models (such as the multi-store model of memory) and computer models that liken the mind to a computer - information is input, processed and output - drawing an analogy between the mind's software and the brain's hardware.

Cognitive neuroscience is the more recent development named on the specification: the scientific study of how brain structures influence mental processes. Advances in brain-scanning technology (such as fMRI and PET) have allowed psychologists to observe the brain while a person performs a cognitive task, mapping mental processes onto specific brain areas (for example linking episodic memory to the hippocampus). This has given the cognitive approach a biological grounding it previously lacked and made its inferences more testable.

The cognitive approach is evaluated as scientific and applicable but sometimes artificial. Its strength is that it uses controlled, objective methods and has valuable real-world applications - to the treatment of depression (CBT), to improving eyewitness testimony, and to the development of artificial intelligence. Its weaknesses are that its computer analogy is criticised as 'machine reductionism' that ignores the influence of human emotion and motivation on thinking, and that because it relies on inference and often uses artificial laboratory tasks, its conclusions can lack ecological validity (they may not reflect how we think in everyday life).

Worked example

Using inference in the cognitive approach

Participants recall the first and last words of a list better than the middle words. Explain how a cognitive psychologist would use this behavioural finding.

Observe the behaviour
The measurable pattern is superior recall of early (primacy) and late (recency) items - the serial position effect.
Make an inference
From this behaviour the psychologist infers something about the unobservable memory system - that early items have been rehearsed into long-term memory and late items are still in short-term memory.
Build a model
Such inferences support a model of memory with separate short-term and long-term stores, illustrating how the cognitive approach reasons from behaviour to mental process.

Result: The recall pattern is used to infer separate memory stores - an example of studying mental processes by inference.

Typical mistakes

Saying the cognitive approach studies mental processes directly - it infers them from behaviour.
Confusing a schema (a mental framework) with a model (a representation of a whole process).

Active revision

Explain how the concept of a schema could account for a witness misremembering details of a crime.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

The biological approach#

StandardAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - the biological approach

Genotype, environment and phenotype

Fig. 5The phenotype is the product of the genotype interacting with the environment; adaptive phenotypes are favoured by natural selection.

The biological approach assumes that everything psychological is at first biological, so to understand behaviour we must study its physical basis: genes, brain structures, neurochemistry and evolution. Behaviour and mental processes are seen as having a physiological cause, and the approach is strongly reductionist and deterministic in a biological sense.

A key distinction is between the genotype and the phenotype. The genotype is a person's actual genetic make-up, fixed at conception; the phenotype is the observable set of characteristics that results from the interaction of the genotype with the environment. Even identical twins, who share a genotype, differ in phenotype because of environmental influences - which is why identical-twin studies that show less than 100% concordance for a behaviour are evidence that both genes and environment contribute.

The approach also studies neurochemistry (the action of neurotransmitters and hormones in behaviour, e.g. low serotonin in OCD) and brain structures (linking functions to regions). It draws on the theory of evolution: any genetically determined behaviour that improves an individual's chance of survival and reproduction will be naturally selected, because the genes for it are passed on - so some behaviours (such as attachment) are explained as adaptive traits shaped over generations.

The biological approach is evaluated as highly scientific but narrow. Its strengths are its precise, objective methods (brain scans, biochemical assays, twin studies) and its major real-world applications, especially drug treatments for mental disorders. Its weaknesses are that it is biologically reductionist (reducing complex behaviour and experience to genes and chemicals, and risking overlooking psychological and social causes), and that its determinism - the view that behaviour is caused by biology beyond our control - has implications for issues such as legal responsibility. Its use of twin and drug studies also cannot fully separate biological from environmental influences.

Worked example

Reasoning about genotype and phenotype

Identical twins raised apart both develop depression, but one much more severely. Explain this using the genotype-phenotype distinction.

Shared genotype
Being identical, the twins share the same genotype, so the fact that both develop depression is consistent with a genetic vulnerability.
Different environments
Raised apart, they experienced different environments (stressors, support), which interact with the genotype.
Different phenotypes
Because the phenotype results from genotype interacting with environment, the same genetic vulnerability can produce different severities of depression.

Result: Shared genes explain the shared vulnerability; differing environments explain the differing phenotypic severity.

Typical mistakes

Confusing genotype (genetic code) and phenotype (observable result of genes plus environment).
Treating 100%-less concordance in identical twins as evidence for genes only - it actually shows environment matters too.

Active revision

Explain how the biological approach would account for a psychological characteristic that runs in families.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

The psychodynamic and humanistic approaches, and comparison#

AdvancedAQA 7182 3.2.1DfE GCE Psychology - psychodynamic and humanistic approaches

Freud's tripartite personality

Fig. 6The ego (reality principle) mediates between the id's instinctive drives (pleasure principle) and the superego's moral demands.

The psychodynamic approach (Freud) assumes that behaviour is largely driven by the unconscious mind - the vast part of the psyche, below awareness, that holds repressed memories and instinctive drives and shapes behaviour without our knowing. Freud described the personality as having three parts: the id (present from birth, the unconscious source of instinctive drives, working on the pleasure principle), the ego (the conscious, rational mediator working on the reality principle) and the superego (the internalised sense of right and wrong, the morality principle, formed around age five). The ego balances the demands of the id and superego, using defence mechanisms (such as repression, denial and displacement) to manage the resulting conflict and anxiety. Freud also proposed psychosexual stages (oral, anal, phallic, latency, genital), and argued that unresolved conflict at a stage leads to fixation that affects the adult personality; the Oedipus complex in the phallic stage is central to his account of gender.

The humanistic approach takes a very different, optimistic view. It emphasises free will - the idea that humans are active agents who make their own choices and are not determined by biology or reinforcement - and studies the whole person's subjective experience. Maslow's hierarchy of needs arranges human needs in a pyramid, from basic physiological needs at the base, through safety, love and belonging, and esteem, to self-actualisation (realising one's full potential) at the top; lower needs must generally be met before higher ones can be pursued. Rogers argued that personal growth requires congruence between the self-concept and the ideal self, and that this is fostered by unconditional positive regard; conditions of worth (the sense that acceptance is conditional on meeting others' expectations) block growth. This underlies client-centred (Rogerian) therapy.

These two approaches sharpen the debates that run through the whole topic and allow comparison. On free will versus determinism, the humanistic approach is the only one to champion full free will, while the psychodynamic approach is psychically deterministic (behaviour driven by unconscious conflict) and the behaviourist and biological approaches are also deterministic. On reductionism versus holism, the humanistic approach is the most holistic (it studies the whole person), while the biological and behaviourist approaches are the most reductionist. On science, the behaviourist, cognitive and biological approaches are the most scientific (objective, testable), whereas the psychodynamic approach is criticised as unfalsifiable and the humanistic approach as unscientific and hard to test.

The two approaches are evaluated in contrasting ways. The psychodynamic approach was hugely influential (it introduced the idea of the unconscious and of childhood's importance and gave rise to psychotherapy) but is criticised for relying on unfalsifiable concepts and unrepresentative case studies. The humanistic approach is praised for its positive, holistic view and its influence on counselling, but criticised for being culturally biased towards individualist Western values and for lacking rigorous empirical support. Being able to place each approach on these debates is the key skill for the comparison question.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Fig. 7Lower needs must generally be met before a person can pursue higher needs, culminating in self-actualisation.

Comparing the six approaches

Fig. 8Placing each approach on the key debates is the skill tested by the comparison question.

Worked example

Placing approaches on a debate

Rank the behaviourist, humanistic and psychodynamic approaches from most to least deterministic, and justify the order.

Most deterministic
The behaviourist approach is hard environmental determinism - behaviour is entirely the product of past reinforcement, leaving no room for choice.
Intermediate
The psychodynamic approach is psychically deterministic - behaviour is driven by unconscious conflict rooted in childhood, again with little conscious choice.
Least deterministic
The humanistic approach champions free will, seeing people as active agents who choose their own behaviour, so it is the least deterministic.

Result: Behaviourist (most) > psychodynamic > humanistic (least deterministic), because only the humanistic approach allows genuine free will.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the id, ego and superego, or which principle each follows (pleasure, reality, morality).
Calling the humanistic approach deterministic - it is the one approach that champions full free will.

Active revision

Compare the psychodynamic and humanistic approaches in terms of free will and determinism, using examples.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology

AQA

AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification

Approaches in Psychology

6 sections~19 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 4 · Advanced 1

Approaches in Psychology

Key points

Evaluating the scientific status of introspection

Key points

Identifying types of reinforcement

Key points

Applying the mediational processes

Key points

Using inference in the cognitive approach

Key points

Reasoning about genotype and phenotype

Key points

Placing approaches on a debate

Sources

Approaches in Psychology

Key points

Evaluating the scientific status of introspection

Key points

Identifying types of reinforcement

Key points

Applying the mediational processes

Key points

Using inference in the cognitive approach

Key points

Reasoning about genotype and phenotype

Key points

Placing approaches on a debate

Sources