Learning Objectives To know strengths and limitations of

Learning Objectives • To know strengths and limitations of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches • To understand whether or not idiographic and nomothetic approaches are complementary or conflicting Do Now: Review your knowledge and understanding of free will and determinism in preparation for a mini-test !

Starter: quiz 1. What is the difference between hard and soft determinism? 2. What are two problems with the concept of ‘free will’ 3. Why is determinism compatible with the scientific approach?

Starter: answers 1. Hard determinism is the view that free will is an illusion and that behaviour is totally predictable and determined. Soft determinism is the view that each of us acts consistently within our own character. The essential difference is that soft determinism brings an element of free will or that soft determinism is not freedom from cause but it is freedom from coercion. 2. The most likely problems are: ■ inconsistent with the assumptions of science and its implications ■ no agreed definition and implications for psychology as a science ■ the problem of testing free will and implications for psychology as a science. Less likely answers but acceptable are: ■ Free will cannot be seen as the opposite of determinism as that would imply that behaviour is random and unpredictable. ■ Denying the existence of free will is problematic; people believe that they have free will. ■ Psychological reactance suggests that people believe that they have free will no matter what the problem may be for scientific psychology; the ‘fear of freedom’ 3 Key features of the scientific approach are causal links, prediction and control of behaviour. Because determinism assumes that every physical event is caused then since human behaviour is a physical event it follows that it too is caused by preceding factors. Therefore, future events can be predicted.

Introduction: examining the strengths of the idiographic approach • Read through the information you have on Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory and the study by Koluchova • Answer the questions, be prepared to discuss them

Introduction: feedback • • 1. Which of these is an example of: (a) an idiographic approach: Koluchova (b) a nomothetic approach: Bowlby 2. Explain your answer to Q 1: The Koluchova study is concerned with understanding attachment behaviour through studying individual cases. The Bowlby theory is concerned with developing general laws of behaviour (for attachment) which apply to all people. 3. In what way does the above example highlight a strength of the idiographic approach? : It provides us with a more complete understanding of the individual, especially in unusual but naturally occurring cases. It helps to shed further light on general laws of behaviour. Extension question: does this case study help to provide evidence for the argument that the two approaches are conflicting or complementary? : It provides evidence that they are complementary because the Koluchova study provides us with further information on the general laws of behaviour. It shows us in this case that extreme maternal deprivation can be reversible (it was thought to be because the twins had one another for emotional support and the foster family they were placed with were very caring)

Main Task: Cut and Stick • Follow the instructions at the top of the sheet in order to provide yourself with a complete set of notes on the evaluation of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches

(+) Findings can act as a source of ideas or hypotheses for later study e. g. Piaget studied his own children and this became his inspiration for further research into cognitive development (-) generalisations cannot be made to a wider population e. g. Freud used an idiographic case study method for his theory of personality yet he argues it can be applied to all humans (-) hard to replicate – methods of research are subjective, flexible and unstandardised, therefore the idiographic approach is regarded as ‘unscientific’ (+) Provides a more global and complete understanding of the individual rather than the nomothetic approach e. g. the study of Little Hans provides a detailed account of the origin and development of Hans’ fear (+) It is possible to explain naturally occurring but unusual cases e. g. the Koluchova twins for maternal deprivation or Clive Wearing for selective impairment of brain function (-) nomothetic approaches lose the ‘whole person’ e. g. being told you have a 1 in 100 chance of developing sz is of no help to a person who wants to be able to predict their own behaviour (-) only gives a superficial understanding of a person, two people may score as extrovert but they may have arrived at the same score by scoring on completely different items to one another although, some psychologists say that although they are not precise they do provide us with a close psychological fit (-) predictions made of group results may not apply to any one individual’s behaviour (+) Compatible with scientific psychology. Emphasis is on precise measurement, prediction and control of behaviour which allow for replicability and generalisabilty

Learning Objectives • To know strengths and limitations of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches • To understand whether or not idiographic and nomothetic approaches are complementary or conflicting Summarise your learning by writing down three questions (and answers) which test knowledge of the learning objectives (above) which we have covered today

Homework • This is our last lesson on the idiographic and nomothetic debate • We only have Psychology as a Science left to cover • Your homework this week is to find four topics – two which are clearly idiographic in their approach and two which are nomothetic, you need to make a note of these and bring them in to MONDAY 23 rd APRIL’s lesson • We will discuss your topics at the beginning of this lesson and then explore the mark scheme ready for you to complete your essay