2 BRANCHES OF PSYCHOLOGY
Process or person?
Which approach to human behaviour is more relevant to current professional practice: process or person? Since the mid-19th century, two contrasting approaches to understanding the mind and behaviour have been a topic of discussion: the scientific, or process approach, and the introspective, or person approach. The debate is important because it affects research methods and professional practice and, in the long term, commercial, medical and social progress. A review of these approaches will allow us to reach our own conclusions.
The process approach to psychology focuses on the analysis of the internal mental mechanisms which, scientists claim, can only be accessed through observable behaviour. This view is largely supported by physiologists and behaviourists. The process approach is founded on Pavlov’s well-known research into stimulus and response, and supported by Watson, when he formulated the principles of behaviourism in 1913 (Gross, 2007). These include: complete scientific objectivity; the predictability and controllability of behaviour; and similarities between human and animal behaviour. It has been argued, however, that this last principle fails to take into account the existence of consciousness or self- awareness in humans. Countering this criticism, Watson maintained that introspection was subjective, unreliable as a data source and, therefore, unscientific.
In the late 19th century, John Dewey highlighted another limitation of the stimulus-response theory (Benjafield, 1996). Dewey pointed out that, depending on their situation and intention, human beings will respond differently to a similar stimulus, unlike animals, which have a limited range of responses. For example, if we see a child crying and alone in public, we will probably assume that he or she is lost, and look for its mother. On the other hand, when we see a child crying and with its mother, we do nothing. Our responses are determined not only by the stimulus, but also by the social context. By relating behaviour to social context, Dewey foreshadowed social- constructivist theories which form part of the person approach.
The person approach emphasizes the importance of individual experience as a means of understanding mental processes, and of the effect of social interaction on behaviour. This approach is supported
by the psychodynamic, humanist and social- constructivist theories. For instance, Freud claimed that dreams were the gateway to our unconscious and that relating and interpreting them was a valid means of understanding our inner life. According to the humanist, Carl Rogers, self-awareness is at the centre of our human experience and each individual’s unique interpretation of reality is valid. Social constructivism looks beyond individual experience and explains behaviour as a fluid interaction between the person and a continuously changing society. The main argument against the validity of all theories supporting the person approach is that any data based on reported experience is necessarily subjective and, therefore, unverifiable.
An examination of two cases will illustrate the relevance of each approach in practice. In the first case, a forensic psychologist planning a programme of rehabilitation for a prisoner may use techniques which include a scientifically standardized psychometric test, developed according to the process approach, and just as important, a direct interview – a technique belonging to the person approach. In another case, a biopsychologist taking the process approach to testing the effects of narcotics on behaviour may limit his or her observations to laboratory animals. However, during subsequent testing on humans, the researcher may take the person approach and obtain valuable additional information from individual feedback.
In conclusion, whilst the process approach is scientifically valid, the person approach provides a wealth of information not available from objective observation. Each of these approaches provides researchers and practitioners with data and techniques which are applicable not only in experimental contexts, but also in the field.
19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137
