Psychological Theories and the Application to the Problem - Essay Example

? Psychological Theories and the Application to the Problem Part Psychological theories is a topic of concern for many researchers, and it has its limitations. Gelson (2006) states that most ideas about psychological theory are just too broad. For instance, he criticizes the overarching theories of behaviorism, psychoanalytic theory, humanism, etc., as being so vague that they cannot really be applied in the real world. Likewise, the theories regarding certain treatments, such as cognitive behavioral theory and behavioral theory as being too broad to really be applied. The problem with these theories, according to Gelson, is that they are so broad that they cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, thus, whether or not they are valid is something that cannot be ascertained empirically. Instead, he advocates for what he calls mini-theories – these are theories that might be a part of the larger system of theories, or they might be independent of the larger system of theories as well. He uses as an example Carl Rogers’ theory that there are certain client and therapist conditions which are necessary for lasting change for the client. Specifically, he states that the therapist must have positive regard for the patient, emphathetic understanding for the patient’s problems, and have congruence with the patient. This was the kind of statement that produced studies, as the studies could look at these three specific aspects of therapeutic treatment and measure them, and this is the way that his theory was proven or disproven. Harlow (2009) posits that there is an issue with the development of psychological theory that relies upon qualitative research, because of the limitations for the participants. Specifically, she states that there are methodological difficulties in gathering data. The difficulties are that the participants are often overly sensitive to their situation, which precludes them being perfectly honest, and the discourses might also be stigmatizing to them. Moreover, the participants in touchy subjects tend to be emotional and have defences put up because of this. Therefore, she states that psychological theories might show some degree of bias because the participants might not be all that honest with the researcher. Likewise, Wacker (1999) also states that much qualitative data is limited because of certain variables. To this end, he recommends that the participants be studied in their home environments. Trochim and Donnelly (2008) help researchers by giving them paradigms on how to do research. This would mean that the psychological theory can be tested by using concrete methods which are outlined by them in their sourcebook for research, called the Research Methods Database. Stam (2007) has a different view on theory, or, specifically, has a different view on qualitative study or quantitative study, as it relates to theory. This view is that empirical evidence is not geared towards proving hunches or or to discover something, but, rather, to challenge or overturn an existing theory. That scientific studies aims to make theories become more like a law. He would also agree with Gelson, above, in that Stam sees psychological theory as being lacking because it is heuristically defined, as opposed to realistically defined. He complains that the components of theory are not indicative of real world problems and real world solutions, but, rather, are functional descriptions of things that are focused upon how they act, as opposed to how they are. He states that the theories focus upon hypotheticals, as opposed to focusing upon the observable progress or ontological status of entities. Further, Stam (2010) expounds upon this, stating that our current theories are good for classification purposes, but not so good for other things. Specifically, these other things that theory fails to outline are understanding, explaining and describing psychological phenomenon. In other words, a theory might help somebody understand broad classifications, such as the broad definition of psychoanalytic theory or behaviorism, but it fails to be applied efficiently to the understanding of specific types of psychological phenomenon. Therefore, it would be very difficult to empirically study these theories. In contrast, Frishman (2012) advocates using psychological theories to understand health disparities, and these psychological theories are more general theories. The general theories that she advocates for understanding health disparities include fundamental cause theory, stress process model and social cognitive theory. These theories help to unify causal relationships between social and economic factors, and how social and economic factors affect health-related behaviors. Each of these psychological theories complement one another, as each considers the social structural approach and each look at socioeconomic factors. Therefore, Frishman advocates using the more general theories and she shows how they can be applied to a real-world situation – specifically, that there should be more than one psychological theory that is examined, and these theories should intersect and unify what is being studied. Suppes (1967) has a view on what scientific theory is, and this view may encompass psychological theory as well. He states that a scientific theory begins with an abstract logical calculus – this means that there is a thought that seems logical, and is capable of being calculated. Yet, it is abstract, so there must be a set of rules that guide the empirical content that would be applied to the logical calculus. These sets of rules are known as coordinating definitions or empirical interpretations. He also seems to bolster the views of the researchers who lament that theories are too broad to be empirically analysed, for he states that the logical calculi are simple in principle, but that concrete evidence for these logical calculi are not usually given. Moreover, he states that, for the second part of the definition of scientific theory, it is highly schematic, but that the schema used is vague. The defense of this is that the different empirical interpretations make a precise characterization difficult. He further states that scientists use loose and elliptical experimental language, as opposed to precisely formulated theory. It is therefore difficult to apply rules to the empirical interpretations which are formulated by these theories. Scientific theory is different from other kinds of theories, however. For instance, theories can be applied to any number of different kinds of aspects of modern life. Przeworski and Limongi (1997), for instance, applies theory to modernization. These theories are global and are applied to large scale phenomenon, such as democracy and economic development of countries. This is different from scientific theory in that the phenomenon that is studied is one that is an overarching theory that encompasses many different aspects – for instance, in this article, modernization was denoted as a theory, and, within the theory of modernization, there are a vast numbers of complex variables, such as industrialization, urbanization, education, communication, mobilization, and political incorporation. This is contrasted to scientific theory, in that scientific theory tends to have less of a global scale, and tends to have less components than would an overarching theory such as theory of modernization. It can be argued that such theories as modernization theories would be considered to be more art than science – the theory does not work by hard, quantitative numbers, but, rather, by analyzing softer data that works to coalesce around the theoretical construct. Santacreu Mas (2013) states that, contrary to what Gelson and Stam might posit, personality is a theory that can be proved to be valid and quantified. He states that there are reasons why one person might behave differently in a certain context than would another person, and that the idiosyncratic behavior that is shown from one person to the next would be one that is consistent and stable. This is the basis for personality theory. Why one person would react differently than another cannot simply be explained away by saying that each of the people in a given situation have a different personality, so this is why they behave differently, for this argument would be tautological. To say that people react stable and consistent because of their personality is also not an explanation, because it has to explain the data – the why of behavior in this context. In order to explain why people behave differently, and this particular behavior is stable and consistent, there must be research on variability and stereotypy, and this experimentation and research must take place in controlled experiments. Therefore, according to Santacreu Mass (2013), personality theory, unlike how Stam and Gelson viewed psychological theory, can be quantified, studied and ascertained on an empirical basis. This might also be true with psychological theories, but only if these theories are not broad, overarching theories. The difference, then, with regards to Santacreu Mass’s studies and the broad, overarching psychological theories that have difficulty being quantified, is that Santacreu Mass’s study looked at one certain part of personality theory – behavioral variability and consistency. It would be safe to say that simply studying personality theory, as a whole, or even a sub-type of personality theory, would yield the same issues as studying psychological theory – they would be too broad and general. Finally, there needs to be a brief discussion on how theory and hypotheses are related. A hypotheses is simply an educated guess about a certain phenomenon – for instance, when viewing the theory of evolution, before there had been any kind of testing or empirical data, Charles Darwin might have guessed about the principals of natural selection or guessed about species processes in evolving through time. This would be his hypothesis. It became theory when there was rigorous testing and empirical data. Therefore, the way that a hypothesis and a theory are related is that one begats the other – the hypothesis begats testing, and, with enough testing, it becomes a theory (Nagel & Cohen, 1934). Part 2 There is a clear relationship between theory and research. Research contributes to theory, and this is the main way that the two concepts are related. Ellis and Levy (2008) state that, at the heart of a good research goal is a problem statement – this problem statement, according to these researchers, is the centerpiece of a viable research model. The trick is to be able to ascertain exactly what is a research-worthy problem statement. The problem statement answers the “why” of the research. Ellis and Levy (2008) further state that a good problem statement would rise to the level a hypothesis, which is an educated guess, and this is how research contributes to theory – research is what creates a theory out of what was simply a hypothesis. At the same time, a good research question aids the research by delimiting the study goals – whether the study is experimental, developmental or descriptive would depend upon the research question. That said, there are two different kinds of research, qualitative and quantitative, and each contributes to theory in different ways. Qualitative research is geared towards discovering different phenomenon, which would give the researcher another theory to test (Langelett, 2003). The reason why qualitative research is able to discover new phenomenon, which would create a new theory, is because its function is in gathering information about new behaviors and practices, new ways of thinking, and new ways of structuring or organizing socially. This modifies or redirects existing ideas, and it can also produce new ideas in the process (Ambert et al., 1995). It also provides investigative depth to a particular problem or phenomenon, by delving below the surface of current awareness to find matters and issues that only are revealed by careful scrutiny (Shank & Villella, 2004). This, too, can contribute towards theory, in that it brings a depth to the theory and can find the underlying issues and underpinnings of a given theory. While qualitative research furthers theory by bringing depth to it, discovering underlying issues and by finding possible new theories, quantitative research furthers theory as well, but in a different way. Theory that is bolstered by quantative research is positivist, and what quantitative research seeks to prove is unambiguous and accurate (Hossain, 2008). Unlike qualitative research, quantitative research uses measures which are objective and precise, and the researcher’s goal in quantitative research is the production of general and predictive laws about human behavior (Hossain, 2008). Quantitative research uses statistics and the sample size is large (Hossain, 2008). Quantitative research furthers theory because it grounds the theory in precise and scientific measures – quantitative research quantifies behavior, and it begins with a hypothesis that it tests. Moreover, quantitative research furthers theory because the research extrapolates the data to the population at large – this means that the theory can be generalized to a large population, and this is the best way for the theory to be accepted by the public at large (Langelett, 2003). Also, qualitative research is interpretive, where the data is filtered through a personal lens that reflects a specific historical and sociopolitical moment. (Hossain, 2008, p. 7). Therefore, qualitative research and quantitative research contributes to theory in different ways. Qualitative research contributes to theory in that it can find different phenomenon that may become new theories, and, with existing theories, it can add depth to these theories by delving below the surface of the theory and examining aspects of the theory that might not have been brought to light without this research. Quantitative research contributes to theory by testing hypothesis, which is how a theory is created, and by giving the new theory a very sound, and scientific, underpinning. It works by bringing science and precise measures into the phenomenon under scrutiny, and this helps the theory become more firm. Part 3 Psychoanalytic theory is another mode of psychological theory. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was the founder of this theory, and his theory was that memories are repressed, which means that they are not accessed by the conscious mind, but reside entirely in the unconscious mind. These repressed memories are then converted into hysterical symptoms as a mode of release for them. Freud then came to theorize that the repressed memories are not memories at all, but, rather, desires of the patient. Freud also coined the term Oedipus Complex, to describe repressed wishes and desires that a boy has for his mother, which is sexual, and for his father, who is a threat for the boy’s feelings towards the mother (Murray, 1983). Freud also states that personality consists of the Id, Ego and Superego. The Id is instinct, and is primal and chaotic. The Superego represents the standards that have been imposed upon the person by society or the family, and these standards have been adopted by the person and incorporated into his or her personality. The Ego is the mediator between these two (Benjafield, 1996). Thus, psychoanalysis uses the concepts put forth by Freud in order to try to understand the conscious and unconscious mind, as well as to formulate treatment for conditions that are caused by these processes. The other processes that Freud pioneered, and form the basis for psychoanalytic theory, are sublimation, which is where aggressive energies are rechanneled into harmless activity, such as art; reaction formation, which is where an opposite feeling to one that is repressed is cultivated, such as when somebody has repressed hatred for somebody else and treats them tenderly; introjection, which is where an individual feels hostile towards another, yet identifies with that person; rationalization, which is where unacceptable events and impulses are justified, such as when a soldier who commits a wartime atrocity states that he or she was just following orders; and displacement, which is where hostility about one object is directed towards another object, such as when a husband is angry with his boss and takes it out on his family. Freud also pioneered the concept of libido, which means that sexual energy is at the root of most of his theories (Murray, 1983). There are many areas of controversy when it comes to this theory, which is still extremely relevant in today’s world. For instance, Busch and Milrod (2010) states that many psychotherapists are resistant to the findings of research regarding the theory. The belief is that this research misuses research tools and approaches, and that the better treatments are based upon individual experience and clinical lore. Because of this, there are few adequate studies of psychoanalytic treatment approaches. This, in turn, has led to psychoanalytic treatments being marginalized. Busch and Milrod (2010) have identified a kind of Catch-22 regarding psychoanalysis – there has not been a demonstrated efficacy of much of the treatment protocols, therefore the theory is seen as irrelevant and not practiced very much outside of the psychiatrists who specialize in this type of therapy. But the reason why there is not much demonstrated efficacy regarding the treatment is because there has been so little research on the theory. There is also a controversy that is somewhat new, in the field of psychoanalytic research. This controversy is between two schools of psychoanalytic thought – on one side are the drive theorists, and, on the other side, are the relational theorists. Taub (2009) states that the Relational School was formed in opposition of the classical Drive theory. As Taub (2009) explains it, the Relational School turns on the notion of social construction – that there is not an objective truth, but, rather, knowledge is produced in a social context and that is relative to time and space. In this view, social relations are dominant, even exclusive, to the formation of the human psyche. On the other hand, the Drive theorists have a different view of psychoanalysis – they feel that the psyche is determined by biology, and that scientific knowledge is objective, and that there can be, and is, an objective truth. The analyst was the one with the objective truth, whatever that truth might be, and this created a kind of treatment that was very autocratic and authoritarian. This was seen by the Relational School psychotherapists as dismissive and damaging – the patients might have problems with authority, because their early caretakers were unresponsive to their needs. This would be damaging to the doctor-patient relationship, because the patient might rightly feel that the therapist is dismissing them and their concerns, much like their early caretakers did. Therefore, the two sides are fundamentally at odds with one another – on one side, the human psyche is not innate, but social – whatever the psyche of the person is, it was constructed by the outside world. On the other side, there is an unchanging human nature within everybody. The Driver model is dependent upon Freud’s theories, while the Relational model is dependent upon a postmodern framework. Related to this particular controversy is the controversy about how to apply the fact that psychoanalysis is intersubjective in practice. This is assuming that it is a given that the patient is a subjective being, who is influenced by personal and idiosyncratic assumptions, concerns and motivations. These can arise from personal feelings, and it can also be cultural. Therefore, the patient is subjective, and this is expressed during the clinical situation, mostly in ways that the patient is unaware of. Moreover, this problem is compounded by the fact that the analyst is also a product of his her environment and culture, and is shaped by this as well. Therefore, the analyst needs to understand that the clinical work is influenced by a variety of different social factors, and that the emotions that the analyst might feel while counseling a patient is not necessarily how the psychotherapist is really feeling about the situation – the psychotherapist must try to ascertain what is bringing up a certain feeling while the patient is in the room, and be able to catch him or herself when something is being brought up because of a prior experience or some other kind of social cue (Renik, 2004). Conclusion There are many different psychological theories, but the problem is how are they measured, and, if they cannot be measured, how are they validated and empirically analysed? This is a controversy and question that many researchers have asked, and one solution is that overarching theories can be broken down into smaller theories that are capable of being empirically validated. That said, there are different ways that psychological theories may be validated – qualitatively and quantitatively, and both quantitative and qualitative research has ways and relations to theory and each brings a unique substance to theory. Quantitative research is what validates hypothesis and creates theory. Qualitative research is a way of finding new hypotheses and phenomenon that might be tested quantitatively, and, in the process, deepens and gives depth to the theories which are found. All of this grounds the theory of psychoanalytic research and theory, which is a study of the mind that was pioneered by Sigmund Freud, and is still in use today. While this type of psychological theory has its detractors and its controversy, and it has not been as well-researched as other theories, it is still a powerful theory that can be used to explain much psychological phenomenon, including the theories of personality, which will be the topic of the dissertation. References Ambert, A., Adler, P., Adler, P. & Detzner, D. (1995) Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 879-893. Benjafield, J. (1996) A History of Psychology.London: Allyn and Bacon. Busch, F. & Milrod, B. (2010) The ongoing struggle for psychoanalytic research: Some steps forward. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 24.4, 306-314. Ellis, T. & Levy, Y. (2008) Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The International Journal of Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17-29. Frishman, N. (2012) The contribution of three social psycheological theories: Fundamental cause theory, stress process model, and social cognitive theory to the understanding of health disparities. Graduate Theses and Dissertation, Digital Repository at Iowa State University. Gelso, C. (2006) Applying theories to research. In Thompson, J. (2006) The Psychology Research Handbook. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications. Harlow, E. (2009) Eliciting narratives of teenage pregnancy in the UK: Reflexively exploring some of the methodological challenges. Qualitative Social Work, 8.2: 211-228. Hossain, D. 20008, “Qualitative Research Process,” pp. 1-15, web accessed 24 August 2013, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287238 Langelett, G. 2003, “The Qualitative Tradition: A Complimentary Paradigm for Research in Economic Education,” web accessed 24 August 2013, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=377000 Murray, J. (1983) A History of Western Psychology.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Nagel, E. & Cohen, M. (1934) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Przeworski, A. & Limongi, F. (1997) Modernization: Theory and facts. World Politics, 49.2: 155-183. Renik, O. (2004) Intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85, 1053-1064. Santacreu Mas, J. (2013) Behavioral variability and consistency: Experimental bases for a psychological theory of personality. Escritos de Psicologia, 6.1, 20-27. Shank, G. & Villela, O. (2004) Building on new foundations: Core principles and new directions for qualitative research. Journal of Educational Research, 98.1, 46-55. Stam, H. (2007) On the uses of theory. The General Psychologist, 41.2, 29-32. Stam, H. (2010) The fault is not in ourselves, but in our methods: Comment on Schwarz. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44.4, 281-287. Suppes, P. (1967) What is a scientific theory? In Morgenbesser, S. (1967) Philosophy of Science Today, New York: Basic Books, 55-67. Taub, G. (2009) A confusion of tongues between psychoanalysis and philosophy: Is the controversy over drive verses relational theory a philosophical one? International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 90, 507-527. Trochim, WMK and Donnelly, JP. (2008) Research Methods Knowledge Database. Available at: http://anatomyfacts.com/Research/ResearchMethodsKnowledgeBase.pdf Wacker, D., Asmus, J., Harding, J., Berg, W., Derby, H. & Kochs, E. (1999) Evaluation of antecedent stimulus parameters for the treatment of escape-maintained aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 32, 495-513. Read More