The Four Mainstream Approaches to Psychology - Research Paper Example

Critical Psychology Critical psychology was borne out of a need for a change in the usual and traditional methods and approaches in psychology. It is a field of psychology that focuses on more innovative and evolutionary ways of interpreting human behaviour. Critical psychology criticizes the mainstream approaches for being outdated and rigid. This paper now presents the four mainstream approaches to psychology, critically evaluates them, and reviews them from the point of view of critical psychology. Four mainstream approaches in psychology The four mainstream approaches in psychology are the behaviourist, humanistic, cognitive, and psychoanalytic approaches. These mainstream approaches are most commonly taught in universities and colleges and more often used by clinicians and researchers in explaining human behaviour (Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997, p.4). The behaviourist or behaviourism approach is concerned mainly with observable behaviour as opposed to unseen emotions like feelings or thoughts. This approach believes that behaviour manifests as a response to a stimulus. It also believes that our behaviour is largely determined by our environment (Simply Psychology, n.d.). The humanistic approach emphasizes on the importance of studying consciousness and human experience in order to completely explain behaviour. It highlights the importance of “more individualistic and idiographic methods of study, particularly in the areas of personality and abnormality” (Walker, n.d). It also focuses on the value of responsibility and freedom of choice. The cognitive approach in psychology focuses on our thought processes, how we think-and how such thought processes affect our behaviour (Psychologist World, 2008). This approach focuses on using the scientific approach in explaining human behaviour. “Cognitive… psychologists attempt to create rules and explanations of human behaviour and eventually generalize them to everyones behaviour” (Psychologist World, 2008). The psychodynamic approach was popularized by several psychologists. Sigmund Freud founded this approach which “emphasized the influence of the unconscious mind on behaviour” (Wagner, 2008a). He believed that the mind was composed of three elements: id, ego, and superego. Erik Erickson’s approach was also classified as psychodynamic. He expanded on Freud’s theories and emphasized the importance of growth throughout the lifespan. Critical evaluation of the mainstream approaches These mainstream approaches to psychology have been criticized by various practitioners, especially by emerging critical psychologists. They believe that mainstream psychology does not “scrutinize the social moral and political implications of research, theory and practice” (Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997, p.4). The behaviourism approach to psychology draws its strength from easily quantifiable human behaviour. This focus enables behaviourism to predict and initiate possible changes in children and adults. However, this approach has been criticized for being one-dimensional. Many clinicians argue that behaviourism ignores free will and other internal factors in explaining human behaviour like-mood, thoughts and feelings. Critics believe that this approach relies too heavily on predictable patterns of behaviour that are often not applicable to different people in different circumstances. It rests on the idea that humans are predictable and would manifest similar patterns of behaviour regardless of their biological and environmental differences. Because of this belief in predictability, humans are unfairly branded by behaviourists as unsurprising and conventional. The flaw in these labels is blatantly obvious. The humanistic approach to psychology is largely criticized for not having an integrated or clearly defined theory. Many clinicians claim that it does not have any concrete ideas when it comes to specific issues. Its explanations and analysis of human behaviour is vague at best and because of this, it falls short in helping those with severe personality disorders. On a positive note, though, this approach is lauded by many practitioners for providing a healthy focus on the positive nature of man. It easily fits in with other approaches and “many therapists have adopted a humanistic undertone in their work with clients”. It stirs away from the more specific pictures that other approaches to psychology advocate, and focuses on a more open analysis to human behaviour. The cognitive approach to psychology finds its strength in focusing on current information. It gives great credit to what is actually happening to the client, not on what happened to him in the past. Many practitioners see this as a great advantage “because details about a person’s past are often unclear, irrelevant, misleading and misremembered” (National Grid for Learning, n.d). Hence, what happened to a person in the past may not actually help in explaining and understanding what is happening to a person now. This detachment to a person’s history has led many clinicians to criticize the cognitive approach for being effect-oriented, not cause-oriented. They believe that, indeed, the cognitive approach may be able to change a patient’s external thoughts; however, the cause of the abnormality will remain and will continue to affect a person’s thoughts. Nothing less than a thorough history-taking would be able reveal causes of psychosis ranging from the medical, the environmental, to the cultural aspects of a person’s life (National Grid for Learning, n.d.).   The psychodynamic approach by Freud and Erickson is the leading approach being used in experimental psychology. It has laid the ground for practices in psychology that have earned much credence to many current practitioners. They theorize that a person’s behaviour have much to do with their defence mechanisms, their unconscious mind, and their childhood experiences. However, many clinicians claim that this approach is not very scientific, and its results are subjective and cannot be generalized to a bigger population. It assumes that people act and react in the same way; it rejects the notion of free will—that different people may manifest different reactions to the same phenomenon (Simply Psychology, n.d). These assumptions are clearly questionable and faulty. Critical evaluation of the mainstream approaches in psychology with the framework for critical psychology Critical psychology criticized the mainstream approaches in psychology primarily for perceiving research as facts which are devoid of personal considerations. They also put forth that mainstream approaches define problems and solutions in terms of intrapersonal and interpersonal shortcomings. And the political and power arrangements and interactions in society do not play a part in the problem or the solution. Mainstream psychology largely perceives the “good life based on individualism and accumulation of wealth” (Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997, p. 11). Critical psychology criticizes mainstream psychology for legitimizing power acquired through knowledge and learning. They believe that this move, would lead to minimal concern for power sharing. The behaviourist approach is criticized by critical psychology for ignoring other more internal factors in explaining human behaviour. They believe that “the claims that psychologists make about human beings often seem to vanish almost as quickly as they are discovered” (Parker, 2007). Critical psychologists believe that people can be unpredictable and they criticize the behaviorists for ignoring other signs that would more clearly explain human behavior. The humanistic approach is also criticized by critical psychology for remaining noncommittal about political status quo and social change (Prilleltensky, 1992). According to critical psychology, the humanistic approach “is too vague, in the sense that the concepts used are ambiguous and subject to individual interpretation” (Child 1973 as cited by Glover & Ronning 1987, p 168). Hence, they believe that this approach is very unpredictable and unstable as a theory and as a science. The cognitive approach is criticized by critical psychology for being too simple and unrealistic, overly hypothetical and unfeeling. They believe that this approach ignores human actions, emotions, consciousness, and free will (Nationmaster, 2005). They believe that by focusing too much on a person’s thought processes, the cognitive approach has failed miserably in explaining human emotions and behaviour. Finally, according to the critical approach to psychology, the psychodynamic approach is not scientific and has very little supporting evidence. Its theories rely on untested and unproven observations that have undergone subjective analysis (A Level Support, n.d). Hence, as far as critical psychology is concerned, this approach has little credibility and objectivity. The four mainstream approaches presented above cover traditional beliefs to explain human behavior. They explain human conduct through observable behavior, consciousness and human experience, thought processes, and manifestations of the unconscious mind. Each approach has its own area of concentration. Because of this, it has been largely criticized for being too rigid, for not allowing other possible explanations and views to explain human behavior. Critical psychology makes possible a more flexible approach to psychology. It allows for human behavior to be explained using more progressive views and contemporary ideas. For the doors and ideas it has now opened, critical psychology has become the more flexible and acceptable approach in explaining human behavior.  Works Cited Behaviorism (n.d) Simply Psychology, viewed 28 October 2008 from http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/behaviourism.html Cognitive Approach to psychology 2008, Psychologist World, viewed 28 October 2008 from http://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/ Cognitive approach in psychology 2005, Nationmaster, viewed 29 October 2008 from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Cognitive-approach-in-psychology Glover, J & Ronning, R. 1987, Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Individual Differences, New York: Plenum Press. Humanistic Psychology 25 October 2005, Mental Help.Net, viewed 28 October 2008 from http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8142&cn=91 Keegan, G. (n.d.) The Biological Approach, Gerald Keegan and his Psychology Site, viewed 29 October 2008 from http://www.gerardkeegan.co.uk/index.htm Parker, I. 2007, Critical Psychology: What It Is and What It Is Not, Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1–15, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00008.x Prilleltensky, I. & Fox, D. 1997, Critical Psychology: An Introduction, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Prilleltensky, I. 1992 Humanistic Psychology, Human Welfare and the Social Order. The Journal of Mind And Behaviour, Autumn, Volume 13, Number 4 ps 315-327 Psy 1- Approaches in Psychology (n.d) National Grid for Learning Cymru, viewed 28 October 2008 from  www.ngfl-cymru.org.uk/vtc/ngfl/psychology/psy_1.doc Psychodynamic Approach (n.d), Simply Psychology, viewed 17 November 2008 from http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/psychodynamic.html Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000, Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. Vol. 55(1) 5-14 The Psychodynamic Approach, (n.d) A Level Support, viewed 28 October 2008 from http://bedsonpsych.com/index.php Wagner, K. 2008a, Psychoanalysis: The Psychodynamic Approach, About.com., viewed 28 October 2008 from http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/psychodynamic.htm Wagner, K. 2008b, What is Behaviorism?, About.com, viewed 28 October 2008 from http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/f/behaviorism.htm Walker, P. (n.d). Approaches to Psychology, Mrs. Walker’s World on the Web, viewed 29 October 2008 from http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:CHWQn8_gnT4J:socialscientist.us/nphs/psychIB/psychpdfs/PerspectivesProCons.pdf+psychoanalytic+approach+to+psychology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=ph Read More