LT1: Reductionism and Holism
Reductionism involves breaking down a complex phenomenon into simpler components. It implies that this process is desirable because complex phenomena are best understood in terms of a simpler level of explanation. Rose (1997) identified three kinds of reductionism:
Reductionism as a methodology: (Experimental reductionism): Reducing complex behaviours to isolated variables is a useful strategy for conducting research. It underlies the experimental approach, in which behaviours are reduced to operationalised variables that
can be manipulated to determine causal relationships.
Reductionism as an explanation: The best explanations or theories are those with the fewest sets of laws or principles. The cannon of parsimony, or Occam’s razor states that ‘of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is
preferred’.
Reductionism as a philosophy: Psychology should dovetail (fit together) seamlessly into the other sciences. If all science is unitary (one thing), we should be able to reduce all explanations of behaviour to physical laws.
Arguments FOR Reductionism
Counter arguments (or arguments AGAINST Reductionism)
1. Reductionism as a scientific approach:
Reductionism has worked well in other sciences’ – Scientific research is reductionist and has led to
many important discoveries that have enabled people to control and predict their world better,
specifically using the laboratory experiment to find causal relationships. Thus, breaking complex
behaviours down to smaller units permits us to discover causal relationships E.g., if you want to
understand stress it’s useful to understand the nervous system and the HPA and SAM systems.
1. Methodological reductionism may be appropriate for the physical sciences, but less appropriate when explaining behaviour that is more complex. Complex systems
may not behave predictably, i.e., as a simple summation of the constitute parts. This is the view of the Gestalt theories, who argued that the whole is more than the
sum of its parts. This holist approach of memory is therefore less reductionist than the multi-store model of memory. The connectionist model of memory suggests
that memory consists of an interconnection between a network of neurons, each neuron connected to an average of 10,000 other neurons.
2. Appropriate for certain levels of explanation:
Rose (1997) has distinguished between different levels of explanation, each of which has a valid
contribution to make. The lowest level is the molecular (physics), followed by the intra-cellular
(biochemistry) then parts of individuals (physiology), behaviour of individuals (psychology) and
ultimately, the behaviour of groups (sociology). We can explain any particular behaviour at all these
different levels.
For example, mental illness can be explained in physiological terms
(neurotransmitters), in terms of the psyche (unconsciousness) or in terms of social systems (family
dysfunctions).
3. Since all animals are made of atoms, our behaviour must be explainable at this level, i.e., can be
reduced to a physical level. This leads to two main assumptions. A) behaviour is nothing more than
the sum of its parts, B) There is no special ‘life force’ added to the mix, no mental events that are
independent of physical events: every physical event has a physical cause, called materialism (the
belief that there is only one physical matter).
2. Rose (1997) suggests that biologists need all five types of explanation and no one explanation is correct; it all depends of what kind of explanation is required. E.g.,
the use of anti-depressants to treat depression may miss real causes of a person’s depression such as unconscious motivated processes. Furthermore Wolpe (1973)
developed systematic desensitization and treated a woman who had a fear of insects. He found no improvement from this behavioural method of therapy and it turned
out that her husband, who she had not been getting along with had an insect name. Thus, her fear of insects was not down to conditioning but the repressed feelings
of her marital problems, thus ignoring other factors resulted initially in an inaccurate diagnoses. . The danger of lower level explanations is that they may distract us
from more appropriate levels of explanation: the administration of Clozaril to a schizophrenic may miss the real causes of the disorder such as expressed emotion or
cognitive deficits. Rose (1992) suggests that the problem of different levels can be resolved if the levels are regarded as separate and non-competing. There is
however, the question of correspondence between levels. In some cases a correspondence has been made. The discovery of specific cells in the visual cortex that
respond to the orientation of lines (lowest level) matches with psychological explanations of perception (higher levels).
3. Is the mind something physical? This is the mind, body problem. The Dualists believe that there are two types of entities: physical and mental – a physical brain
and a non-physical soul or mind that interact. The mind can indeed affect physiology. E.g., depressed patients who received psychotherapy experienced the same
changes in brain levels of serotonin and norepinephrine as those receiving drugs (Martin et al, 2001). According to Bell (2000) trying to reduce the mind to something
merely physical is to make a basic error. We observe that only certain physical events are associated with mental events: certain electrical activity in the brain (during
REM sleep) is associated with subjective reports of dreaming. Psychologists then make the error than one causes the other.
Arguments AGAINST Reductionism
Counter arguments (or arguments FOR
Reductionism)
1. Erroneous explanations of behaviour:
Methodological reductionism aims to make the study of behaviour more accessible by reducing the variables. The findings of such experimental research may not apply to
other settings because key variables have been altered by being simplified. E.g., Memory research often involves learning nonsense syllables or word lists, a simplification
of real world memory tasks. Such variables are used because they permit easy study. However, the findings are mistakenly generalised to memory in general. If memory
is studied in the ‘real world’, findings may be quite different. For example, experiments have found little evidence for long term memory, but when Bahrick studied recall
of year book photographs – data was meaningful to Pps – they found good evidence of long tem memory.
1. It is wrong to dismiss all research carried out in the lab, some of it has proven to be very
successful, e.g., Baddeley and Hitch carried out the majority of their research in the lab. However,
have successful practical applications such as children with reading problems had an impaired
memory span and had difficulties saying whether words rhymed, perhaps suggesting that there is
a phonological loop deficit. This suggests that Baddeley and Hitch’s model can be used to help
2. Inappropriate for psychology:
A second argument against reductionism is that reductionist goals are inappropriate for psychology. Humanistic psychologists (such as Rogers and Maslow) believe that it
does not make sense to study reductionist accounts of human behaviour. They promote the view of ‘emergence’, that higher level descriptions and understandings cannot
be derived from lower-level ones. E.g., Laing (1965) claimed that it is entirely inappropriate to see schizophrenia as a complex physical-chemical system that has gone
wrong. The disorder only makes sense when studied at the level of the experience, and treatment should target this level of explanation.
2. This holist view would appear to be supported by the relatively modest success achieved by
drug therapies in the treatment of illnesses. If physical-chemical explanations were appropriate,
we should see far fewer individual differences and much higher success rates. However, the
humanistic view would lead us to using more psychological treatments and these too do not have
universal success.
3. Appropriate only for certain kinds of question:
Reductionist explanations may be appropriate only for certain kinds of question. Valentine (1992) suggests that physiological explanations focus on structures whereas
holist explanations are more concerned with process. E.g., with respect to visual perception, physiologists are concerned with the structures involved (the nerve pathways,
parts of the brain, visual cortex, etc) whereas psychology is more concerned with the processes involved in it (what aspects of the environment are being perceived, what
part the brain plays, whether processing is ‘bottom up’ or ‘top down’.
3. Higher level explanations lack predictive power. It is more difficult to frame cause and effect
predictions unless one reduces complex behaviours to simpler ones. Eg., if psychologists looked at
both psychological and physical factors causing eating disorders it would mean that research
would not develop and consequently we wouldn’t have a greater understanding of HTR1D gene
and serotonin causing A.N.
improve the quality of children’s lives.
In contrast Holism: The assumption that behaviour is best explained by a holistic approach The humanistic approach emerged as a reaction against those dehumanising psychological perspectives that attempted to reduce behaviour to a set of simple elements.
Humanistic psychologists feel that holism is the only valid approach to the complete understanding of mind and behaviour, which they achieve by using clinical interviews. E.g., Maslow’s work on the motivation behind human behaviour. Rather than simply focusing on one
1.Discuss the value of a reductionist approach to psychological theory and/or research (30 marks) 2. a) Explain what is meant by ‘reductionism’ in psychology (5 marks)
b) With reference to two or more areas of psychology, discuss difference examples of
reductionism (25 marks) 3. Describe and evaluate arguments for reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks) 4. Describe and evaluate arguments against reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks)
LT1: Reductionism and Holism
level of motivation for human behaviour, Maslow identified several levels of needs ranging from basic biological drives at the bottom of the hierarchy to psychological drives such as ‘self-actualisation’ at the top. This suggests that behaviour is better understood by looking at
the whole picture rather than a single factor.
Research
Evaluation
1.Physiological Reductionism:
Because human beings are biological organisms, it should be possible to reduce even complex behaviours
down to neurophysiological components. There is a clear advantage to this, as it leads to the application of
concise and concrete concepts, which are then susceptible to scientific methods of research (Wadeley et al.
1997). E.g., Schizophrenia is thought to be caused by excessive activity in the biochemical
neurotransmitter dopamine. Evidence of the importance of dopamine in schizophrenia comes,
in part, from the discovery that antipsychotic drugs that reduce dopamine activity in the brain
may also reduce the symptoms of the disorder. Thus, schizophrenia is thought to be controlled
by drugs. This theory therefore de-emphasises the importance of environmental factors in the
development of the disorder.
1. Physiological explanations of mental illness have led to drug treatments. A strength of such treatments has been the
considerable reduction in institutionalisation since the 1950’s. Furthermore, it is more humane approach to the treatment of mental
illness as it does not blame the individual, which may create more tolerance of mental illness in society. Furthermore there are
issues of severe side effects and only dealing with the symptoms of the disorder and not the cause. This suggest that reducing
mental illness to the physiological level ignores context and the function of such behaviour, and therefore psychological explanations
need to be considered.
 Another strength of physiological reductionism is biochemistry, physiology, psychology and sociology are all concerned with
human functioning, so there is some overlap with their subject matter. This is particularly the case with brain imaging. Which
provides information about activity in different parts of the brain when performing a task. E.g., looking at the brain can help
psychologists look at language, aggression, etc.
 Most theorists agree that schizophrenia is caused by a combination of factors. Genetic and biological factors may establish
predispositions to develop the disorder; factors such as stress help to worsen the symptoms. The Diathesis Stress Model can explain
behaviour like this.
 Examples such as schizophrenia show us that complex phenomena cannot easily be explained simply by reference to physiological
imbalance. The influence of these brain chemicals is indisputable, but to argue that they cause schizophrenia is to neglect all other
potential influences in the course of this disorder. It may well be that, for example, stress is the ultimate cause of the disorder,
which then creates physiological imbalances – the proximate cause.
2. Evolutionary reductionism: evolutionary psychologists explain behaviour in terms of natural selection
and sexual selection. Such explanations are reductionist because they suggest all behaviour can be
reduced to genetic influences and the principle of adaptiveness. Relationships are formed on the basis
of evolution and natural selection. Males are attracted to women who are fertile, as they need
to ensure their genes are passed on. This leads to men seeking young women with big breasts
and hour glass figures. Females are attracted to men who are well off, irrespective of their
age. This is so they can be sure there will be sufficient resources to ensure the survival of their
children. People who have failed to form relationships on these grounds in the past have not
passed their genes on to us as those genes are not adaptive. This suggests that relationships
are best understood in evolutionary terms, so again, higher level explanations are redundant.
3. Environmental reductionism: behaviourist explanations suggest that all behaviour can be explained
in terms of stimulus-response links, i.e., can be reduced to a simple relationship between behaviour and
events in the environment. E.g., Attachment: According to behaviourists, attachment is
determined by classical and operant conditioning. With the former, the person feeding an
infant comes to produce a conditioned response (pleasure) through being associated with food
(an unconditioned stimulus). With the latter, the person feeding the infant becomes a
secondary reinforcer because s/he is supplying food, which is in turn a primary reinforcer,
reducing an unpleasant hunger drive and thus rewarding.
2.  Evolutionary explanations are unfalsifiable. The reason for this is because they are not able to be scientifically tested. Thus, it
is very difficult to test if men and women have really evolved to look for a partner because of physical features or whether there are
other features involved. Therefore, this approach cannot be tested scientifically.
 A second weakness is that the evolutionary theories may be undesirable because they distract us from other possible explanations
and oversimplify reality.
 However, they increase understanding because they help us to make sense of behaviours that would otherwise not make sense
because they focus on adaptiveness and function, i.e., they focus on ultimate causes of behaviour rather than proximate one. E.g.,
an ultimate explanation of relationships might be that the people simply wanted to have children however the proximate cause may
be due to people wanting to feel good about them self and even show off their attractiveness or their partners attractiveness.
 Wilson (1978) claims that genes hold culture on a leash, but the problem according to Gould (1987) is in determining the length
of the leash. If it is only a foot long, then society has little room to manoeuvre and change, but if the leash is ten feet long, biology
would only establish a broad range of possibilities. Therefore, it can be suggested that genes are not the only cause of behaviour.
3.  Behaviourist explanations are oversimplifications: Restricting ourselves to the study of only one influence at a time may make
sense in the context of a laboratory science, but we may miss the complexity of influences on any one behaviour. These influences
interact in complicated ways and it can be frustratingly difficult to ascertain which, if any, of them is really causing the behaviour.
 In a world dominated by either reinforcement or punishment, it might appear that the only way to motivate people is with the
‘carrot and stick’. Kohn (1993) argues that this sort of ‘pop behaviourism’ distracts us from asking whether the behaviour being
reinforced is worthwhile in the first place. Skinner never believed that life should be reduced to the mindless use of reinforces.
 The behavioural approach is reductionist because it has developed as a result of experiments using non-human animals. Such
explanations may not be appropriate for more complex human behaviour. Humans are not scales-up versions of other animals: their
behaviour is influenced by social context, intentions, etc. Even in non-human animals, reductionist explanations ignore other
possible influences such as cognitive and/or emotional factors.
4.  One weakness of the machine approach is that the Multi-store model is reductionist and linear account of how memory works.
More recent developments in cognitive psychology have represented mental functions such as connectionist networks. The links
develop through experience, each new experience strengthening or weakening the links. Connectionist networks are described as
holist because the network as a whole behaves differently from the individual parts; linear models assume that the sum of parts
1.Discuss the value of a reductionist approach to psychological theory and/or research (30 marks) 2. a) Explain what is meant by ‘reductionism’ in psychology (5 marks)
b) With reference to two or more areas of psychology, discuss difference examples of
reductionism (25 marks) 3. Describe and evaluate arguments for reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks) 4. Describe and evaluate arguments against reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks)
LT1: Reductionism and Holism
4. Machine reductionism: Is used by the cognitive approach when it likens the human mind to a
computer. This type of information-processing approach explain behaviour in terms of encoding, storage
and retrieval, exemplified in some models of memory. E.g., The Multi-store model of memory maintains
that there is simply a SM, STM and LTM, with rehearsal.
equals the whole.
 A second weakness of machine reductionism is that it omits many factors determining human behaviour. For example, human
cognition and behaviour are strongly influenced by motivational and emotional factors, but a computer’s functioning is not influenced
by goals or its mood.
1.Discuss the value of a reductionist approach to psychological theory and/or research (30 marks) 2. a) Explain what is meant by ‘reductionism’ in psychology (5 marks)
b) With reference to two or more areas of psychology, discuss difference examples of
reductionism (25 marks) 3. Describe and evaluate arguments for reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks) 4. Describe and evaluate arguments against reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks)
LT1: Reductionism and Holism
1.Discuss the value of a reductionist approach to psychological theory and/or research (30 marks) 2. a) Explain what is meant by ‘reductionism’ in psychology (5 marks)
b) With reference to two or more areas of psychology, discuss difference examples of
reductionism (25 marks) 3. Describe and evaluate arguments for reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks) 4. Describe and evaluate arguments against reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks)