• This section deals with
metatheory
– The theory of theories (!?!)
• Theory:
– Statement about an observed
phenomenon
– Used to predict something about
it
– Can take any form (does not
have to resemble The Thing)
• Explanation
– A statement about reality
– Stating one thing in terms of
other things
– Used to understand something
1
• Why are you copying these
notes down?
– (A) “I need them later to study
from, it makes sense to do so”
– (B) That is what students do
during a lecture, even though
many don’t look at those notes
again
• Which of the two reasons is it?
• Could it be a bit of both?
– Seems most of our actions are
determined by a mix of individual
and group forces
2
• If it is partly a case of both, use
both!
• Sticking to just one is an error!
– You’re leaving stuff out!
– Reductionism (favouring one
explanation for phenomenon
over all others)
• Examples of reductionist
explanations:
– “depression is a chemical
inbalance”
– “the development of neuroses is
determined by early family life”
3
• “Depression is a chemical
inbalance”
– Evidence: all depressed people
have decreased levels of
serotonin
– Plus: giving a depressed person
a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor
makes them feel better
– BUT: fighting with your in-laws
can lead to depression (where’s
the chemistry?)
– BUT: Having your soccer team
lose the world cup can lead to
depression (where’s the
chemistry?)
– Chemistry hypothesis is true, but
also false
4
• The development of neuroses
is determined by early family
life
– Evidence: Look at the family
histories of neurotics – all
troublesome
– Helping people deal with early
family issues can reduce
neurotic symptoms
– BUT: in one disturbed family,
some kids become neurotic,
others not
– BUT: giving a neurotic
medication can reduce their
symptoms
5
• Psychological phenomena are
complex
– Difficult for simple theories to
completely explain them
• Where does the complexity
come from?
– Are we not just little molecules?
– A system with many small,
simple parts can show emergent
behaviours
– Emergent behaviour - Very
simple rules can lead to amazing
stuff you’d never expect
6
• Emergent behaviour example
– (Don’t copy this down)
• Imagine 3 groups of little bobs,
A, B, C
• A bobs love Bs and hate Cs
• B bobs love Cs and hate As
• C bobs love As and hate Bs
• Bobs move straight towards
the ones they love, run straight
away from those they hate
• Create 1000 bobs, make them
leave a little trail
7
8
• Reductionist explanations
could never explain why the
picture is curvy
– Need to consider not only the
love/hate force, but the effect of
the other bobs
• Psychology (especially social)
is a bit like that
– Consider: chemistry, personality,
group membership, political
belief, etc.
– Our current “theory technology”
only allows for “reductionist”
theories
• Douh! Help!
9
• We need to fix this “individualgroup” controversy
• Doise gives one possible
solution
– Theories can be placed into
“levels of analysis”
– Helps to check if you are being
reductionist in your explanation
– Not quite perfect, but helpful
10
• Doise’s Solution
• Gives a different way to think
about theories
– Not about reality itself
• It is a new “toolbox” for people
trying to explain behaviour –
says nothing about the
behaviour itself
• Allows you to combine many
theories to explain behaviour
more fully
– Helps get rid of reductionism
11
• How it works:
• Any theory (present & future)
fits into one of the 4 levels:
– Intra-personal
– Inter-personal
– Positional
– Ideological
• Then select theories from
different levels to explain a
phenomenon
– Using theories from the same
level won’t solve the
reductionism
– Each level captures a different
theoretical slant on reality
12
• Level 1: Intra-personal theories
– Explain things in terms of forces
inside a single person
– These forces can be biological,
psychological or mystical!!
• Examples:
– “crowd violence occurs due to
personality factors of the
perpetrators”
– “Samurai warriors committed
ritual suicide (sepuku) to express
their honour”
13
• Level 2: Inter-personal theories
– Focuses on the forces between
actors in a situation, not the
actors themselves
– Assumes that same results
would occur if different
individuals were in the same
spots
– “crowd violence occurs because
both sides work each other up”
– “Sepuku allowed the head of a
family to erase the dishonour of
his family, and thus improve
relations between his family and
others”
14
• Level 3: positional theories
– Focuses on differences of
status/power between groups
– The actors are not
interchangeable; the social
status they bring with them is
very important
– “crowd violence is a minority’s
expression of their
disempowerment; it is an attempt
to improve their position”
– “The daimyo (feudal lords)
encouraged the practice of
sepuku among their warriors as
a way of ensuring the fighting
force was effective and loyal”
15
• Level 4: Ideological theories
– Focus on a culture/groups
shared ideas of how groups
should relate
– Ideologies delimit our behaviour,
so studying how people adhere
to them can explain social
activity
– “crowd violence occurs because
the crowd holds the belief that
change can only occur through
action”
– “Samurai warriors committed
sepuku because it was part of
the bushido code of conduct they
believed in”
16
• These four levels let you avoid
reductionism
– Analyse a phenomenon from
various levels
• Does not really explain how the
levels fit together
– Just adding more stuff!
– What stuff belongs together?
– Is it simply addition, or do the
levels have some other
relationship between them?
17
• Doise: the 4 levels must articulate
– The social actor engages all 4 levels
simultaneously
– explanations must reflect this
• What is articulation?
– Doise is not too clear (!)
– Each level contributes to the whole
(linking) – eg. Seeing the team lose
lowers serotonin, etc
– Consider how each level affects the
others
18
• Each level is like the wagon of a
train
– Each pulls the others
– The others pull it
– Separated, but connected in
purpose
• Articulation focuses on how
changes on one level will affect
the other levels
– In-laws visit; cultural tension (2)
– Cultural tension leads to prejudice
(2 → 1)
– Prejudice leads to stereotyping
(2 → 3)
– Leads to anger (3 → 1)
– Leads to racist comments (3 → 2)
19
• Notice that any two levels can
articulate (eg 4 → 1)
– Not quite like a train!
• Does Doise’s scheme work?
Three questions to ask:
– Is it complete?
– Does it solve the individualgroup problem?
– Is the “articulation” idea
nonsense?
20
• Q1: Is it complete?
• Why 4 levels?
– Others have similar schemes
with different numbers (7, 3, etc)
– These other schemes seem
equally sensible
– Doise does not justify his choice
• Arbitrariness is a bad thing!
– Add another pointless level;
have you improved it?
21
• You can always add levels
– Add more “detail”
• Having 4 levels itself is not an
error
– The error is not justifying why he
restricted it to 4 levels
• Why didn’t he do it?
– Difficult to do
– Ends up as a fight with other
psychologists
– Might have considered it a small
problem in comparison to
articulation
22
• Q2: Does it solve the
individual-group
problem?
• What is the individual-group
problem?
– Convert 2 things into 1
• Doesn’t Doise’s scheme
actually make it worse?
– Convert 4 things into 1 (!)
• Not true!
– Articulation idea prevents this
from happening
– “4 things plus recipe for making
them into 1”
23
• Q3: Is the articulation idea
nonsense?
• His most important idea
• Very vague about the idea
• “it’s good cause it works” –
proof by example
• What is the relationship
between the levels?
– Is it causal?
– Up or Down?
• Not finished yet?
24