# data[].attributes.body
Biological approach & psychodynamic approach ( similarities )

The biological approach argues that everything psychological is at first biological. If we want to fully understand human behaviour we must look to biological structures and processes within the body such as; genes. The approach also states that behaviour has a genetic and neurochemical basis, it is inherited in the same way as physical characteristics such as; height. This indicates that the mind and the body and one and the same, the mind lives in the brain .

Twin studies are used to investigate the genetic basis of behaviour . Concordance rates between twins are calculated ( the extent to which twins share the same characteristics) . Higher concordance rates among MZ twins than DZ is evidence of a genetic basis. 68% of MZ twins both have OCD compared with 31% of DZ twins ( Nestadt et al 2010) .

The theory of evolution is used by the biological approach to explain many aspects of behaviour. Charles Darwin ( 1859) proposed the theory of natural selection. Any genetically determined behaviour that enhances survival and reproduction will be passed on to future generations. Such genes are described as adaptive and give the possessor and their offsprings advantages.

One similarity between the Biological approach and the psychodynamic approach is that they are both nature in the nature vs nurture debate. In the psychodynamic approach behaviour is the product of innate drives, but shaped by early childhood experiences, making it nature. And in the biological approach behaviour is the result of innate biological factors ( genes , hormones ) making it nature and putting more emphasis on a persons biology rather than the environment.

Another similarity is that they are both reductionist . In the biologically approach behaviour is broken down into biological structures and processes, examining humans. In the psychodynamic approach behaviour is reduced to innate drives , while taking into account the multiple aspects of human behaviour.

Lastly , both approaches are nomothetic, BA creates universal laws, as humans share similar physiologies , PA attempts to establish general laws in relation to innate drives, whilst considering unique experience, so also being idiographic.

# data[].attributes.body
Psychodynamic and Social Learning Theory : Differences

The psychodynamic approach believes that human behaviour is due to our unconscious mind and also our childhood experiences. Freud believed that the personality is split into three; the Id which works on the pleasure principle, the superego which works on our morality principle and the ego which balances the wishes between the Id and the supergo. This approach also uses the idea of defence mechanisms which prevents a person from dealing with vast levels of emotion and protects them. This is done through denial whereby a person refuses to accept reality, repression where the person pushes anxiety provoking thoughts into the unconscious mind and displacement whereby a person places these thoughts onto something else which is less anxiety provoking.

The social Learning theory states that behaviour is learnt through the observation and imitation of role models. There are three stages which a person goes through when learning a behaviour: Modelling, Identification, Vicarious reinforcement, Imitation and Mediational processes. These process acknowledges how the external environment can affect behaviour however under mediational processes it includes: Attention, Retention, Reproduction and Motivation.

One main difference between the approaches is that the social learning theory is seen as more scientific than the psychodynamic approach. This is because the SLT uses scientific methods of investigation such as the Bobo Doll study carried out by Bandura. Lab experiments are highly controlled therefore you are able to establish cause and effect, in this case, Bandura was able to conclude that children do learn from role models. On the other hand, the psychodynamic approach is not scientific as many concepts cannot be empirically tested such as the unconscious mind meaning that it relies on subjective interpretation. Therefore, the SLT can be seen as a more reliable explanation of human behaviour as their concepts can be backed up by scientific evidence.

Another difference is that the SLT believes that behaviour is due to nurture whereas the psychodynamic approach believes that behaviour is due to most nature. The SLT argues that behaviour is learnt from observation from role models and vicarious reinforcement which are all external sources. The psychodynamic approach believes that behaviour is the product of innate drives such as the unconscious mind. This suggests that both approaches are different in terms of their position on the nature-nurture debate as they disagree on whether behaviour is due to external sources beyond our control or whether they are innate. Consequently, it may be better to take an interactionist approach as it takes into account both sides of the nature-nurture debate.

Furthermore, a difference includes the approach they take when studying human behaviour. The SLT takes a nomothetic approach which aims to establish general laws of behaviour such as the idea of vicarious reinforcement, this is done through lab experiments to establish cause and effect. On the contrary, the psychodynamic approach brings in a partial idiographic approach due to the use of case studies such as Little Hans to express the idea of displacement in terms of defence mechanisms. They also take into consideration unique experiences individuals may have during childhood. Therefore this highlights the different positions they take on the nomothetic and idiographic debate, it can be argued that the psychodynamic approach is preferred as it does also include aspects of a nomothetic approach whilst taking into account different experiences of the individual.

It can be argued that the approaches are different in terms of the type of determinism they suffer from. For example, the SLT has been criticised for being a form of soft determinism as they believe that behaviour is controlled by environmental forces however they have personal responsibility and free choice. On the other hand, the psychodynamic approach differs from psychic determinism as behaviour is determined by unconscious drives and early childhood experiences. This implies that although both approaches have been criticised for being deterministic, the SLT takes into account aspects of free will whereas the psychodynamic approach does not and believes that behaviour is due to childhood experiences making it a less credible explanation of behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline + AO3 differences: Cognitive + SLT:

The cognitive approach states that human behaviour is influenced by internal mental processes. Cognitive psychologists perceive the brain as an information processor and use computer/theoretical models to help understand behaviour. They often use inference when analysing their findings, which is reaching logical conclusions based on current evidence.The computer model explains behaviour in terms of input, processing and output. Whilst theoretical models such as the Working Memory Model (WMM) are used by cognitive psychologists to explain processes such as memory. In contrast, the Social Learning Theory (SLT) explains behaviour by combining behaviourist theory with the role of cognitive factors. Bandura agrees with Behaviourists that much of our behaviour is learned from experience (nurture). However, the SLT suggests people learn through observation and imitation of others within a social context.The SLT consists of modelling, identification, vicarious reinforcement and mediational processes which in turn, decides whether the behaviour is then imitated.One difference between the cognitive approach and the SLT is their opposing positions within the nurture vs nature debate. For example, the SLT supports the nurture side of the debate because they believe that behaviour is learnt from observation and vicarious reinforcement. On the other hand, the cognitive approach supports both the nature and nurture sides of the debate as they recognise that many of information processing abilities are innate (nature), but are constantly refined by personal experiences (nurture). This suggests a minimal difference between the two approaches as the cognitive approach supports both sides of the nature vs nurture debate whereas, the SLT only supports the nurture side of the debate. Therefore, the SLT is more useful and holistic as it supports both sides of the nurture, nature debate.In addition, another difference between the cognitive approach and the SLT is their positions in the reductionist vs. holism debate. For example, the SLT is a combination of both behaviourist and cognitive aspects. Whereby, it recognises how cognitive factors interact with the external environment. Thus, it is partially reductionist. Whereas, the cognitive approach investigates behaviour using computer models. Thus, leading to machine reductionism. This suggests a difference between the two approaches as the SLT is less reductionist than the cognitive approach, for acknowledging both the behaviourist and cognitive approach in its investigations. Therefore, the SLT may be a more holistic explanation of human behaviours as it considers more aspects than the cognitive approach.Lastly, another difference between the cognitive approach and the SLT is their positions in the nomothetic vs. idiographic debate. For example, the SLT is nomothetic as it attempts to establish general laws of behaviour (e.g. vicarious reinforcement). Whereas, the cognitive approach is both nomothetic and idiographic as it attempts to establish general laws of cognitive processing (nomothetic) but uses case studies (idiographic). This suggests a minimal difference between the two approaches as the cognitive approach can be regarded as both idiographic and nomothetic, whereas the SLT is purely nomothetic. Therefore, the cognitive approach may be a more accurate as although it is nomothetic, like the SLT, it also adopts a partially idiographic approach.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline + AO3 Differences essay:

Behaviourist and Humanistic

The main assumption of the behaviourist approach is that humans are born as ‘tabula rasa’ blank states and all behaviour is learnt through our environment, this means that if behaviour can be learnt and therefore unlearnt. Behaviourist believe human and animals learn in the same way, which is why animals are used in investigations to explain behaviour. There are two main principles of the behaviourist approach; Classical conditioning, learning through association and Operant conditioning, learning through reinforcement.

The main assumption of the humanistic approach is that humans are unique and should be examined as a whole by examining their own subjective personal experience. A central concept of this approach is that humans have free will, are self-determining and responsible for their behaviour. Maslow states that people strive for self-actualisation and have an innate tendency towards growth and the fulfilment of their potential. To reach self-actualisation humans have to achieve all aspects within each of the stages.

One difference between the behaviourist and humanistic approach is their position on the free will – determinism debate. For example, the behaviourist approach states that behaviour is solely determined by classical and operant conditioning and fails to acknowledge the role of choice when a performing a behaviour making it environmentally deterministic. One the other hand, the humanistic approach states the behaviour is a result of free will and humans control their own environment and are capable of change. This shows. This shows that there are clear difference differences between both approaches in that they disagree to the extent to which people control their own lives and behaviours.

Another differences between the approaches is their position of their holism – reductionism debate. For instance, the behaviourist approach is environmentally reductionist as behaviour is broken down into single stimulus-response associations and the role of emotion and cognition is ignored. However, the humanistic approach is the only holistic approach as it focuses on understanding all aspects of human experience and interaction rather than breaking it down to constituent parts. This shows that there are clear differences between behaviourism and humanism in the way they break down and explain behaviour.

Additionally, another difference between the approaches is there approach to investigating behaviour. For example, the behaviourist approach takes a nomothetic approach as it attempts to establish general laws as behaviour is a result of stimulus-response associations whereas the humanistic approach takes an idiographic approach as it focuses on the subjective human experience and makes no attempt to establish general laws. This means that there are clear difference between the approaches in their position on the idiographic and nomothetic debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline + AO3 Similarities essay: Cognitive and Humanistic

The cognitive approach argues that mental processes should be studied, but that mental processes must be indirectly studied by making inferences, as they cannot be directly observed. Inferences are assumptions made about a person’s mental processes based on their behaviour, which can be observed directly. Computer analogies are often made between how a computer works and how we process information. Theoretical models are used to explain mental processes as information flow through the sequence of the stages of input, storage and retrieval. Computer models are computer programs used to imitate the human mind, which help to test information processing theories.

The Humanistic approach states that humans are unique and that general laws and scientific principles of human behaviour are not appropriate. That approach states a person-centred approach should be adopted, where the subjective experience is studied. Free will is a central concept in the humanistic approach, which states that humans are self-determining and responsible for their behaviour. The approach states that people strive for self-actualisation and have an innate tendency towards growth and the fulfilment of their potential.

One similarity between the cognitive approach and humanistic approach is that they both acknowledge free will. The cognitive approach states that while behaviour is controlled by mediational processes, that humans can choose how to act upon the information they focus on, taking a soft determinism position in the free will and determinism debate. Similarly, the humanistic approach states that humans have free will. The approach argues that humans can control their own environment, are capable of change and self-determination. This shows that there are clear similarities between both approaches as they both acknowledge that people have free will over their behaviour. Therefore, both may be limited because they do not acknowledge the influence of biological factors, such as inherited mental disorders, on behaviour.

Another similarity between the cognitive approach and the humanistic approach is that they both acknowledge the influence of nurture on human behaviour. The cognitive approach argues that while behaviour is the product of innate information processing, it is modified by ones’ experience and environment. Similarly, the humanistic approach takes a mostly nurture position in the nature and nurture debate, arguing that behaviour is shaped by one’s environment as humans strive to achieve self-actualisation. This shows that there are clear similarities between both approaches as they both acknowledge that nurture influences behaviour.

Additionally, the cognitive approach and the humanistic approach take similar positions in the idiographic and nomothetic debate, by acknowledging the merits of an idiographic approach. The cognitive approach, though it attempts to establish general laws of cognitive processing, utilises an idiographic approach with case studies, acknowledging that humans are unique as the humanistic approach does. The humanistic approach focuses on subjective human experience and does not attempt to create general laws. This shows that there are clear similarities between both approaches as they both acknowledge that an idiographic approach can be appropriate.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline + AO3 differences: Cognitive & Humanistic Approach

AO1:

The cognitive approach argues that mental processes should be studied. Mental processes are ‘private' and cannot be observed so cognitive psychologists make inferences about behaviour.

Computer models are used to explain information processing. This approach suggests that information flows through a sequence of stages that include input, storage and retrieval.

The cognitive approach also uses schema to explain behaviour. Schema are packages of information developed through experience. They act as a ‘mental framework' for the interpretation of incoming information received by the cognitive system.

Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific study of the influence of brain structures on mental processes. With advances in brain scanning technology in the last 20 years, scientists have been able to describe the neurological basis of mental processing. Scanning techniques have also proved useful in establishing the neurological basis is some disorders such as the parahippocampal gyrus and OCD

AO3:

One difference between the cognitive approach and the psychodynamic approach is that they are both on opposing position within the free will vs determinism debate. For example the cognitive approach is deterministic because they believe that behaviour is controlled by mediational processes. On the other hand, the humanistic approach takes the free will side because they believe that humans control their own environment and are capable of change. This shows that there are clear difference differences between both approaches in that they disagree to the extent to which people control their own lives and futures. Therefore, it is unlikely that either approaches is fully accurate and valid.

Another difference between the cognitive and humanistic approach is that they are both on opposing position within the reductionist vs holding debate. For example, the cognitive approach has experimental reductionism because behaviour is investigated in terms of isolated variables such as capacity and duration. Whereas the humanistic approach is holistic and they focus on understanding all aspects of human experience and interaction. This shows that there are clear differences between the two approaches in that they disagree over the level to which is appropriate to explain human behaviour. Therefore, it is unlikely that either of the approaches is fully accurate and valid.

A further difference between the cognitive and humanistic approach is their opposing positions within in the idiographic vs nomothetic approach. The cognitive approach is nomothetic because they attempt to establish general laws of cognitive processing. Whereas the humanistic approach is idiographic because they focus on the subjective human experience and makes no attempt to create general laws. This shows that there are clear differences between the two approaches in that they disagree on which approach should be adopted when investigating human behaviour and this also has implications for the type of research method that the psychologists should use in the investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
Psychodynamic and Humanistic Differences: (16)

The main assumption of the Psychodynamic approach is that all behaviour is influenced by subconscious drives that develop as a result of early childhood experiences. Freud suggested that personality is composed of three parts: the Id, which focuses on the pleasure principle and demands instant gratification; the Superego, which is based on the morality principle and punishes the ego for wrongdoing with guilt; and the Ego which works on the reality principle, mediating between the other two. Also, Freud identified Psychosexual stages (such as the Oral stage for 0-1 year olds or the Phallic stage for 3-5 year olds) which are conflicts in childhood that if left unresolved, lead to fixations into adult life.

The main assumption of the Humanistic approach is that humans are self-determining and responsible for their behaviour. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs suggests that self-actualisation (the top level of progression) can be achieved once the four lower levels have been acquired too – so after physiological needs have been met, for example. Humans have an innate drive to achieve personal growth and Rogers believed that only if one’s concept of themselves is congruent to their ideal self can they achieve it.

One difference between the Psychodynamic and Humanistic approaches is that they differ in their positions on the free will – determinism debate. The Psychodynamic approach suggests that behaviour is influenced by innate drives established in childhood, which is an example of psychic determinism. Whereas, the Humanistic approach suggests humans have full control over their behaviour and have the ability to personally develop. This means that the approaches differ because they disagree over the extent to which humans have control over their behaviour. Therefore, both may be limited because a soft-deterministic approach would be more appropriate because it acknowledges the influence of external factors while believing humans are capable of change, which is more realistic.

In addition, another difference between the two approaches is the extent to which they study behaviour holistically. Freud saw humans as slaves to their past and reduced the explanation of behaviour to simple psychosexual conflicts in childhood, without considering the influence of emotion. However, humanists study behaviour holistically and have been credited for ‘bringing the person back into psychology’. This suggests that by studying behaviour as a whole and suggesting humans have the ability to develop, humanism is much more optimistic and positive. Therefore, it could be argued that the psychodynamic approach is less desirable because of its reductionism and that humanism may be a more effective approach to treatments because it encourages personal growth and positivity.

Finally, another difference between the approaches is the sensitivity of their implications. Much of Freud’s research has been regarded as biased because he only studied male behaviour, then compared women to his results, branding feminism as ‘failed masculinity’, whereas humanists rejects general laws of behaviour and have inclusive theories which could be generalised to all people (such as the concept of free will). This suggests that the psychodynamic approach may be socially sensitive because it often devalues women by comparing them to male standards and may lack external validity because it can’t be applied to women. Therefore, the humanistic approach may be more appropriate because it’s neither socially sensitive nor accused of gender bias.