There are many approaches to psychology, but which is the right one? While the answer to that question is far too complicated, we can get a better idea of each approach's strengths and weaknesses by comparing the approaches in psychology. Through the comparison of approaches in psychology, we can identify the most appropriate approach to explaining a phenomenon.
- First, we will make a comparison of different approaches in psychology.
- Next, we will make a comparison of quantitative and qualitative research approaches.
- We will discuss the similarities between the biological and humanistic approaches.
- We will then examine the similarities between the cognitive and behaviourist approaches.
- Finally, we will compare the different psychological approaches in a convenient table.
Fig. 1 - There are various approaches in psychology.
Comparison of Approaches: Psychology
Comparison of approaches in psychology compares the various schools of psychology to identify where they differ and where they are similar. Examples include comparing the biological approach to the psychodynamic approach. Each approach attributes behaviour to different factors and uses various techniques to investigate these matters.
The biological approach often uses brain imaging techniques to understand behaviour, whereas the humanistic may use more observational tools to investigate behavioural phenomena.
Comparing the approaches in psychology focuses on their stance in the following debates:
- Free will vs determinism
- Nature vs nurture
- Reductionist vs holistic
- Scientific research process
- Nomothetic vs idiographic
Psychology Approaches
The major psychology approaches are the behavioural, biological, cognitive, social learning, psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches. Each differs somewhat in its techniques, priorities, and strengths. For instance, the humanistic approach is considered holistic, whereas the cognitive approach is reductionist.
The science of psychology touches the entire sphere of human existence. As such, the field has endeavoured to be as inclusive as possible. This is why debates are so important in psychology.
Debates give us a richer perspective on the human condition and topics we may not have encountered. With new discoveries and technological advancements, psychology evolves accordingly by addressing and debating issues as they arise.
Kuhn, a famous psychologist, argued the approaches in psychology are essentially paradigms. The paradigm that is accepted depends on whether it can explain theories. If it can't, then another paradigm becomes accepted.
Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches
One of the most significant differences between approaches is whether they are based more on quantitative or qualitative analysis.
Quantitative research focuses on statistical analysis and aims to find information that can be generalised to the greater population. It is heavily based on the scientific method, focusing only on what can be directly observed and quantifiably measured.
Quantitative research approaches include behavioural psychology, social learning theory, and cognitive and biological psychology. These approaches are nomothetic, meaning they attempt to gather large amounts of data to make generalisable inferences about the nature of human psychology. The psychodynamic approach carries out a little quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Qualitative research typically works outside of the scientific method, delving deeper into subjects rather than trying to measure and make prescriptive judgements through observation. Qualitative research collects non-numerical data.
For example, the humanistic approach assumes that quantitative research is reductive and cannot accurately judge the psychology of all humans because everyone is unique.
Qualitative research approaches are idiographic, meaning that they focus more on unique individuals and have a more holistic view of each person's psychological profile, as humans differ significantly from one another.
Fig. 2 - Qualitative and quantitative approaches change how studies are analysed.
Similarities Between the Biological and Humanistic Approaches
The biological and humanistic approaches are two very different approaches in psychology. Let's look at the differences and similarities between the biological and humanistic approaches.
The biological approach assumes that human behaviour results from biological, physical processes over which we have no control and may not even be aware. This idea is also known as biological determinism. Its applications mainly lie in drug treatments that aim to alter the biological processes behind our behaviour.
The biological approach is reductionist, using broad observations of human biology to make judgements about behaviour. It abides by the scientific method and typically uses lab experiments to gather data.
The biological approach is also nomothetic and creates generalised, prescriptive judgements about human psychology based on the fact that we all share physiology and may react predictably to specific treatments or activities in the brain.
Researchers that accept the biological approach may try to understand the causes of depression by using an MRI (brain imaging machine) to identify if changes or abnormalities in brain structures are related to depression.
In nomothetic research, findings are generalised, and so it could be argued as reducing a complex issue, like depression, to a single issue.
Because of its focus on physiology as the basis of psychology, it is a natural approach. It often uses animal studies to understand animal behaviour and extrapolate its findings to humans.
On the other hand, the humanistic approach assumes that the self ultimately shapes human behaviour, and we can choose how we react to things and conduct ourselves to some degree. This makes the humanistic approach a free-will approach.
Because of its focus on individual clients and the belief that each person is different and must be individually understood, the approach is holistic. The humanistic approach considers scientifically-based approaches like the biological approach to be reductive, so it works outside of the scientific method.
The holistic approach might put a person through various tests if a person presents with depression. They might conduct personality inventories, run a health screening to rule out physical causes for their depression, and establish regular therapy sessions to understand the patient's unique history and personality.
Or, they may prescribe pharmaceutical treatments that they regularly adjust to provide their patient with the treatment that fits their unique needs.
The humanistic approach is idiographic and focuses on individual-focused, deep analysis of individuals rather than broad prescriptions about human psychology based on quantitative analysis.
A humanistic approach is an interactionist approach, meaning that it believes a combination of nature and nurture ultimately drives human behaviour to achieve a form of self-actualisation.
As the humanistic approach is focused on humans and methods that only humans can participate in (i.e., talk therapy), animals are not typically used.
Similarities Between the Cognitive and Behaviourist Approaches
The cognitive and behaviourist approaches have more in common than the previously discussed approaches. Let's look into them and discuss the differences and similarities between the cognitive and behaviourist approaches.
The cognitive approach assumes that our behaviour results from cognitive processes in the brain but that we have the final say on how we choose to act. This makes the cognitive approach a soft deterministic approach, as it leaves room for an element of free will while explaining most behaviour as being a result of things we don't control.
The cognitive approach's applications are mainly found in CBT - cognitive behavioural therapy, a style of therapy that aims to assist the client in changing how they think and react to feelings.
The cognitive approach is experimentally reductionist, offering experimental reasonings based solely on cognitive observations. The cognitive approach uses a combination of lab experiments and brain imaging techniques to understand human behaviour, so it abides by the scientific method and is, therefore, nomothetic. However, concerning case studies, it adopts the idiographic approach.
Peterson & Peterson (1959) conducted a cognitive experiment investigating short-term memory. They conducted their investigation in a lab with a sample of 24 students. Researchers observed how long it took for participants to recall random three-letter pairings. They used their findings to draw a general conclusion on the duration of short-term memory.
The cognitive approach holds a neutral position in the nature vs nurture debate and does not use animals in its research, as they argue their cognitive processes differ from ours.
The behaviourist approach is reductive because of its focus on environmental stimulus/response relationships.
The behaviourist approach assumes that our behaviour results from simple stimulus/response combinations that occur when we interact and observe our surroundings. This makes it a determinist approach as it proposes that our environment is responsible for our actions.
The Little Albert experiment is a classic example of the behaviourist approach. John B. Watson conducted an experiment using a child they called Little Albert.
Watson banged on a steel pipe whenever the child reached out to a white rat, which caused him to have a fearful response; this pairing was repeated several times.
Soon, Little Albert began to cry at the sight of the white rat. His behaviour (crying) was the result of the stimulus (the rat), which became conditioned through the pairing of the animal with the loud noise.
The behaviourist approach abides by the scientific method and is nomothetic, generalising its findings around stimulus/response to the broader population.
It is on the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate, believing humans are born as blank slates (tabula rasa), and their experience of their environment determines behaviour.
Animals were used heavily in the early stages of this approach's development.
Comparison of Social Learning Theory and the Psychodynamic Approach
Comparing these two approaches is not so simple, as the psychodynamic approach operates on a less black-and-white view of how psychology works. Let's look at the differences and similarities between social learning theory and the psychodynamic approach.
Social learning theory (SLT) assumes that our behaviour is learned and reinforced by others; this makes SLT an example of reciprocal determinism. It identifies that we are influenced by what we observe but that there are other factors at play that determine whether we learn the behaviour, and these factors are called mediators.
SLT has been used to explain how behaviour such as aggression arises and how we can treat it. SLT uses a mixture of environmental and cognitive explanations for behaviour, so it is reductionist but less than, say, the biological approach.
SLT abides by the scientific approach and is nomothetic, believing that we all learn behaviour in the same ways. SLT is an example of a nurture-based approach, as it highlights the importance of the environment in shaping our behaviour. SLT does not use animals in its research.
Freud's psychodynamic approach assumes that human behaviour results from formative experiences from childhood and innate 'drives' (described as the id, ego and superego). This is known as psychic determinism. The psychodynamic approach led to the creation of psychoanalysis, which was an early precursor to our more modern forms of talk therapy.
It doesn't abide by the scientific method and has idiographic and nomothetic elements. It also contains elements of both nature and nurture, as it believes in the importance of innate drives and that early life experience can also influence our behaviour.
Comparison of Approaches in Psychology: Table
The following table compares the different approaches and their similarities and differences.
| Behavioural | Biological | Cognitive | Social Learning | Psychodynamic | Humanistic |
| Scientific? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Reductionist or holistic? | Reductionist | Reductionist | Reductionist | Reductionist | Holistic | Holistic |
| Idiographic or nomothetic? | Nomothetic | Nomothetic | Nomothetic | Nomothetic | Both | Idiographic |
| Nature or nurture? | Nurture | Nature | Both | Nurture | Both | Interactionist (both) |
| Deterministic or free will? | Deterministic | Deterministic | Soft deterministic | Soft deterministic | Deterministic | Free-will |
| Real-world use | Phobia treatment | Drug therapy and psychosurgery | CBT | Understanding aggression | Psychoanalysis | Counselling |
| Animal involvement? | Animal studies laid the foundations of this theory. | Animal research is used, especially if similar to humans. | Animals not involved | Animals not involved | Animals not involved | Animals not involved |
Comparison of Approaches - Key takeaways
- Quantitative research focuses on statistical analysis and aims to find information that can be generalised to the greater population. Qualitative research typically works outside the scientific method, delving deeper into subjects rather than trying to measure and make prescriptive judgements through observation.
- The behavioural, SLT, cognitive and biological approaches are scientific, nomothetic, and reductionist.
- While the psychodynamic and humanistic approaches are holistic, idiographic (or contain idiographic elements), and do not use the scientific method.
- The behavioural, biological and psychodynamic approaches are hard deterministic, while SLT and the cognitive approach are soft deterministic, and the humanistic approach believes in free will.
- The behavioural approach and SLT are both nurture approaches, while the cognitive, psychodynamic and humanistic approaches have elements of nature and nurture, and the biological approach is nature.
Explanations 
Textbooks 
Exams 
Magazine 
