psychology as a science uk essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Psychology’s Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration

School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS UK

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences. Yet even after 140 years as an independent discipline, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. Its key phenomena, mind and behaviour, are poorly defined (and their definition instead often delegated to neuroscience or philosophy) while specific terms and constructs proliferate. A unified theoretical framework has not been developed and its categorisation as a ‘soft science’ ascribes to psychology a lower level of scientificity. The article traces these problems to the peculiarities of psychology’s study phenomena, their interrelations with and centrality to everyday knowledge and language (which may explain the proliferation and unclarity of terms and concepts), as well as to their complex relations with other study phenomena. It shows that adequate explorations of such diverse kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all—immediate experience—inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena’s joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all. But Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today’s psychology into a science of populations rather than individuals, showing that blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but impeded the development of psychology as a science. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Psychology’s Status as a Discipline

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences—not least because it explores the very means by which any science is made, for it is humans who perceive, conceive, define, investigate, analyse and interpret the phenomena of the world. Scientists have managed to explore distant galaxies, quantum particles and the evolution of life over 4 billion years—phenomena inaccessible to the naked eye or long deceased. Yet, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. The phenomena of our personal experience, directly accessible to everyone in each waking moment of life, remain challenging objects of research. Moreover, psychical phenomena are essential for all sciences (e.g., thinking). But why are we struggling to scientifically explore the means needed to first make any science? Given the successes in other fields, is this not a contradiction in itself?

This article outlines three key problems of psychology (poor definitions of study phenomena, lack of unified theoretical frameworks, and an allegedly lower level of scientificity) that are frequently discussed and at the centre of Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro’s ( 2020 ) review. These problems are then traced to peculiarities of psychology’s study phenomena and the conceptual and methodological challenges they entail. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Lack of Proper Terms and Definitions of Study Phenomena

Introductory text books are supposed to present the corner stones of a science’s established knowledge base. In psychology, however, textbooks present definitions of its key phenomena—mind (psyche) and behaviour—that are discordant, ambiguous, overlapping, circular and context-dependent, thus inconclusive (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). Tellingly, many popular text books define ‘mind’ exclusively as ‘brain activity’, thus turning psychology’s central object of research into one of neuroscience. What then is psychology as opposed to neuroscience? Some even regard the definition of mind as unimportant and leave it to philosophers, thus categorising it as a philosophical phenomenon and shifting it again out of psychology’s own realm. At the same time, mainstream psychologists often proudly distance themselves from philosophers (Alexandrova & Haybron, 2016 ), explicitly referring to the vital distinction between science and philosophy. Behaviour, as well, is commonly reduced to ill-defined ‘activities’, ‘actions’ and ‘doings’ and, confusingly, often even equated with mind (psyche), such as in concepts of ‘inner and outer behaviours’ (Uher 2016b ). All this leaves one wonder what psychology is actually about.

As if to compensate the unsatisfactory definitional and conceptual status of its key phenomena in general, psychology is plagued with a chaotic proliferation of terms and constructs for specific phenomena of mind and behaviour (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). This entails that different terms can denote the same concept (jangle-fallacies; Kelley 1927 ) and the same terms different concepts (jingle-fallacies; Thorndike 1903 ). Even more basically, many psychologists struggle to explain what their most frequent study phenomena—constructs—actually are (Slaney and Garcia 2015 ). These deficiencies and inconsistencies involve a deeply fragmented theoretical landscape.

Lack of Conceptual Integration Into Overarching Frameworks

Like no other science, psychology embraces an enormous diversity of established epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods. Is that a result of the discipline’s unparalleled complexity and the therefore necessary scientific pluralism (Fahrenberg 2013 ) or rather an outcome of mistaking this pluralism for the unrestrained proliferation of perspectives (Zagaria et al. 2020 )?

The lack of a unified theory in psychology is widely lamented. Many ‘integrative theories’ were proposed as overarching frameworks, yet without considering contradictory presuppositions underlying different theories. Such integrative systems merely provide important overviews of the essential plurality of research perspectives and methodologies needed in the field (Fahrenberg 2013 ; Uher 2015b ). Zagaria and colleagues ( 2020 ) suggested evolutionary psychology could provide the much-needed paradigmatic framework. This field, however, is among psychology’s youngest sub-disciplines and its most speculative ones because (unlike biological phenomena) psychical, behavioural and social phenomena leave no fossilised traces in themselves. Their possible ancestral forms can only be reconstructed indirectly from archaeological findings and investigations of today’s humans, making evolutionary explorations prone to speculations and biases (e.g., gender bias in interpretations of archaeological findings; Ginge 1996 ). Cross-species comparative psychology offers important correctives through empirical studies of today’s species with different cognitive, behavioural, social and ecological systems and different degrees of phylogenetic relatedness to humans. This enables comparisons and hypothesis testing not possible when studying only humans but still faces limitations given human ancestors’ unavailability for direct study (Uher 2020a ).

But most importantly, evolutionary psychology does not provide consistent terms and concepts either; its key constructs ‘psychological adaptations’ and ‘evolved psychological mechanisms’ are as vague, ambiguous and ill-defined as ‘mind’ and ‘behaviour’. Moreover, the strong research heuristic formulated in Tinbergen’s four questions on the causation, function, development and evolution of behaviour is not an achievement of evolutionary psychology but originates from theoretical biology, thus again from outside of psychology.

Psychology—a ‘Soft Science’ in Pre-scientific Stage?

The pronounced inconsistencies in psychology’s terminological, conceptual and theoretical landscape have been likened to the pre-scientific stage of emerging sciences (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). Psychology was therefore declared a ‘soft science’ that can never achieve the status of the ‘hard sciences’ (e.g., physics, chemistry). This categorisation implies the belief that some sciences have only minor capacities to accumulate secured knowledge and lower abilities to reach theoretical and methodological consensus (Fanelli and Glänzel 2013 ; Simonton 2015 ). In particular, soft sciences would have only limited abilities to apply ‘the scientific method’, the general set of principles involving systematic observation, experimentation and measurement as well as deduction and testing of hypotheses that guide scientific practice (Gauch 2015 ). The idea of the presumed lack of methodological rigor and exactitude of ‘soft sciences’ goes back to Kant ( 1798 / 2000 ) and is fuelled by recurrent crises of replication, generalisation, validity, and other criteria considered essential for all sciences.

But classifying sciences into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, implying some would be more scientific than others, is ill-conceived and misses the point why there are different sciences at all. Crucially, the possibilities for implementing particular research practices are not a matter of scientific discipline or their ascribed level of scientificity but solely depend on the particular study phenomena and their properties (Uher 2019 ). For study phenomena that are highly context-dependent and continuously changing in themselves, such as those of mind, behaviour and society, old knowledge cannot have continuing relevance as this is the case for (e.g., non-living) phenomena and properties that are comparably invariant in themselves. Instead, accurate and valid investigations require that concepts, theories and methods must be continuously adapted as well (Uher 2020b ).

The classification of sciences by the degree to which they can implement ‘the scientific method’ as developed for the natural sciences is a reflection of the method-centrism that has taken hold of psychology over the last century, when the craft of statistical analysis became psychologists’ dominant activity (Lamiell 2019 ; Valsiner 2012 ). The development of ever more sophisticated tools for statistical analysis as well as of rating scales enabling the efficient generation of allegedly quantitative data for millions of individuals misled psychologists to adapt their study phenomena and research questions to their methods, rather than vice versa (Omi 2012 ; Toomela and Valsiner 2010 ; Uher 2013 ). But methods are just a means to an end. Sciences must be phenomenon-centred and problem-centred, and they must develop epistemologies, theories, methodologies and methods that are suited to explore these phenomena and the research problems in their field.

Psychology’s Study Phenomena and Intrinsic Challenges

Psychology’s exceptional position among the sciences and its key problems can be traced to its study phenomena’s peculiarities and the conceptual and methodological challenges they entail.

Experience: Elementary to All Empirical Sciences

Experience is elementary to all empirical sciences, which are experience-based by definition (from Greek empeiria meaning experience). The founder of psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, already highlighted that every concrete experience has always two aspects, the objective content given and individuals’ subjective apprehension of it—thus, the objects of experience in themselves and the subjects experiencing them. This entails two fundamental ways in which experience is treated in the sciences (Wundt 1896a ).

Natural sciences explore the objective contents mediated by experience that can be obtained by subtracting from the concrete experience the subjective aspects always contained in it. Hence, natural scientists consider the objects of experience in their properties as conceived independently of the subjects experiencing them, using the perspective of mediate experience (mittelbare Erfahrung; Wundt 1896a ). Therefore, natural scientists develop theories, approaches and technologies that help minimise the involvement of human perceptual and conceptual abilities in research processes and filter out their effects on research outcomes. This approach is facilitated by the peculiarities of natural-science study phenomena (of the non-living world, in particular), in which general laws, immutable relationships and natural constants can be identified that remain invariant across time and space and that can be measured and mathematically formalised (Uher 2020b ).

Psychologists, in turn, explore the experiencing subjects and their understanding and interpretation of their experiential contents and how this mediates their concrete experience of ‘reality’. This involves the perspective of immediate experience (unmittelbare Erfahrung), with immediate indicating absence of other phenomena mediating their perception (Wundt 1896a ). Immediate experience comprises connected processes, whereby every process has an objective content but is, at the same time, also a subjective process. Inner experience, Wundt highlighted, is not a special part of experience but rather constitutes the entirety of all immediate experience; thus, inner and outer experience do not constitute separate channels of information as often assumed (Uher 2016a ). That is, psychology deals with the entire experience in its immediate subjective reality. The inherent relation to the perceiving and experiencing subject— subject reference —is therefore a fundamental category in psychology. Subjects are feeling and thinking beings capable of intentional action who pursue purposes and values. This entails agency, volition, value orientation and teleology. As a consequence, Wundt highlighted, research on these phenomena can determine only law-like generalisations that allow for exceptions and singularities (Fahrenberg 2019 ). Given this, it is meaningless to use theories-to-laws ratios as indicators of scientificity (e.g., in Simonton 2015 ; Zagaria et al. 2020 ).

Constructs: Concepts in Science AND Everyday Psychology

The processual and transient nature of immediate experience (and many behaviours) imposes further challenges because, of processual entities, only a part exists at any moment (Whitehead 1929 ). Experiential phenomena can therefore be conceived only through generalisation and abstraction from their occurrences over time, leading to concepts, beliefs and knowledge about them , which are psychical phenomena in themselves as well but different from those they are about (reflected in the terms experien cing versus experien ce ; Erleben versus Erfahrung; Uher 2015b , 2016a ). Abstract concepts, because they are theoretically constructed, are called constructs (Kelly 1963 ). All humans implicitly develop constructs (through abduction, see below) to describe and explain regularities they observe in themselves and their world. They use constructs to anticipate the unknown future and to choose among alterative actions and responses (Kelly 1963 ; Valsiner 2012 ).

Constructs about experiencing, experience and behaviour form important parts of our everyday knowledge and language. This entails intricacies because psychologists cannot simply put this everyday psychology aside for doing their science, even more so as they are studying the phenomena that are at the centre of everyday knowledge and largely accessible only through (everyday) language. Therefore, psychologists cannot invent scientific terms and concepts that are completely unrelated to those of everyday psychology as natural scientists can do (Uher 2015b ). But this also entails that, to first delineate their study phenomena, psychologists need not elaborate scientific definitions because everyday psychology already provides some terms, implicit concepts and understanding—even if these are ambiguous, discordant, circular, overlapping, context-dependent and biased. This may explain the proliferation of terms and concepts and the lack of clear definitions of key phenomena in scientific psychology.

Constructs and language-based methods entail further challenges. The construal of constructs allowed scientists to turn abstract ideas into entities, thereby making them conceptually accessible to empirical study. But this entification misguides psychologists to overlook their constructed nature (Slaney and Garcia 2015 ) by ascribing to constructs an ontological status (e.g., ‘traits’ as psychophysical mechanisms; Uher 2013 ). Because explorations of many psychological study phenomena are intimately bound to language, psychologists must differentiate their study phenomena from the terms, concepts and methods used to explore them, as indicated by the terms psych ical versus psych ological (from Greek -λογία, -logia for body of knowledge)—differentiations not commonly made in the English-language publications dominating in contemporary psychology (Lewin 1936 ; Uher 2016a ).

Psychology’s Exceptional Position Among the Sciences and Philosophy

The concepts of mediate and immediate experience illuminate psychology’s special interrelations with the other sciences and philosophy. Wundt conceived the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften; e.g., physics, physiology) as auxiliary to psychology and psychology, in turn, as supplementary to the natural sciences “in the sense that only together they are able to exhaust the empirical knowledge accessible to us“ (Fahrenberg 2019 ; Wundt 1896b , p. 102). By exploring the universal forms of immediate experience and the regularities of their connections, psychology is also the foundation of the intellectual sciences (Geisteswissenschaften, commonly (mis)translated as humanities; e.g., philology, linguistics, law), which explore the actions and effects emerging from humans’ immediate experiences (Fahrenberg 2019 ). Psychology also provides foundations for the cultural and social sciences (Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften; e.g., sociology; anthropology), which explore the products and processes emerging from social and societal interactions among experiencing subjects who are thinking and intentional agents pursuing values, aims and purposes. Moreover, because psychology considers the subjective and the objective as the two fundamental conditions underlying theoretical reflection and practical action and seeks to determine their interrelations, Wundt regarded psychology also a preparatory empirical science for philosophy (especially epistemology and ethics; Fahrenberg 2019 ).

Psychology’s exceptional position at the intersection with diverse sciences and with philosophy is reflected in the extremely heterogeneous study phenomena explored in its diverse sub-disciplines, covering all areas of human life. Some examples are individuals’ sensations and perceptions of physical phenomena (e.g., psychophysics, environmental psychology, engineering psychology), biological and pathological phenomena associated with experience and behaviour (e.g., biopsychology, neuropsychology, clinical psychology), individuals’ experience and behaviour in relation to others and in society (e.g., social psychology, personality psychology, cultural psychology, psycholinguistics, economic psychology), as well as in different periods and domains of life (e.g., developmental psychology, educational psychology, occupational psychology). No other science explores such a diversity of study phenomena. Their exploration requires a plurality of epistemologies, methodologies and methods, which include experimental and technology-based investigations (e.g., neuro-imaging, electromyography, life-logging, video-analyses), interpretive and social-science investigations (e.g., of texts, narratives, multi-media) as well as investigations involving self-report and self-observation (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, guided introquestion).

All this shows that psychology cannot be a unitary science. Adequate explorations of so many different kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all—immediate experience—inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences, which are needed as well. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena’s joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all.

Idiographic and Nomothetic Strategies of Knowledge Generation

Immediate experience, given its subjective, processual, context-dependent, and thus ever-changing nature, is always unique and unprecedented. Exploring such particulars inherently requires idiographic strategies, in which local phenomena of single cases are modelled in their dynamic contexts to create generalised knowledge from them through abduction. In abduction, scientists infer from observations of surprising facts backwards to a possible theory that, if it were true, could explain the facts observed (Peirce 1901 ; CP 7.218). Abduction leads to the creation of new general knowledge, in which theory and data are circularly connected in an open-ended cycle, allowing to further generalise, extend and differentiate the new knowledge created. By generalising from what was once and at another time as well, idiographic approaches form the basis of nomothetic approaches, which are aimed at identifying generalities common to all particulars of a class and at deriving theories or laws to account for these generalities. This Wundtian approach to nomothetic research, because it is case-by-case based , allows to create generalised knowledge about psychical processes and functioning, thus building a bridge between the individual and theory development (Lamiell 2003 ; Robinson 2011 ; Salvatore and Valsiner 2010 ).

But beliefs in the superiority of natural-science principles misled many psychologists to interpret nomothetic strategies solely in terms of the Galtonian methodology, in which many cases are aggregated and statistically analysed on the sample-level . This limits research to group-level hypothesis testing and theory development to inductive generalisation, which are uninformative about single cases and cannot reveal what is, indeed, common to all (Lamiell 2003 ; Robinson 2011 ). This entails numerous fallacies, such as the widespread belief between-individual structures would be identical to and even reflect within-individual structures (Molenaar 2004 ; Uher 2015d ). Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today’s psychology into a science exploring populations rather than individuals. That is, blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but, instead, substantially impeded the development of psychology as a science.

Moving Psychology Beyond its Current Conceptual Deadlock

Wundt’s opening of psychology’s first laboratory marked its official start as an independent science. Its dynamic developments over the last 140 years testify to psychology’s importance but also to the peculiarities of its study phenomena and the intricate challenges that these entail for scientific explorations. Yet, given its history, it seems unlikely that psychology can finally pull itself out of the swamps of conceptual vagueness and theoretical inconsistencies using just its own concepts and theories, in a feat similar to that of the legendary Baron Münchhausen. Psychology can, however, capitalise on its exceptional constellation of intersections with other sciences and philosophy that arises from its unique focus on the individual. Although challenging, this constitutes a rich source for perspective-taking and stimulation of new developments that can meaningfully complement and expand its own genuine achievements as shown in the paradigm outlined now.

The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm)

The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals ( TPS-Paradigm 2 ) is targeted toward making explicit and scrutinising the most basic assumptions that different disciplines make about research on individuals to help scientists critically reflect on; discuss and refine their theories and practices; and to derive ideas for new developments (therefore philosophy-of–science ). It comprises a system of interrelated philosophical, metatheoretical and methodological frameworks that coherently build upon each other (therefore paradigm ). In these frameworks, concepts from various lines of thought, both historical and more recent, and from different disciplines (e.g., psychology, life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences, metrology, philosophy of science) that are relevant for exploring research objects in (relation to) individuals were systematically integrated, refined and complemented by novel ones, thereby creating unitary frameworks that transcend disciplinary boundaries (therefore transdisciplinary ; Uher 2015a , b , 2018c ).

The Philosophical Framework: Presuppositions About Research on Individuals

The philosophical framework specifies three sets of presuppositions that are made in the TPS-Paradigm about the nature and properties of individuals and the phenomena studied in (relations to) them as well as about the notions by which knowledge about them can be gained.

• All science is done by humans and therefore inextricably entwined with and limited by human’s perceptual and conceptual abilities. This entails risks for particular fallacies of the human mind (e.g., oversimplifying complexity, Royce 1891 ; reifying linguistic abstractions, Whitehead 1929 ). Scientists researching individuals face particular challenges because they are individuals themselves, thus inseparable from their research objects. This entails risks for anthropocentric, ethnocentric and egocentric biases influencing metatheories and methodologies (Uher 2015b ). Concepts from social, cultural and theoretical psychology, sociology, and other fields (e.g., Gergen 2001 ; Valsiner 1998 ; Weber 1949 ) were used to open up meta-perspectives on research processes and help scientists reflect on their own presuppositions, ideologies and language that may (unintentionally) influence their research.
• Individuals are complex living organisms , which can be conceived as open (dissipative) and nested systems. On each hierarchical level, they function as organised wholes from which new properties emerge not predictable from their constituents and that can feed back to the constituents from which they emerge, causing complex patterns of upward and downward causation. With increasing levels of organisation, ever more complex systems emerge that are less rule-bound, highly adaptive and historically unique. Therefore, dissecting systems into elements cannot reveal the processes governing their functioning and development as a whole; assumptions on universal determinism and reductionism must be rejected. Relevant concepts from thermodynamics, physics of life, philosophy, theoretical biology, medicine, psychology, sociology and other fields (e.g., Capra 1997 ; Hartmann 1964 ; Koffka 1935 ; Morin 2008 ; Prigogine and Stengers 1997 ; Varela et al. 1974 ; von Bertalanffy 1937 ) about dialectics, complexity and nonlinear dynamic systems were used to elaborate their relevance for research on individuals.
• The concept of complementarity is applied to highlight that, by using different methods, ostensibly incompatible information can be obtained about properties of the same object of research that are nevertheless all equally essential for an exhaustive account of it and that may therefore be regarded as complementary to one another. Applications of this concept, originating from physics (wave-particle dilemma in research on the nature of light; Bohr 1937 ; Heisenberg 1927 ), to the body-mind problem emphasise the necessity for a methodical dualism to account for observations of two categorically different realities that require different frames of reference, approaches and methods (Brody and Oppenheim 1969 ; Fahrenberg 1979 , 2013 ; Walach 2013 ). Complementarity was applied to specify the peculiarities of psychical phenomena and to derive methodological concepts (Uher, 2016a ). It was also applied to develop solutions for the nomothetic-idiographic controversy in ‘personality’ research (Uher 2015d ).

These presuppositions underlie the metatheoretical and the methodological framework.

Metatheoretical Framework

The metatheoretical framework formalises a phenomenon’s accessibility to human perception under everyday conditions using three metatheoretical properties: internality-externality, temporal extension, and spatiality conceived complementarily as physical (spatial) and “non-physical” (without spatial properties). The particular constellations of their forms in given phenomena were used to metatheoretically define and differentiate from one another various kinds of phenomena studied in (relation to) individuals: morphology, physiology, behaviour, psyche, semiotic representations (e.g., language), artificial outer-appearance modifications (e.g., clothing) and contexts (e.g., situations; Uher 2015b ).

These metatheoretical concepts allowed to integrate and further develop established concepts from various fields to elaborate the peculiarities of the phenomena of the psyche 3 and their functional connections with other phenomena (e.g., one-sided psyche-externality gap; Uher 2013 ), to trace their ontogenetic development and to explore the fundamental imperceptibility of others’ psychical phenomena and its role in the development of agency, language, instructed learning, culture, social institutions and societies in human evolution (Uher 2015a ). The metatheoretical definition of behaviour 4 enabled clear differentiations from psyche and physiology, and clarified when the content-level of language in itself constitutes behaviour, revealing how language extends humans’ behavioural possibilities far beyond all non-language behaviours (Uher 2016b ). The metatheoretical definition of ‘personality’ as individual-specificity in all kinds of phenomena studied in individuals (see above) highlighted the unique constellation of probabilistic, differential and temporal patterns that merge together in this concept, the challenges this entails and the central role of language in the formation of ‘personality’ concepts. This also enabled novel approaches for conceptual integrations of the heterogeneous landscape of paradigms and theories in ‘personality’ research (Uher 2015b , c , d , 2018b ). The semiotic representations concept emphasised the composite nature of language, comprising psychical and physical phenomena, thus both internal and external phenomena. Failure to consider the triadic relations among meaning, signifier and referent inherent to any sign system as well as their inseparability from the individuals using them was shown to underly various conceptual fallacies, especially regarding data generation and measurement (Uher 2018a , 2019 ).

Methodological Framework

The metatheoretical framework is systematically linked to the methodological framework featuring three main areas.

• General concepts of phenomenon-methodology matching . The three metatheoretical properties were used to derive implications for research methodology, leading to new concepts that help to identify fallacies and mismatches (e.g., nunc-ipsum methods for transient phenomena, intro questive versus extro questive methods to remedy methodological problems in previous concepts of introspection; Uher 2016a , 2019 ).
• Methodological concepts for comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species were developed (Uher 2015e ). Approaches for taxonomising individual differences  in various kinds of phenomena in human populations and other species were systematised on the basis of their underlying rationales. Various novel approaches, especially behavioural ones, were developed to systematically test and complement the widely-used lexical models derived from everyday language (Uher 2015b , c , d , 2018b , c ).
• Theories and practices of data generation and measurement from psychology, social sciences and metrology, the science of measurement and foundational to the physical sciences, were scrutinised and compared. These transdisciplinary analyses identified two basic methodological principles of measurement underlying metrological concepts that are also applicable to psychological and social-science research (data generation traceability, numerical traceability; Uher 2020b ). Further analyses explored the involvement of human abilities in data generation across the empirical sciences (Uher 2019 ) and raters’ interpretation and use of standardised assessment scales (Uher 2018a ).

Empirical demonstrations of these developments and analyses in various empirical studies involving humans of different sociolinguistic backgrounds as well as several nonhuman primate species (e.g., Uher 2015e , 2018a ; Uher et al. 2013a , b ; Uher and Visalberghi 2016 ) show the feasibility of this line of research. Grounded in established concepts from various disciplines, it offers many possibilities for fruitful cross-scientific collaborations waiting to be explored in order to advance the fascinating science of individuals.

Author Contributions

I declare I am the sole creator of this research.

Funding Information

This research was conducted without funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

I declare to have no conflicting or competing interests.

2 http://researchonindividuals.org .

3 The psyche is defined as the “entirety of the phenomena of the immediate experiential reality both conscious and non-conscious of living organisms” (Uher 2015c , p. 431, derived from Wundt 1896a ).

4 Behaviours are defined as the “external changes or activities of living organisms that are functionally mediated by other external phenomena in the present moment” (Uher 2016b , p. 490).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. M. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 1098–1109. 10.1086/687941
• Bohr N. Causality and complementarity. Philosophy of Science. 1937; 4 (3):289–298. doi: 10.1086/286465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody N, Oppenheim P. Application of Bohr’s principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem. Journal of Philosophy. 1969; 66 (4):97–113. doi: 10.2307/2024529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capra F. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. New York: Anchor Books; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahrenberg, J. (1979). The complementarity principle in psychophysiological research and somatic medicine. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27 (2), 151–167. [ PubMed ]
• Fahrenberg J. Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie: Komplementaritätsprinzip; Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahrenberg, J. (2019). Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920). Introduction, quotations, reception, commentaries, attempts at reconstruction . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
• Fanelli D, Glänzel W. Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (6):e66938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauch, H. G. J. (2015). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56(10) , 803–813. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803. [ PubMed ]
• Ginge, B. (1996). Identifying gender in the archaeological record: Revising our stereotypes. Etruscan Studies, 3, Article 4.
• Hartmann N. Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre (3. Aufl.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43 (3–4), 172–198. 10.1007/BF01397280.
• Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Reinhard Brandt, ed.). Felix Meiner.
• Kelley TL. Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers: World; 1927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs . W.W. Norton.
• Koffka K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World; 1935. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamiell, J. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452229317.
• Lamiell, J. (2019). Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics . Springer International. 10.1007/978-3-030-12131-0.
• Lewin K. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1936. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molenaar PCM. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective. 2004; 2 (4):201–218. doi: 10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E. On complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Omi Y. Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method: Is it an inevitable fate for psychology? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2012; 46 (1):118–127. doi: 10.1007/s12124-011-9185-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peirce, C. S. (1901/1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP 7.218—1901, On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents especially from testimonies) . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature . Free Press.
• Robinson OC. The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology. 2011; 13 :32–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: A critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
• Salvatore S, Valsiner J. Between the general and the unique. Theory & Psychology. 2010; 20 :817–833. doi: 10.1177/0959354310381156. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton DK. Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology. 2015; 19 (3):334–344. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slaney KL, Garcia DA. Constructing psychological objects: The rhetoric of constructs. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2015; 35 (4):244–259. doi: 10.1037/teo0000025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndike EL. Notes on child study. 2. New York: Macmillan; 1903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Information Age Publishing.
• Uher J. Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story-Why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2013; 47 (1):1–55. doi: 10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2015a). Agency enabled by the psyche: Explorations using the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. In C. W. Gruber, M. G. Clark, S. H. Klempe, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Constraints of agency: Explorations of theory in everyday life. Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Vol. 12) (pp. 177–228). 10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_13.
• Uher J. Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (3):398–458. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (4):531–589. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (4):600–655. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2015e). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.), Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 223–284). 10.13140/RG.2.1.3848.8169
• Uher, J. (2016a). Exploring the workings of the Psyche: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations. In J. Valsiner, G. Marsico, N. Chaudhary, T. Sato & V. Dazzani (Eds.), Psychology as the science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto (pp. 299–324). 10.1007/978-3-319-21094-0_18.
• Uher J. What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2016; 46 (4):475–501. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Quantitative data from rating scales: An epistemological and methodological enquiry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9 :2599. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02599. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Taxonomic models of individual differences: A guide to transdisciplinary approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2018; 373 (1744):20170171. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2018c). The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals: Foundations for the science of personality and individual differences. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The science of personality and individual differences (pp. 84–109). 10.4135/9781526451163.n4.
• Uher J. Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology. 2019; 53 (1):221–246. doi: 10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Human uniqueness explored from the uniquely human perspective: Epistemological and methodological challenges. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2020; 50 :20–24. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12232. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2020b). Measurement in metrology, psychology and social sciences: data generation traceability and numerical traceability as basic methodological principles applicable across sciences. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 54 , 975-1004. 10.1007/s11135-020-00970-2.
• Uher J, Addessi E, Visalberghi E. Contextualised behavioural measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) Journal of Research in Personality. 2013; 47 (4):427–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J, Visalberghi E. Observations versus assessments of personality: A five-method multi-species study reveals numerous biases in ratings and methodological limitations of standardised assessments. Journal of Research in Personality. 2016; 61 :61–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J, Werner CS, Gosselt K. From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods. Journal of Research in Personality. 2013; 47 (5):647–667. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind : A sociogenetic approach to personality. Harvard University Press.
• Valsiner J. A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varela FG, Maturana HR, Uribe R. Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems. 1974; 5 (4):187–196. doi: 10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• von Bertalanffy L. Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner; 1937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walach, H. (2013). Psychologie: Wissenschaftstheorie, Philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte (3. Aufl.) . Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
• Weber, M. (1949). On the methodology of the social sciences (E. Shils & H. Finch, Eds.). New York: Free Press.
• Whitehead AN. Process and reality. New York: Harper; 1929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wundt, W. (1896a). Grundriss der Psychologie . Stuttgart: Körner. Retrieved from https://archive.org/ .
• Wundt W. Über die Definition der Psychologie. Philosophische Studien. 1896; 12 :9–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. 10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5. [ PubMed ]

Psychology as a Science

Is psychology a science.

There is much debate over whether or not psychology is a science. Here are the arguments for and against the idea, as well as basic criteria for something being a science.

Factors that make something a science

• Controlled, experimental conditions that can show cause and effect and can test hypotheses.
• Highly standardised experiments that can be repeated in the same way - reliability
• Use of IVs and DVs.
• The scientific method – objective, systematic and replicable.
• The scientific cycle – objective, systematic and replicable observation. Building, refining or falsifying, development of a scientific theory, constant testing/refining and back to the theory.

For psychology being a science

• It relies on objective and systematic methods, so is more than the passive acceptance of facts.
• Because scientific methods rely on a belief in determinism, they are able to establish causes through use of methods that are empirical and replicable.
• If scientific theories no longer fit the facts, they can be refined/abandoned. Psychologists are always replicating each other’s work so poor theories become redundant quickly.

Against psychology being a science

• It concentrates so much on objectivity and control that it tells us little about how people act in more natural environments.
• Much of the subject matter in psychology is unobservable, so cannot be measured with any degree of accuracy.
• Not all psychologists share the view that all human behaviour can be explored using scientific methods.
• Allport (1947) took an eclectic approach to the study of psychology combining both the scientific methods of behaviourism and Freudian concepts of unconscious motivation – the best of both worlds!

1 Social Influence

1.1 Social Influence

1.1.1 Conformity

1.1.2 Asch (1951)

1.1.3 Sherif (1935)

1.1.4 Conformity to Social Roles

1.1.5 BBC Prison Study

1.1.6 End of Topic Test - Conformity

1.1.7 Obedience

1.1.8 Analysing Milgram's Experiment

1.1.9 Agentic State & Legitimate Authority

1.1.10 Variables of Obedience

1.1.11 Resistance to Social Influence

1.1.12 Minority Influence & Social Change

1.1.13 Minority Influence & Social Impact Theory

1.1.14 End of Topic Test - Social Influences

1.1.15 Exam-Style Question - Conformity

1.1.16 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Social Influence

2.1.1 Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.2 Short-Term vs Long-Term Memory

2.1.3 Long-Term Memory

2.1.4 Support for the Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.5 Duration Studies

2.1.6 Capacity Studies

2.1.7 Coding Studies

2.1.8 The Working Memory Model

2.1.9 The Working Memory Model 2

2.1.10 Support for the Working Memory Model

2.1.11 Explanations for Forgetting

2.1.12 Studies on Interference

2.1.13 Cue-Dependent Forgetting

2.1.14 Eye Witness Testimony - Loftus & Palmer

2.1.15 Eye Witness Testimony Loftus

2.1.16 Eyewitness Testimony - Post-Event Discussion

2.1.17 Eyewitness Testimony - Age & Misleading Questions

2.1.18 Cognitive Interview

2.1.19 Cognitive Interview - Geiselman & Fisher

2.1.20 End of Topic Test - Memory

2.1.21 Exam-Style Question - Memory

2.1.22 A-A* (AO3/4) - Memory

3 Attachment

3.1 Attachment

3.1.1 Caregiver-Infant Interaction

3.1.2 Condon & Sander (1974)

3.1.3 Schaffer & Emerson (1964)

3.1.4 Multiple Attachments

3.1.5 Studies on the Role of the Father

3.1.6 Animal Studies of Attachment

3.1.7 Explanations of Attachment

3.1.8 Attachment Types - Strange Situation

3.1.9 Cultural Differences in Attachment

3.1.10 Disruption of Attachment

3.1.11 Disruption of Attachment - Privation

3.1.12 Overcoming the Effects of Disruption

3.1.13 The Effects of Institutionalisation

3.1.14 Early Attachment

3.1.15 Critical Period of Attachment

3.1.16 End of Topic Test - Attachment

3.1.17 Exam-Style Question - Attachment

3.1.18 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Attachment

4 Psychopathology

4.1 Psychopathology

4.1.1 Definitions of Abnormality

4.1.2 Definitions of Abnormality 2

4.1.3 Phobias, Depression & OCD

4.1.4 Phobias: Behavioural Approach

4.1.5 Evaluation of Behavioural Explanations of Phobias

4.1.6 Depression: Cognitive Approach

4.1.7 OCD: Biological Approach

4.1.8 Evidence for the Biological Approach

4.1.9 End of Topic Test - Psychopathy

4.1.10 Exam-Style Question - Phobias

4.1.11 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

5 Approaches in Psychology

5.1 Approaches in Psychology

5.1.1 Psychology as a Science

5.1.2 Origins of Psychology

5.1.3 Reductionism & Problems with Introspection

5.1.4 The Behaviourist Approach - Classical Conditioning

5.1.5 Pavlov's Experiment

5.1.6 Little Albert Study

5.1.7 The Behaviourist Approach - Operant Conditioning

5.1.8 Social Learning Theory

5.1.9 The Cognitive Approach 1

5.1.10 The Cognitive Approach 2

5.1.11 The Biological Approach

5.1.12 Gottesman (1991) - Twin Studies

5.1.13 Brain Scanning

5.1.14 Structure of Personality & Little Hans

5.1.15 The Psychodynamic Approach (A2 only)

5.1.16 Humanistic Psychology (A2 only)

5.1.17 Aronoff (1957) (A2 Only)

5.1.18 Rogers' Client-Centred Therapy (A2 only)

5.1.19 End of Topic Test - Approaches in Psychology

5.1.20 Exam-Style Question - Approaches in Psychology

5.2 Comparison of Approaches (A2 only)

5.2.1 Psychodynamic Approach

5.2.2 Cognitive Approach

5.2.3 Biological Approach

5.2.4 Behavioural Approach

5.2.5 End of Topic Test - Comparison of Approaches

6 Biopsychology

6.1 Biopsychology

6.1.1 Nervous System Divisions

6.1.2 Neuron Structure & Function

6.1.3 Neurotransmitters

6.1.4 Endocrine System Function

6.1.5 Fight or Flight Response

6.1.6 The Brain (A2 only)

6.1.7 Localisation of Brain Function (A2 only)

6.1.8 Studying the Brain (A2 only)

6.1.9 CIMT (A2 Only) & Postmortem Examinations

6.1.10 Biological Rhythms (A2 only)

6.1.11 Studies on Biological Rhythms (A2 Only)

6.1.12 End of Topic Test - Biopsychology

6.1.13 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Biopsychology

7 Research Methods

7.1 Research Methods

7.1.1 Experimental Method

7.1.2 Observational Techniques

7.1.3 Covert, Overt & Controlled Observation

7.1.4 Self-Report Techniques

7.1.5 Correlations

7.1.6 Exam-Style Question - Research Methods

7.1.7 End of Topic Test - Research Methods

7.2 Scientific Processes

7.2.1 Aims, Hypotheses & Sampling

7.2.2 Pilot Studies & Design

7.2.3 Questionnaires

7.2.4 Variables & Control

7.2.5 Demand Characteristics & Investigator Effects

7.2.6 Ethics

7.2.7 Limitations of Ethical Guidelines

7.2.8 Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

7.2.9 Peer Review & The Economy

7.2.10 Validity (A2 only)

7.2.11 Reliability (A2 only)

7.2.12 Features of Science (A2 only)

7.2.13 Paradigms & Falsifiability (A2 only)

7.2.14 Scientific Report (A2 only)

7.2.15 Scientific Report 2 (A2 only)

7.2.16 End of Topic Test - Scientific Processes

7.3 Data Handling & Analysis

7.3.1 Types of Data

7.3.2 Descriptive Statistics

7.3.3 Correlation

7.3.4 Evaluation of Descriptive Statistics

7.3.5 Presentation & Display of Data

7.3.6 Levels of Measurement (A2 only)

7.3.7 Content Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.8 Case Studies (A2 only)

7.3.9 Thematic Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.10 End of Topic Test - Data Handling & Analysis

7.4 Inferential Testing

7.4.1 Introduction to Inferential Testing

7.4.2 Sign Test

7.4.3 Piaget Conservation Experiment

7.4.4 Non-Parametric Tests

8 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1.1 Culture Bias

8.1.2 Sub-Culture Bias

8.1.3 Gender Bias

8.1.4 Ethnocentrism

8.1.5 Cross Cultural Research

8.1.6 Free Will & Determinism

8.1.7 Comparison of Free Will & Determinism

8.1.8 Reductionism & Holism

8.1.9 Reductionist & Holistic Approaches

8.1.10 Nature-Nurture Debate

8.1.11 Interactionist Approach

8.1.12 Nature-Nurture Methods

8.1.13 Nature-Nurture Approaches

8.1.14 Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

8.1.15 Socially Sensitive Research

8.1.16 End of Topic Test - Issues and Debates

9 Option 1: Relationships (A2 only)

9.1 Relationships: Sexual Relationships (A2 only)

9.1.1 Sexual Selection & Human Reproductive Behaviour

9.1.2 Intersexual & Intrasexual Selection

9.1.3 Evaluation of Sexual Selection Behaviour

9.1.4 Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure

9.1.5 Evaluation of Self-Disclosure Theory

9.1.6 Self Disclosure in Computer Communication

9.1.7 Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attributes

9.1.8 Matching Hypothesis Studies

9.1.9 Factors Affecting Physical Attraction

9.1.10 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 1

9.1.11 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 2

9.1.12 Evaluation of Filter Theory

9.1.13 End of Topic Test - Sexual Relationships

9.2 Relationships: Romantic Relationships (A2 only)

9.2.1 Social Exchange Theory

9.2.2 Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

9.2.3 Equity Theory

9.2.4 Evaluation of Equity Theory

9.2.5 Rusbult’s Investment Model

9.2.6 Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model

9.2.7 Relationship Breakdown

9.2.8 Studies on Relationship Breakdown

9.2.9 Evaluation of Relationship Breakdown

9.2.10 End of Topic Test - Romantic relationships

9.3 Relationships: Virtual & Parasocial (A2 only)

9.3.1 Virtual Relationships in Social Media

9.3.2 Evaluation of Reduced Cues & Hyperpersonal

9.3.3 Parasocial Relationships

9.3.4 Attachment Theory & Parasocial Relationships

9.3.5 Evaluation of Parasocial Relationship Theories

9.3.6 End of Topic Test - Virtual & Parasocial Realtions

10 Option 1: Gender (A2 only)

10.1 Gender (A2 only)

10.1.1 Sex, Gender & Androgyny

10.1.2 Gender Identity Disorder

10.1.3 Biological & Social Explanations of GID

10.1.4 Biological Influences on Gender

10.1.5 Effects of Hormones on Gender

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Gender 1

10.1.7 Kohlberg’s Theory of Gender Constancy

10.1.8 Evaluation of Kohlberg's Theory

10.1.9 Gender Schema Theory

10.1.10 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 1

10.1.11 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

10.1.12 Social Approach to Gender Development

10.1.13 Criticisms of Social Theory

10.1.14 End of Topic Test - Gender 2

10.1.15 Media Influence on Gender Development

10.1.16 Cross Cultural Research

10.1.17 Childcare & Gender Roles

10.1.18 End of Topic Test - Gender 3

11 Option 1: Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1 Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development 1

11.1.2 Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development 2

11.1.3 Schema Accommodation Assimilation & Equilibration

11.1.4 Piaget & Inhelder’s Three Mountains Task (1956)

11.1.5 Conservation & Class Inclusion

11.1.6 Evaluation of Piaget

11.1.7 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 1

11.1.8 Vygotsky

11.1.9 Evaluation of Vygotsky

11.1.10 Baillargeon

11.1.11 Baillargeon's studies

11.1.12 Evaluation of Baillargeon

11.1.13 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 2

11.1.14 Sense of Self & Theory of Mind

11.1.15 Baron-Cohen Studies

11.1.16 Selman’s Five Levels of Perspective Taking

11.1.17 Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.18 Evaluation of Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.19 Important Issues in Social Neuroscience

11.1.20 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 3

11.1.21 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Cognition & Development

12 Option 2: Schizophrenia (A2 only)

12.1 Schizophrenia: Diagnosis (A2 only)

12.1.1 Classification & Diagnosis

12.1.2 Reliability & Validity of Diagnosis

12.1.3 Gender & Cultural Bias

12.1.4 Pinto (2017) & Copeland (1971)

12.1.5 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Diagnosis

12.2 Schizophrenia: Treatment (A2 only)

12.2.1 Family-Based Psychological Explanations

12.2.2 Evaluation of Family-Based Explanations

12.2.3 Cognitive Explanations

12.2.4 Drug Therapies

12.2.5 Evaluation of Drug Therapies

12.2.6 Biological Explanations for Schizophrenia

12.2.7 Dopamine Hypothesis

12.2.8 End of Topic Test - Schizoprenia Treatment 1

12.2.9 Psychological Therapies 1

12.2.10 Psychological Therapies 2

12.2.11 Evaluation of Psychological Therapies

12.2.12 Interactionist Approach - Diathesis-Stress Model

12.2.13 Interactionist Approach - Triggers & Treatment

12.2.14 Evaluation of the Interactionist Approach

12.2.15 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Treatments 2

13 Option 2: Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1 Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1.1 Explanations for Food Preferences

13.1.2 Birch et al (1987) & Lowe et al (2004)

13.1.3 Control of Eating Behaviours

13.1.4 Control of Eating Behaviour: Leptin

13.1.5 Biological Explanations for Anorexia Nervosa

13.1.6 Psychological Explanations: Family Systems Theory

13.1.7 Psychological Explanations: Social Learning Theory

13.1.8 Psychological Explanations: Cognitive Theory

13.1.9 Biological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.10 Biological Explanations: Studies

13.1.11 Psychological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.12 Psychological Explanations: Studies

13.1.13 End of Topic Test - Eating Behaviour

14 Option 2: Stress (A2 only)

14.1 Stress (A2 only)

14.1.1 Physiology of Stress

14.1.2 Role of Stress in Illness

14.1.3 Role of Stress in Illness: Studies

14.1.4 Social Readjustment Rating Scales

14.1.5 Hassles & Uplifts Scales

14.1.6 Stress, Workload & Control

14.1.7 Stress Level Studies

14.1.8 End of Topic Test - Stress 1

14.1.9 Physiological Measures of Stress

14.1.10 Individual Differences

14.1.11 Stress & Gender

14.1.12 Drug Therapy & Biofeedback for Stress

14.1.13 Stress Inoculation Therapy

14.1.14 Social Support & Stress

14.1.15 End of Topic Test - Stress 2

15 Option 3: Aggression (A2 only)

15.1 Aggression: Physiological (A2 only)

15.1.1 Neural Mechanisms

15.1.2 Serotonin

15.1.3 Hormonal Mechanisms

15.1.4 Genetic Factors

15.1.5 Genetic Factors 2

15.1.6 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 1

15.1.7 Ethological Explanation

15.1.8 Innate Releasing Mechanisms & Fixed Action Pattern

15.1.9 Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.10 Buss et al (1992) - Sex Differences in Jealousy

15.1.11 Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.12 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 2

15.2 Aggression: Social Psychological (A2 only)

15.2.1 Social Psychological Explanation

15.2.2 Buss (1963) - Frustration/Aggression

15.2.3 Social Psychological Explanation 2

15.2.4 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 1

15.2.5 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 2

15.2.6 Limitations of Social Learning Theory (SLT)

15.2.7 Deindividuation

15.2.8 Deindividuation 2

15.2.9 Deindividuation - Diener et al (1976)

15.2.10 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

15.2.11 Institutional Aggression: Prisons

15.2.12 Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

15.2.13 Influence of Computer Games

15.2.14 Influence of Television

15.2.15 Evaluation of Studies on Media

15.2.16 Desensitisation & Disinhibition

15.2.17 Cognitive Priming

15.2.18 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

16 Option 3: Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1 Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1.1 Defining Crime

16.1.2 Measuring Crime

16.1.3 Offender Profiling

16.1.4 Evaluation of Offender Profiling

16.1.5 John Duffy Case Study

16.1.6 Biological Explanations 1

16.1.7 Biological Explanations 2

16.1.8 Evaluation of the Biological Explanation

16.1.9 Cognitive Explanations

16.1.10 Moral Reasoning

16.1.11 Psychodynamic Explanation 1

16.1.12 Psychodynamic Explanation 2

16.1.13 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 1

16.1.14 Differential Association Theory

16.1.15 Custodial Sentencing

16.1.16 Effects of Prison

16.1.17 Evaluation of the Effects of Prison

16.1.18 Recidivism

16.1.19 Behavioural Treatments & Therapies

16.1.20 Effectiveness of Behavioural Treatments

16.1.21 Restorative Justice

16.1.22 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 2

17 Option 3: Addiction (A2 only)

17.1 Addiction (A2 only)

17.1.1 Definition

17.1.2 Brain Neurochemistry Explanation

17.1.3 Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.4 Evaluation of a Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.5 Cognitive Bias

17.1.6 Griffiths on Cognitive Bias

17.1.7 Evaluation of Cognitive Theory (A2 only)

17.1.8 End of Topic Test - Addiction 1

17.1.9 Gambling Addiction & Learning Theory

17.1.10 Social Influences on Addiction 1

17.1.11 Social Influences on Addiction 2

17.1.12 Personal Influences on Addiction

17.1.13 Genetic Explanations of Addiction

17.1.14 End of Topic Test - Addiction 2

17.2 Treating Addiction (A2 only)

17.2.1 Drug Therapy

17.2.2 Behavioural Interventions

17.2.3 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

17.2.4 Theory of Reasoned Action

17.2.5 Theory of Planned Behaviour

17.2.6 Six Stage Model of Behaviour Change

17.2.7 End of Topic Test - Treating Addiction

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

Origins of Psychology

Origins Of Psychology And The Emergence Of Psychology As A Science

March 10, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | approaches to human behaviour.

It all started with  Wundt!

Wundt is often referred to as the   ‘Father of Psychology’  (who defined Psychology as ‘the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour’). Wundt set up the first lab dedicated to psychological enquiry in Germany, in the 1870s. He promoted the use of introspection as a way of studying mental processes.

Wundt’s researchers were trained to examine their thought processes for feelings, emotions and sensations. Research was completed at the university in a controlled environment. The researchers would report back to him what they had experienced and their analysis of that experience. Paved the way for psychology to be accepted as a science in its own right.

(1)  Determinism   the idea that all behaviour is caused by internal or external factors alone, there is no element of free will that influences a response to a stimulus

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

How to Write a Psychology Essay

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Before you write your essay, it’s important to analyse the task and understand exactly what the essay question is asking. Your lecturer may give you some advice – pay attention to this as it will help you plan your answer.

Next conduct preliminary reading based on your lecture notes. At this stage, it’s not crucial to have a robust understanding of key theories or studies, but you should at least have a general “gist” of the literature.

After reading, plan a response to the task. This plan could be in the form of a mind map, a summary table, or by writing a core statement (which encompasses the entire argument of your essay in just a few sentences).

After writing your plan, conduct supplementary reading, refine your plan, and make it more detailed.

It is tempting to skip these preliminary steps and write the first draft while reading at the same time. However, reading and planning will make the essay writing process easier, quicker, and ensure a higher quality essay is produced.

Components of a Good Essay

Now, let us look at what constitutes a good essay in psychology. There are a number of important features.

• Global Structure – structure the material to allow for a logical sequence of ideas. Each paragraph / statement should follow sensibly from its predecessor. The essay should “flow”. The introduction, main body and conclusion should all be linked.
• Each paragraph should comprise a main theme, which is illustrated and developed through a number of points (supported by evidence).
• Knowledge and Understanding – recognize, recall, and show understanding of a range of scientific material that accurately reflects the main theoretical perspectives.
• Critical Evaluation – arguments should be supported by appropriate evidence and/or theory from the literature. Evidence of independent thinking, insight, and evaluation of the evidence.
• Quality of Written Communication – writing clearly and succinctly with appropriate use of paragraphs, spelling, and grammar. All sources are referenced accurately and in line with APA guidelines.

In the main body of the essay, every paragraph should demonstrate both knowledge and critical evaluation.

There should also be an appropriate balance between these two essay components. Try to aim for about a 60/40 split if possible.

Most students make the mistake of writing too much knowledge and not enough evaluation (which is the difficult bit).

It is best to structure your essay according to key themes. Themes are illustrated and developed through a number of points (supported by evidence).

Choose relevant points only, ones that most reveal the theme or help to make a convincing and interesting argument.

Knowledge and Understanding

Remember that an essay is simply a discussion / argument on paper. Don’t make the mistake of writing all the information you know regarding a particular topic.

You need to be concise, and clearly articulate your argument. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences.

Each paragraph should have a purpose / theme, and make a number of points – which need to be support by high quality evidence. Be clear why each point is is relevant to the argument. It would be useful at the beginning of each paragraph if you explicitly outlined the theme being discussed (.e.g. cognitive development, social development etc.).

Try not to overuse quotations in your essays. It is more appropriate to use original content to demonstrate your understanding.

Psychology is a science so you must support your ideas with evidence (not your own personal opinion). If you are discussing a theory or research study make sure you cite the source of the information.

Note this is not the author of a textbook you have read – but the original source / author(s) of the theory or research study.

For example:

Bowlby (1951) claimed that mothering is almost useless if delayed until after two and a half to three years and, for most children, if delayed till after 12 months, i.e. there is a critical period.

Maslow (1943) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs. When one need is fulfilled a person seeks to fullfil the next one, and so on.

As a general rule, make sure there is at least one citation (i.e. name of psychologist and date of publication) in each paragraph.

Remember to answer the essay question. Underline the keywords in the essay title. Don’t make the mistake of simply writing everything you know of a particular topic, be selective. Each paragraph in your essay should contribute to answering the essay question.

Critical Evaluation

In simple terms, this means outlining the strengths and limitations of a theory or research study.

There are many ways you can critically evaluate:

Methodological evaluation of research

Is the study valid / reliable ? Is the sample biased, or can we generalize the findings to other populations? What are the strengths and limitations of the method used and data obtained?

Be careful to ensure that any methodological criticisms are justified and not trite.

Rather than hunting for weaknesses in every study; only highlight limitations that make you doubt the conclusions that the authors have drawn – e.g., where an alternative explanation might be equally likely because something hasn’t been adequately controlled.

Compare or contrast different theories

Outline how the theories are similar and how they differ. This could be two (or more) theories of personality / memory / child development etc. Also try to communicate the value of the theory / study.

Debates or perspectives

Refer to debates such as nature or nurture, reductionism vs. holism, or the perspectives in psychology . For example, would they agree or disagree with a theory or the findings of the study?

What are the ethical issues of the research?

Does a study involve ethical issues such as deception, privacy, psychological or physical harm?

Gender bias

If research is biased towards men or women it does not provide a clear view of the behavior that has been studied. A dominantly male perspective is known as an androcentric bias.

Cultural bias

Is the theory / study ethnocentric? Psychology is predominantly a white, Euro-American enterprise. In some texts, over 90% of studies have US participants, who are predominantly white and middle class.

Does the theory or study being discussed judge other cultures by Western standards?

Animal Research

This raises the issue of whether it’s morally and/or scientifically right to use animals. The main criterion is that benefits must outweigh costs. But benefits are almost always to humans and costs to animals.

Animal research also raises the issue of extrapolation. Can we generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy & physiology is different from humans?

The PEC System

It is very important to elaborate on your evaluation. Don’t just write a shopping list of brief (one or two sentence) evaluation points.

Instead, make sure you expand on your points, remember, quality of evaluation is most important than quantity.

When you are writing an evaluation paragraph, use the PEC system.

• Make your P oint.
• E xplain how and why the point is relevant.
• Discuss the C onsequences / implications of the theory or study. Are they positive or negative?

For Example

• Point: It is argued that psychoanalytic therapy is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority.
• Explain: Because psychoanalytic therapy involves talking and gaining insight, and is costly and time-consuming, it is argued that it is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority. Evidence suggests psychoanalytic therapy works best if the client is motivated and has a positive attitude.
• Consequences: A depressed client’s apathy, flat emotional state, and lack of motivation limit the appropriateness of psychoanalytic therapy for depression.

Furthermore, the levels of dependency of depressed clients mean that transference is more likely to develop.

Using Research Studies in your Essays

Research studies can either be knowledge or evaluation.

• If you refer to the procedures and findings of a study, this shows knowledge and understanding.
• If you comment on what the studies shows, and what it supports and challenges about the theory in question, this shows evaluation.

Writing an Introduction

It is often best to write your introduction when you have finished the main body of the essay, so that you have a good understanding of the topic area.

If there is a word count for your essay try to devote 10% of this to your introduction.

Ideally, the introduction should;

Identify the subject of the essay and define the key terms. Highlight the major issues which “lie behind” the question. Let the reader know how you will focus your essay by identifying the main themes to be discussed. “Signpost” the essay’s key argument, (and, if possible, how this argument is structured).

Introductions are very important as first impressions count and they can create a h alo effect in the mind of the lecturer grading your essay. If you start off well then you are more likely to be forgiven for the odd mistake later one.

Writing a Conclusion

So many students either forget to write a conclusion or fail to give it the attention it deserves.

If there is a word count for your essay try to devote 10% of this to your conclusion.

Ideally the conclusion should summarize the key themes / arguments of your essay. State the take home message – don’t sit on the fence, instead weigh up the evidence presented in the essay and make a decision which side of the argument has more support.

Also, you might like to suggest what future research may need to be conducted and why (read the discussion section of journal articles for this).

Don”t include new information / arguments (only information discussed in the main body of the essay).

If you are unsure of what to write read the essay question and answer it in one paragraph.

Points that unite or embrace several themes can be used to great effect as part of your conclusion.

The Importance of Flow

Obviously, what you write is important, but how you communicate your ideas / arguments has a significant influence on your overall grade. Most students may have similar information / content in their essays, but the better students communicate this information concisely and articulately.

When you have finished the first draft of your essay you must check if it “flows”. This is an important feature of quality of communication (along with spelling and grammar).

This means that the paragraphs follow a logical order (like the chapters in a novel). Have a global structure with themes arranged in a way that allows for a logical sequence of ideas. You might want to rearrange (cut and paste) paragraphs to a different position in your essay if they don”t appear to fit in with the essay structure.

To improve the flow of your essay make sure the last sentence of one paragraph links to first sentence of the next paragraph. This will help the essay flow and make it easier to read.

Finally, only repeat citations when it is unclear which study / theory you are discussing. Repeating citations unnecessarily disrupts the flow of an essay.

Referencing

The reference section is the list of all the sources cited in the essay (in alphabetical order). It is not a bibliography (a list of the books you used).

In simple terms every time you cite/refer to a name (and date) of a psychologist you need to reference the original source of the information.

If you have been using textbooks this is easy as the references are usually at the back of the book and you can just copy them down. If you have been using websites, then you may have a problem as they might not provide a reference section for you to copy.

References need to be set out APA style :

Author, A. A. (year). Title of work . Location: Publisher.

Journal Articles

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Article title. Journal Title, volume number (issue number), page numbers

A simple way to write your reference section is use Google scholar . Just type the name and date of the psychologist in the search box and click on the “cite” link.

Next, copy and paste the APA reference into the reference section of your essay.

Once again, remember that references need to be in alphabetical order according to surname.

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Miscellaneous

Is Psychology a Science

                200605795        

Is psychology a science? Discuss using evidence from the five approaches.

To answer this question I feel it is important to understand the definitions of psychology and science. I will start with definitions of the terms psychology and science and will briefly review the methods of psychology. I will outline the behaviourist approach, the psychoanalytical approach, the cognitive approach, the humanistic approach and the biological approach. In order to confirm whether psychology can fulfil the definition of science I will outline the five approaches and use evidence from the approaches to support my findings.

There are numerous definitions for the word psychology, Benson (1998: 5) describes the discipline of psychology as ‘the scientific study of the mind and behaviour of humans and animals’ whereas Hayes (1998: 1) identifies psychology as ‘the study of the mind, the study of behaviour, the study of human information processing’, and the study of ‘why human beings act as they do’. The two descriptions highlight how definitions differ although it is widely agreed that psychology is the study of the mind and behaviour.

As with psychology there a various definitions for the term science, however they all appear to be based on creating theories or explanations which rely on evidence. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia (2005) includes a number of definitions, firstly stating that science is the ‘study of the physical world and its manifestations, by using observation and experiment’, secondly describing science as ‘something studied or performed methodically’ and finally as ‘any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method’. In order to consider whether psychology fits the definition of science one must take into consideration that due to the nature of psychology, psychologists use research methods as well as experiments to identify the cause and effect. The two main aspects of methodology which Benson (1998: 11) identifies are ‘practical’ and ‘philosophical’.  

The behaviourist approach to psychology (founded by J.B. Watson in 1913) relies on direct observations of behavioural reactions and responses. Watson believed that observations were a key part of psychology as they could be witnessed by others and ‘were not open to subjective bias and distortion’ (Hayes, 1998: 3). Behaviourists believe that humans and animals learn behaviour in accordance with their environment, either by stimulus response association or through reinforcement.

Two key contributors to the behaviourist approach were Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner with theory of classical conditioning and operant conditioning theory. Classical conditioning was first demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov in 1927 as he observed that critical association occurs when one environmental effect predicts the occurrence of another. An example of this is the classical study of how dogs in a laboratory were conditioned to salivate without food. Pavlov found that the dogs salivated when they saw feeding assistants coming with the vessel containing the food (Hayes, 1998). As Hayes (1998: 4) states ‘salivation should only have been a response to the food itself, Pavlov reasoned that the dogs must have learned that association’. Hayes (1998:4) also notes how Pavlov found that by ringing a bell each time the dogs were fed ‘a new association could be formed between stimuli and responses – even responses which were not automatic reflexes’. The research undertaken by Pavlov identified three influencing factors regarding conditioning which are contiguity, frequency and reinforcement.

As the behaviourist approach developed the work of B. F. Skinner identified the theory of operant conditioning which is also known as ‘stimulus response associations through the method of learning’ (Hayes, 1998: 4). Skinner showed through experimenting with rats, that if the rat was rewarded for doing a certain action it would be more likely to repeat the action. Skinner believed the same method could be used to build new actions when done gradually, a process known as behaviour shaping or behaviour modification.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The psychoanalytical approach focuses on how psychological problems could be understood and dates back to when Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) began his research. Freud used the term psychoanalysis to describe his techniques and theories in relation to finding and curing mental problems of his patients.

Not just concerned with mental disorders he also attempted to produce a set of theories to explain all human behaviour. According to Benson (1998: 48) Freud never achieved his goal of ‘One Grand Theory’ although there are some significant aspects to Freud’s theory. Firstly, the Conscious, Pre Conscious and Unconscious Mind, Freud describes this theory using the analogy of an iceberg. Benson (1998: 49) describes the Conscious as the top one seventh of the ice berg as ‘the awareness we have when we are awake’. The Pre Conscious or the boundary contains memories of dreams and Benson (1998: 49) refers to ‘slips of the tongue’ giving clues about thoughts and actions that appear in the Unconscious. The Unconscious is the remaining six sevenths of the iceberg and is explained by Benson (1998: 49) as ‘containing secret wishes and fears; traumatic memories of the past’. Freud believed that all thoughts in the Unconscious were completely hidden and inaccessible to us.  

A further theory of Freud’s was that of Id, Ego and Super Ego. Freud believed the mind was made up of three parts, the Id developed at birth as the pleasure principle. From the age of two the next part of the mind to develop is the Ego which is the reality principle. The Super Ego is developed from the age of three and is influenced by parents or guardians. Freud believed that the Id and Ego stages are selfish whereas Super Ego considers others.

Freud also developed a theory of Psychosexual Development, he described the five stages as Oral (0-2 years), Anal (2-3 years), Phallic (3-6 years), Latent (6-11 years) and Genital (11+ years).

Freud developed methods to unconsciously protect a person from having unpleasant thoughts. These are referred to as regression, repression, displacement and sublimation. Benson (1998: 58) describes regression as ‘going back to an earlier stage’, repression as ‘pushing down unwanted ideas to the unconscious and keeping them there’, displacement as diverting energy (libido) into another activity’ and sublimation as healthy displacement. Benson (1998: 58).

Freud’s evidence was based on the experiences he gained from sessions with his patients which he then wrote up as case studies. His theories have been adapted by analysts, therapists and psychiatrists such as Alder (1870-1937), Jung (1875-1961) and Erikson (1902-1994). Although Freud’s work has had a great effect on modern societies in psychology Freud is classed as highly controversial. Popper (1959) classed Freud’s work as unscientific as the theories were not falsifiable. He proposed that for a theory to be scientific it must be possible to show evidence that the theory is false. An example of this provided by Benson is Freud’s dream interpretation concept, as this could not be proved or disproved Popper argued the theory was not scientific as it could not be falsified (Benson, 1998).  

The cognitive approach has developed greatly since the work of Donald Broadbent during the 1950’s. The cognitive approach focuses on the way the brain processes information. As Heffernan (2000: 16) discussed ‘hypothetical

Constructs or models are used to develop knowledge and test predictions and psychological phenomena’. Cognitive psychologists use concepts from computer science to generate theories and computational models to account for the results of carefully controlled experiments designed to investigate cognitive capabilities and limitations. The main aim of cognitive psychology is to devise a unified, scientific theory of cognition.

The humanistic approach began with the work Abraham Maslow and

Carl Rogers. Humanistic psychologists focus on free will and personal choice and believe in the theory that every individual has the potential within them to achieve a greater level of functioning.

Maslow (1908 -1970) is often referred to as the founder of humanistic psychology with his belief that an individual strives to reach self actualisation as illustrated in his ‘hierarchy of needs’ theory. Author Thomas Heffernan describes the term self actualisation as:

the idea that people attempt to fulfil themselves

to their highest possible level of achievement

in their personal life, work life, etcetera    

(Heffernan, 2000: 10)

Although reaching self actualisation is Maslow’s belief he also believed that few individuals ever get there. However, Maslow did maintain that there were five classes of needs ascending to self actualisation as displayed in his hierarchy of needs diagram. He defined the lowest level of needs as physiological which according to Heffernan (2000: 11) are basic needs such as food and water and ‘once these needs are satisfied, she or he can strive to achieve their next class of needs’. The second level of needs is shown on the diagram as safety and refers to having a safe and secure childhood through to adulthood. The third need is that of love and belonging and Heffernan (2000: 11) refers to this need as ‘feeling that one belongs somewhere and loved by others’. The fourth need is esteem and is described by Heffernan (2000: 11) as ‘the need to be respected by others’. Heffernan (2000: 11) states that only when an individual reaches this level and fulfils their needs at this level does he or she ‘become self actualised’.

The biological approach is the only perspective in psychology that examines thoughts, emotions and behaviour from a medical point of view. Therefore, biological psychologists have developed a great understanding of how the nervous system operates, how the brain functions and how artificial stimulants can have an impact on physiology and thus impacting on behaviour. The biological approach believes that a person becomes ill (psychologically or medically) through disease, accident or because of genetic or physiological damage.

Charles Darwin’s work had a great influence on this approach and one development that emerged from Darwin was his theory of evolution, defined by Heffernan (2000: 7) as determining social behaviour by ‘biological factors and gene survival’. Although the biological approach has had a positive impact on conditions such as depression, schizophrenia and anxiety, other behavioural or cognitive factors can lead to psychopathology without a clear ‘biological determinant’ (Heffernan, 2000: 8)

The biomedical model of abnormality is an example of how the biological approach has had an impact on the study of humans. The following quote highlights the problem with such a restricted approach:

The biomedical approach assumes that abnormality is an illness that exists within the body, as opposed, for example, to the idea that society is the cause of abnormality. (Heffernan, 2000: 7)  

As the above quote highlights, the biological approach directs itself towards the nature side of the ‘nature–nurture’ debate and not the nurture side.  

To conclude I will summarise the five approaches, the psychoanalytical approach  believes that behaviour is a result of unconscious processes and early childhood experiences. Its methodology relies heavily on interpreting patient discussions, dreams and fantasies, case studies and little experimentation. The behaviourist approach believes that behaviour is learned and selected by environmental consequences. The research relies very much on laboratory experiments where the factors studied can be controlled. Data collection can also take place in an everyday environment where more natural behaviour is studied and far more variables exist. The cognitive approach believes that behaviour is a result of information processing, storage in the brain, transformation and the retrieval of information. The methods of collecting data are experimentation but with much use of computer modelling. The humanistic approach is concerned with person centred counselling whereas the biological approach is the only perspective in psychology that examines behaviour from a medical point of view. Of the five approaches discussed, each approach has similarities to the traditional sciences and all undertake controlled experiments not unlike the traditional sciences, for example the cognitive approach and the use of computer modelling.      

Although every psychological experiment and theory is evaluated with the same level of detail, the approaches do not go without being criticised. The cognitive approach was criticised in the early years because it heavily relied on laboratory experiments. However these days it contrasts well with the humanistic approach as research is undertaken in the laboratory and in field studies. It must be noted that humanistic psychology has in the past been criticised due to the fact that it cannot be tested via a scientific method. In comparison the behaviourist approach is often criticised as a study of humans as not enough emphasis is placed on the role of other factors when determining a person’s behaviour, such as the cognitive processes that can lead to a certain type of behaviour. The biological approach is criticised for not taking into account the fact that societal or environmental factors may cause illness that can affect behaviour. An example of this discussed by Heffernan (2000: 7) is that ‘behavioural and cognitive factors (such as direct negative experience or irrational thoughts) can lead to psychopathology, without any clear biological determinant’.

I feel I have shown sufficient evidence to confirm that psychology fulfils the definition of science. I believe each approach adds to the successful study of the psychology whether as an individual approach or combined approach. I have highlighted positive and negative aspects of each perspective and feel I have shown that psychologists use scientific methods in an attempt to predict, change and improve behaviour in addition to evaluating treatment strategies.

Bibliography

Hayes, N. (1998) Foundations of Psychology. An Introductory Text (Second Edition)

London: Routledge

Benson, N. (1998) Introducing Psychology.

Cambridge: Icon Books

Heffernan, T. (2000) A Student’s Guide to Studying Psychology (Second Edition)

London: Psychology Press Ltd.

Huffman, K. (2006) Living Psychology

London: Wiley & Son

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia Standard Edition (2005)

Document Details

• Word Count 2266
• Page Count 11
• Level University Degree
• Subject Miscellaneous

Related Essays

Everything is relative in social psychology(TM). Discuss.

Working in Psychology

Cognitive psychology

applications of business psychology

• Find My Rep

You are here

Sage online ordering services are currently unavailable due to a service outage. We are working to restore service as soon as possible. In the meantime, our books are still available widely via retailers and online. Currently we are only able to supply digital inspection copies. These can be requested via this site, or direct from Vitalsource and Kortext . If you need a print copy, please contact your local Academic Sales Consultant, who will be able to arrange to send this once our systems are back online.

I f you need further assistance please visit our Contact us page for further information.  Thank you for your patience and we apologise for the inconvenience.

How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays

• Paul Dickerson - University of Roehampton, UK
• Description

“This book is one I wish I had bought at the start of my Psychology degree.” – Five-star review Essay writing is a key part of the Psychology degree and knowing how to write effective and compelling academic essays is key to success.  Whether it's understanding how to implement feedback you receive on essays, how to stop procrastinating or what makes an effective introduction, this book covers it all. Drawing on insights derived from teaching thousands of students over a 25-year period How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays provides the keys that will unlock your writing potential.

Ace your Assignment  provide practical tips to help succeed

Exercises  help try the theory out in practice

Take away  points highlight the key learnings from each chapter

Online resources  provide even more help and guidance.

Supplements

Paul Dickerson, Emma McDonald and Christian van Nieuwerburgh discuss  study skills, wellbeing and employability  and explore   how university lecturers and student welfare teams can better  support Psychology students  through their university journey.

Students enjoyed this text - they found it easy to read and the author's dry sense of humour appealed to many. Not just for psychologists!

A really useful guide for students, breaking down the components of what constitutes a good essay and written from a subject-specific view - highly recommend

I have recommended this to my first year tutorial groups as it provides them with everything they need to know about producing an excellent psychology essay.

Preview this book

For instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

Order from:.

• VitalSource
• Amazon Kindle
• Google Play

Related Products

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

‘Everyone should be part of science’

Our Editor Dr Jon Sutton meets Gilly Forrester, Professor of Evolutionary and Developmental Psychology at the University of Sussex, and an experienced science communicator.

03 July 2024

When did you first get into science communication and public engagement? 

Just prior to 2019, when I was realising that the impact of my research wasn't as broad as I would have liked it to be. If you're working with development and the evolution of who we are, as the upright walking, talking, tool-using great apes, it's relatable to everybody. I didn't want the research just being read by a handful of academics in a niche journal. All of my students who came through were always so excited about doing the work, and it seemed like it could have more impact by creating a public engagement platform from which we could engage with people, the communities, schools and families, and really get people excited about the research.

So you who had to make the first moves to create that platform?

Yes, but I certainly didn't do it alone. I've always had people around me who were as passionate about sharing research as me… not always even within the same subject areas, it was just about creating a vehicle for sharing our research more widely. 

The first big thing I did was a residency at the London Science Museum, called Live Science. They give researchers an opportunity to have three months 'on gallery', working with the public. We created this lovely citizen science project to show people how the way our brains and bodies have evolved is a long evolutionary story, and we share much of the way we operate with other animal species. Here was an opportunity to share those general messages, but also do some basic research on a large population of individuals. That's where we kicked off with  Me, Human – the name I've given to all of my public engagement activities. 

So that was an existing scheme… I think that's quite important, because I expect a lot of psychologists would like to have more public engagement and impact with their work, but they might think they have to start by cold calling the Science Museum to ask 'Can I put on an exhibition for you?' But actually, there are schemes out there… probably my own first steps in science communication were with a British Science Association Media Fellowship, which gave me a placement with New Scientist .

There are things out there, but most are geared towards people who want to be the disseminator, the science presenter as their primary career. It can be tricky for the researchers to get out there and show off their stuff, mainly because public engagement money isn't easy to come by. Live Science was a very competitive application process, particularly for the summer programme, where you've got massive footfall from tourists and schools. Other bits that I've done – Soapbox Science, or as a casual exhibitor with the Royal Society Summer Science event – were application-based too, and you still have to find the funding to do the activities. 

The issue is that a lot of funding bodies will only support public engagement if it's tied to a very specific piece of research. There isn't always a general pot, within institutions or funding bodies, to help scientists share more general messages about science more widely. Some big funders have even pulled their public engagement schemes, suggesting that institutions are better placed to support academics with these types of activities. So it's tricky.

Do you think that the primary responsibility for changing that lies with the institutions? What kind of support do you get from your institution for public engagement work?

My institution tries very hard to support public engagement. But I do think there is a wider tendency to support knowledge exchange more heavily, because it is likely to have income generation. It's all tied up with the money that institutions are going to get from the government based on the Research Excellence Framework, and the Knowledge Exchange Framework. 

So, it goes higher up and I think the onus should be on the government to make sure there are funds for public engagement. It's about people's right to information and education. Taxpayers are paying their money to help fund science and progress, and having it then presented back to them in a way that's digestible, informative – and where they also have a chance to give feedback, can make people feel they're actually part of the system. Everyone should be part of science. I feel lucky that I gained an opportunity to do the science, but sharing the science should be required and there should be infrastructure for researchers to do that.

Do you think doing that has made you a better academic, both in terms of teaching and research?

Absolutely. Anybody who's gone to give a public talk – not to students, not to other academics – will recognise that. 

Here's an example, though. I gave a talk at New Scientist Live in 2022. That was great, lots of kids and families, interesting questions. But they are a self-selecting 'science' group of people. Contrast that with doing science at Glastonbury Festival. Science Futures just launched in 2022, and we're bringing science to the public in a way that's meant to be engaging and fun, getting people excited about science. You get so many interesting questions. People who have just stumbled on your stand will ask you questions that really make you consider why you're doing the work that you're doing, and what its full impact can be. They're not already into the detail and minutiae of what you're doing, they can see it more broadly. They want to know, 'how does it relate to me?', and 'Why is it important?' They can really change the way you perceive the work that you do and the perspective from which you approach it, both methodologically and theoretically.

In your particular area of comparative psychology, why do you do that, why is  it important?

I'm just compelled to do it. It's something I've been so interested in since I was a small child. I grew up during the studies where researchers were trying to teach chimpanzees and gorillas to talk, and they were failing miserably. Trying to get them to speak like humans speak, then into sign language, then pictograms and symbols. I was always wondering, 'why are we trying to teach them our language without trying to first understand their communication systems?' My work has focused on trying to take a step back and not assume that the precursors to human cognition, human language for example, were as they are in its modern form. They could have presented very differently. Trying to impose modern kinds of communication on other animals to see if they're as smart as we are is not an effective tactic. 

The other reason that I'm passionate about the research now is that we've forever spent our time studying other animals to understand humans better. The tactic has always been, 'if we can use other animals to model human psychology, human brains, human bodies, human disease, disorders, we can work out solutions on these other animals and apply them to humans' – in order to improve the lives of humans. But the work I'm doing with apes is to say, 'hey, we're all great apes, and we've woken up to understanding that our physical and psychological wellbeing interface with each other to create a quality of life'. We've had this mental health awakening, and we need to assume that our great ape cousins also have mental health, but we can't ask them about it or use traditional psychological measures to understand it. But we can use humans as a model to now help them have a better quality of life. 

Can you give me an example?

The current work is to look at apes in captivity, sanctuaries and release programmes to use our understanding of how our stress systems work – how arousal works, how emotional shifts can happen based on who you're around and what resources are available – to help the keepers and the release teams understand how mentally fit those apes are. This individual is pretty resilient, they might be a good candidate for a release programme; or this candidate is really patient, you can see that their stress levels don't jump up and down when they're near people that aggravate them, they might be a good foster parent for one of the new intakes who's maybe lost their parents in poaching or bushmeat activity. 

For me now it's about turning the tables – not using animals to help humans, but using our understanding of humans to help other animals. We've made the world what it is today, and it's our job to make it better for those we share the planet with.

I'm going to ask a 'stumbled into a field in Glastonbury' question. Is there any evidence that perceiving other apes as close to us – bridging that gap – increases people's support for conservation efforts? In some strange way, wouldn't you expect people to be more bothered about conserving something that was different from us?

Well, the more something seems like you, the more empathy you tend to express for it. But one of the things we're evaluating is first-hand experiences with nature. We know these are impactful, but can we gain similar results by, for example, using virtual reality to take a walk with guides through Uganda, watching wild chimpanzees, understanding their relationships and their families, how they look for their food and make their beds at night. Would those sorts of experiences create a more empathetic and conservation-active mindset? Not just for kids, but for everyone. And, if so, shouldn't that maybe be the future of zoos?

That immediately makes me think that zoos are massively overdue someone 'disrupting the market', particularly for the new generation. Generally, kids love a zoo, but there must come a point where everyone just thinks 'this is mad'. 

It's tricky, because zoos are businesses, and the income is generated by entertainment. While zoos often really try hard to include education, most people don't leave the zoo that much more clued in about any particular animal species or their plight on this planet. So they absolutely need an overhaul.

I suppose they have changed to a certain extent, but yes. 

Making that case to the public that we need to bridge that gap between us and the natural world is one thing, but are there plenty of psychologists who need to appreciate that as well?

Based on some reviews on my papers recently, I'd say a lot of scientists need a broader perspective on this. I like to look at social and language skills, as modern evolved capabilities. If we're looking at language, we're quite sure that language didn't evolve in the verbal capacity alone, it more likely started as a multimodal communication system – heavy on the gestures. The bit of the brain that controls speech, whether or not you speak with your hands or your mouth, it's the same bit, Broca's region. We kidnapped it as a language-specific area for humans, but actually it exists in all great ape species. It's anatomically larger on the left side than the right side in all great ape species, but it's not used for language in other apes, it's used for tool use and object manipulation and solving problems that require a hierarchical set of rules. It probably emerged as a physical syntax-solving brain area. 

This is still really important in the way babies develop. Motor development is hugely important for cognitive development, particularly their language skills. A baby's use of their hands, the way their dexterity develops, will be highly associated with their language. We're currently getting mums and dads to record the repertoire of the reflexive movements of their infants from the first days of life all the way up until about eight months, and then we're tracking their social and communication skills up to a couple of years old to see how these things unfold. 

All of that has been informed by the fact that we have a pretty good idea that the way our bodies move in space was really important for the emergence of higher cognitive skills during our evolutionary history. Traditional psychology likes to say, 'motor development over here, cognitive development over there', never really connected in any meaningful way. But evolutionary psychology would suggest they absolutely are. And all of the really cutting-edge developmental stuff says they absolutely are as well. If we look at a whole range of neurodiverse conditions like autism, ADHD, they're so often comorbid with motor conditions like dyspraxia, dyslexia, dyscalculia. You have to look at human brains and bodies in a wider framework than just human species alone. There is still this impetus to say, 'humans over here, other animals over there', 'we're special because we have really sophisticated capabilities'. But those all have precursors. And if we ignore those precursors, we don't really understand ourselves within a wider framework. For me, that's important.

Agreed. Okay, take me back to the field in Glastonbury. Many psychologists would love to get asked to play Glastonbury, but presumably, there are both highs and lows that come with doing that?

Sure, but way more highs than lows. Even the lows are learning moments. 

When you've been an academic for so long, your understanding of what everybody else knows gets skewed. Even getting people comfortable saying, 'we're animals, we're primates, we're great apes', can be challenging. Terminology gets confused. Even our students will fall for the misconception that we humans are descended from modern monkeys. They're all legitimate misconceptions, because they're things we don't necessarily learn in school. They're not part of the national curriculum. But the public are so enthusiastic to learn. These people who stumble into science at Glastonbury, they're expecting music, not science. But they stay. They want to learn and engage with the scientists there. They will come back and bring their friends. So it does make me realise there's a huge appetite for it, and it's our job to make it available.

In terms of how you pitch what you're doing, is that the same across platforms – live events, podcast, TV or radio, print? 

You always have to know your audience and pitch it appropriately. Something for BBC Radio Four is going to be pitched differently than to a public audience at Glastonbury. But I would never want my audience to feel like it's condescending … instead, you always need to think 'what would I want to learn? How would I want to engage?' I usually use my family members – especially my mother-in-law to test pitch levels and gain feedback. At Glastonbury, and in general, it seems it's about letting people do things, hands on – that has the greatest impact. Don't overwhelm people, get a few main messages out there and then let them ask the questions they think are important. That's where you really learn how people relate to your work, and it makes you change the way you operate.

Given what you've been saying about the importance of motor action, it's interesting that a lot of your engagement is very 'hands on'. I often see attempts at that from psychologists at public engagement events, but it tends to be 'here's a squeezy brain to touch'… it's quite difficult to make things genuinely hands on, I think.

I probably have an advantage seeing that most of my participants are children and other apes. I need to make things work across species, so my experimental design has to work without verbal instruction. I love that you can just allow anybody to approach your design, and they can just go for it without needing to have verbal instruction. For me, that's the best way to do a direct comparison between species. If you start bringing language into it, and you're trying to study language, then you've confounded your study at the get go. 

You say experimental design… that 'citizen science', actually getting usable research data out of the public, is that something you've got more into as your experience of engagement has gone on?

That's a good question. The first really big citizen science project for me was that Science Museum residency, and we saw almost 2000 people come through. We had multiple measures for individuals – nobody had a dataset like that. But to be honest, as I've gone on with public engagement, I've done less and less of actually collecting the data with the public, and more just trying to make sure the messages are clear, that people have fun, and come back for more. 

For example, last year, at the Royal Society – I had a public exhibit that demonstrated that humans and other great apes have this signature reaction in temperature change in their face when they're stressed. For example, if you get a jump scare in a film you get that fight or flight response: the temperature in your nose decreases because blood rushes away and goes around your eyes so that you can pay attention to what's around you in space. It's an evolutionarily old, adaptive, vigilance behaviour. We can use this on other great apes, and see what they're feeling without having to use traditional human psychological tests. So I took the thermal camera to the Royal Society, and the aim was to collect loads of data with humans. I got through about 20 people of the hundreds that we saw, because there wasn't any time to get consent forms signed, to explain to people properly what the science was about, and how their data might be used. I just thought actually, what's more important here is just engaging, and making sure people feel they are allowed to touch the equipment, to move around and explore. That's what usually excites people – getting involved and approaching the science it in their own way and asking the questions they want to ask. So we stepped back from collecting on that occasion. And next Glastonbury, I don't think I'll try to collect either… it's just too much to do both at the same time. But, that said, they're both important.

One final question. I do occasionally see positions of 'Professor of Science Communication', or 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology'. But, broadly speaking, they tend to be occupied by male professors. I guess that's the case with a gender imbalance in Professorships and in academia or Psychology more broadly – something we've discussed in our pages over the years. But do you see that as a goal, to encourage more women into public engagement and science communication?

Sure, that's always been on my radar. In my own career, I've seen big differences in the way that that men and women navigate their academic careers. Most of my male contemporaries gained their professorships a decade before I gained mine, for various reasons. I took three years out with children, and I was lucky enough to find the Daphne Jackson Trust on my way back in. They fund postdocs half-time to retrain and get back up on their feet. So I had a three-year half-time postdoc at Sussex, which was fantastic. If I hadn't found the Daphne Jackson Trust, I probably wouldn't have gotten back into academia. 

I had two girls, so of course that's on my mind – I want them to have all of the same opportunities available to males. They've grown up in a very sciencey household. They've been part of all of my public engagements, volunteering and helping all through their lives. It's a normal part of their life. In fact, my older daughter now works at the London Science Museum, which is lovely. My younger daughter is at the Slade Art School at UCL, much of her sculpture and mixed-media work focuses on the intersection of science and philosophy. So they both have their science angles. 

And then there's the whole Soapbox Science scheme – which I love – looking beyond that stereotypical view of a professor or a scientist as a male in a lab coat, mixing chemicals in a lab.

I guess that that 'soapbox' aspect of it seems particularly interesting… if you were to take a very broad brush approach to gender characteristics, you might say that literally standing up on a soapbox and proclaiming feels quite a male thing to do.

Exactly. So with the Me, Human platform I open it up to my students and my colleagues and we get individuals who work with us and volunteer from all stages of their of their careers. It's about mentoring those who want an opportunity, but also saying 'please do come and just try it out'. Because I'm the last person I thought who would ever do public speaking. I avoided teaching all through my PhD because I was pathologically shy, I was absolutely terrified of it. So it is kind of bizarre that I find myself in this position now. But I do really enjoy it.

Related articles

02 June 2015

• Children, young people and families

10 September 2018

• Climate and environment

28 March 2019

• BPS updates

The Study Blog

Term Paper Writing Help

If you aren't sure whether you are good at expressing yourself through writing, then if you find it difficult to do so (e.g., when trying to write an english essay), we can help you overcome those obstacles by assisting you in improving your communication through writing. We help students compose essays or other types of papers for their courses. Now is the time to come visit us!

How to Overcome the Complexity of a Nursing Essay

There aren't many alternatives for professional translations. Before writing a good summary of something, you need to know your subject well enough to be able to write an accurate one. A research paper requires mastery of research language, a deep understanding of their subjects to be able to write about them clearly, and a careful consideration of possible problems before proposing solutions. Students often have trouble understanding medical terminology when they first encounter it, because they have never heard of these words before. When writing a cohesive psychology essay, students must be familiar with some psychological concepts. We have a wealth of experience under our belt, so we know where they need help. Although you may be able to find better deals elsewhere, there is no way to tell if these sites offer superior customer service and top-quality results. Read customer reviews before making any online purchases. If you don't think there's a market for them, it's perhaps best to skip them.

Professional Help from Copywriters

If you would like us to write anything from an essay in history to a term paper for you, we’d be happy to oblige. When writing something, there's a precise formula for choosing the best word. You can rest assured that you'll receive an expertly written paper from those who know exactly what they're doing. No need to write anything down today; there are no reasons why you shouldn't let others edit your document for you. Don't waste your time trying to convince them to do it for you, instead, invest it in something more productive! Order term papers online and go there! Founded in a simple belief that we are capable of delivering top-quality content to you, we offer a range of guarantees. Test it out yourself! The results must be presented after all the research has been completed.

Cheap Business Essay Writing Services

Before being accepted into our company, we underwent extensive background checks. Check their credentials to confirm that they have been writing professionally for some time. If they are members of professional associations, check, for instance.

Fun Tips to Spend Orthodox Easter Away from Home

In "Student Life"

Welcome to the New Bloggers

In "Degree Essentials"

Mastering Warwick as a Postgraduate

In "Looking After You"

Comments are closed.

Copyright, 2023

You'll need JavaScript enabled to experience the full functionality of this site. Please enable JavaScript by following the instructions at enable-javascript.com .

Sorry, the browser you're currently using is not supported by this site. Please upgrade your browser by following the instructions at browser-update.org .

KS2 Complete SATS Practice Papers Pack 1: Science, Maths & English (for the 2025 tests)

• Product code: SMEB27
• ISBN: 9781789081251

Write a review

• £13.99

We love giving free samples to UK schools — they'll be on your desk before you know it.

If you'd like to take a look at any of CGP's products just click the 'Free Sample' button and it'll appear in your basket. There's no catch — you won't be charged for it, and we'll never ask for it back!

Unbeatable practice for the latest SATS tests!

This splendid Mixed Practice Paper Pack 1 contains 6 full sets of realistic tests — two Maths SATS papers, and two English SATS papers, plus two Science papers! All this, plus detailed answers and full exam-style mark scheme. What's more, this pack comes with a whole host of online extras, including:

• Pupil-Friendly Answers – Crystal-clear worked answers, perfect for pupils marking their own work.
• SATS Parents' Guide – Everything parents need to know about the SATS.
• Mini Quizzes – Mini quizzes to print or view online. Perfect as warm-up activities or extra practice.
• Online Edition – Digital versions of the Practice Papers to view on your PC or tablet!

Just use the unique code included in the pack to gain access to all these free online goodies.

For even more realistic practice, check out our second Mixed Practice Paper Pack !

• Key Stage: KS2
• Years Covered: 3-6
• Media: Book
• Colour: Full Colour
• Publication Date: 2020
• No of Pages: 317

Related Products

Delivery & returns, system requirements, product terms & conditions.

KS2 Complete SATS Practice Papers Pack 2: Science, Maths & English (for the 2025 tests)

We offer FREE delivery to UK Parents, Tutors and Students for orders over £30, and to UK Schools and Bookshops for orders over £50. For orders under these amounts just add £3.95. Orders placed before 5pm Monday-Friday should be delivered the next working day!

We also post internationally — take a look at our Delivery and Returns page for more information.  

What if I want to return something?

Not a problem! If you're a school or an individual customer in the UK, we've got a brilliant 30-day no quibbles returns policy.

If you'd like to return anything to us, just give us a ring on 0800 1712 712 or email us at [email protected] and we'll sort out the details for you.

General Requirements:

• JavaScript enabled

Browsers Supported:

• Internet Explorer: latest version only.
• Microsoft Edge: latest version only.
• Chrome: latest version only.
• Safari: Mac / iOS & Latest version only.
• Firefox: latest version only.

Operating Systems Supported:

• Mac: Versions of macOS currently supported by Apple.
• Windows: 10 or above.
• iOS (and iPadOS): Versions currently supported by Apple.
• Android: recent version of Android (10 or later).

Mobile Devices Supported:

• Most Android devices
• Apple iPod, iPad and iPhone

Need a hand? Just give our friendly Customer Services team a ring on 0800 1712 712 , or email  [email protected] .

This is the Agreement for accessing CGP Online Editions and Digital Extras (Digital Products) via our Online Service (the Service). The Service provides online access to the Digital Products published by Coordination Group Publications Ltd. (CGP). This Agreement covers access to the Service regardless of the device or network you access it through. By using the Service, you agree to be bound by this Agreement. Please refer to this Agreement before using Digital Products in your CGP Account (Your Account).   1. Licence By agreeing to the terms & conditions of this Agreement, you are granted a non-exclusive licence to access the Service and any Digital Products you own for the term specified in this Agreement.   2. Permitted Use and Restrictions i. You may access the Service and any Digital Products you own on any computer/device which is under your control. ii. You may use the Service and any Digital Products for your own personal use, including things like studying, classroom teaching, lesson planning and in-school training. iii. You may not copy, download, print, save or share any part of the Digital Products (including any content) to the internet, an internal website (an intranet), a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), or any other computer or device. iv. You may not sub-licence, assign, rent, lease or transfer your accesses.   3. Accessing CGP Digital Products i. Purchase Methods You may purchase access to a specific Digital Product directly (Direct Access) or by purchasing a Code.   Direct Access is used to provide access to a Digital Product for your own personal use. Purchased Codes are used to transfer access provisions to other users.   A Direct Access cannot be transferred to another CGP account. ii. Access Term You are granted access to the Digital Product for three years from the date of activation.   iv. Codes A Code must be redeemed before the Digital Product it is linked to can be accessed. An unredeemed Code may be transferred to another person or organisation who can then redeem it. Once a Code has been redeemed, it cannot be redeemed again.   4. Registration i. Account Requirements Only holders of a CGP Account may use the Service. ii. Responsibilities You are responsible for keeping Your Account, username and password confidential. You are responsible for all activities that occur under Your Account. If you become aware of any unauthorised use of Your Account, you must notify us immediately.   5. Termination i. Customer Termination If you wish to terminate Your Account contact our customer services on 0800 1712 712. ii. Termination by CGP Books The Agreement and the access granted to use the Service automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any part of this Agreement. Termination of the Agreement (howsoever occasioned) shall not affect any accrued rights or liabilities of either party. iii. Discontinuation of Service We reserve the right to discontinue the Service prior to the expiry date of your access to the Digital Product(s). CGP shall provide a refund for the remaining access period or a physical copy of the Digital Product(s) as a replacement.   6. Digital Product(s) The content and the copyright of the Digital Products and other intellectual property rights of whatever nature are and shall remain the property of CGP or the property of any third parties that may have licensed software or content to CGP.   7. Support Please call Customer Services on 0800 1712 712 if you are experiencing difficulties or have any questions.   8. Disclaimer You are responsible for ensuring that your computer networks run appropriate protection against viruses or other malware. We do not take responsibility for any effects of viruses or malware however introduced to your systems. You are responsible for ensuring that, prior to the use of the Service by your employees, agents or students, all such parties are notified of and agree to the terms of this Agreement. We exclude and expressly disclaim all express and implied warranties or conditions not stated in this Agreement (including without limitation, loss of income, loss or corruption of data, business interruption or loss of contracts), so far as such exclusion or disclaimer is permitted under the applicable law. This Agreement does not affect your statutory rights.   9. Liability i. Our liability to you for any losses shall not exceed the amount you originally paid for the Service. ii. In no event will we be liable to you for any indirect or consequential damages, or loss of income. In particular, we accept no liability for any programs or data made or stored with the Service nor for the costs of recovering or replacing such programs or data. Nothing in this Agreement limits liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or our liability to you in the event of death or personal injury resulting from our negligence or that of our employees, agents or sub-contractors.   10. Third Parties The parties do not intend that any provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 by any person not a party to it.   11. Entire Agreement You have read and understand this Agreement and agree that it constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between us with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.    12. Law and Disputes This Agreement and all matters arising from it are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales whose courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes arising in connection with this Agreement and the place of performance of this Agreement is agreed by you.

Customer Reviews

21 customer ratings

Thank you for the lovely review.  We're glad you like the books and continue to enjoy them. 

Cookies are disabled on your browser. This means some features of the site won't be fully available to you.

CGP uses cookies to give you a smooth shopping experience and to help us understand how well our site is working. To agree to us using all cookies, click 'Accept', or to reject optional cookies click 'Customise'.

Accept cookies Customise cookies

Your Basket ( 0 items )

Your basket is empty

To make sure we show you the right prices and discounts choose an option below:

• UK School/Teacher
• UK Bookseller
• Overseas Bookseller
• Overseas School