Exam upgrades:
‘Evaluate the cognitive approach in terms of its strengths and weaknesses’
One weakness of the cognitive approach (CA) is that is takes a reductionist view of behaviour. The CA
states that human behaviour is dominated by the processes of the mind, it does not consider other
factors such as individual differences or social influences. For example, the CA’s assumption “the
computer analogy” reduces memory processes down to input, process, and output. This offers a
detailed look at cognition, showing how it influences behaviour. However, this explanation feels
incomplete as it does not acknowledge any other influences, but rather a deep understanding of
cognitive processes. Therefore, this is a weakness of the CA.
On the other hand, one strength of the CA is that it acknowledges psychology as a science. For
instance, Loftus and Palmer’s study was an experiment. This was a scientific experiment as they
manipulated the independent variable (IV) (the verb) to find an effect on the dependent variable (DV)
(the participants’ answers). They also used participants, a control group, and statistics in their
analyses. This highlights that the CA values science to prove/falsify theories, as Loftus then
proceeded to build cumulative knowledge on false memories by completing more experiments (e.g.
the Lost in the Mall experiment). Therefore, this is a strength of the CA.
Another strength of the CA s that is adopts an interactionist viewpoint. For example, the CA supports
the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate when arguing that behaviour is influenced by our
internal mental processes (IMPs), something biological that cannot be controlled by the individual
without Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Whereas it supports the nurture side when arguing that
schemas are built through the media, interactions, experiences, etc. This demonstrates the nurture
side as schemas are packets of information from environmental influences, which influence our
behaviour. This shows that the CA does not limit behaviour down to one cause, it argues a mixture of
both nature and nurture to create a full picture of human behaviour. Therefore, this is a strength of the
CA.
Ultimately, there are many strengths and weaknesses of the CA. It aims to prove/falsify theories with
scientific methods, while evaluating multiple viewpoints on the causes of human behaviour, but it may
limit these by looking too deeply into specific cognitive processes.
‘With reference to the above scenario, compare and contrast the biological and
the psychodynamic approach’
I agree with the student arguing that the biological approach (BA) and the psychodynamic approach
(PA) are alike because they both take a deterministic view of behaviour. For instance, the BA argues
that human behaviour is solely determined by biology, there is no free will involved. The biological
assumption, “Localisation of Brain Function,” states that all behaviours are localised to specific bran
regions (e.g. personality to the frontal lobe, memory to the temporal lobe/hippocrampus). This
demonstrates that humans cannot choose to behave in a certain way, it is the specific brain region
that will cause the behaviour. Similarly, the PA is alike as it argues that each innate drive determines
behaviour (e.g. the id, ego, and superego). For instance, the ego thinks rationally, and the id radically.
Therefore, the BA and the PA are more alike than the teacher told their class.
On the other hand, I agree with the teacher that the BA and the PA conflict with each other as the BA
supports only the nature argument of the nature versus nurture debate, and the PA supports both. For
example, the BA argues that behaviour is only caused by our human nature, our biology, and our
genetic inheritance. The BA’s assumption, “Evolutionary Influences,” argues that the human mind, and
human behaviour, is a product of evolution, our genetics determine our behaviour. However, the PA
argues for nature and nurture. For instance, it supports nature as our unconscious mind influences
our behaviour, and we cannot control this as our unconscious thoughts are inaccessible to us. The
‘Evaluate the cognitive approach in terms of its strengths and weaknesses’
One weakness of the cognitive approach (CA) is that is takes a reductionist view of behaviour. The CA
states that human behaviour is dominated by the processes of the mind, it does not consider other
factors such as individual differences or social influences. For example, the CA’s assumption “the
computer analogy” reduces memory processes down to input, process, and output. This offers a
detailed look at cognition, showing how it influences behaviour. However, this explanation feels
incomplete as it does not acknowledge any other influences, but rather a deep understanding of
cognitive processes. Therefore, this is a weakness of the CA.
On the other hand, one strength of the CA is that it acknowledges psychology as a science. For
instance, Loftus and Palmer’s study was an experiment. This was a scientific experiment as they
manipulated the independent variable (IV) (the verb) to find an effect on the dependent variable (DV)
(the participants’ answers). They also used participants, a control group, and statistics in their
analyses. This highlights that the CA values science to prove/falsify theories, as Loftus then
proceeded to build cumulative knowledge on false memories by completing more experiments (e.g.
the Lost in the Mall experiment). Therefore, this is a strength of the CA.
Another strength of the CA s that is adopts an interactionist viewpoint. For example, the CA supports
the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate when arguing that behaviour is influenced by our
internal mental processes (IMPs), something biological that cannot be controlled by the individual
without Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Whereas it supports the nurture side when arguing that
schemas are built through the media, interactions, experiences, etc. This demonstrates the nurture
side as schemas are packets of information from environmental influences, which influence our
behaviour. This shows that the CA does not limit behaviour down to one cause, it argues a mixture of
both nature and nurture to create a full picture of human behaviour. Therefore, this is a strength of the
CA.
Ultimately, there are many strengths and weaknesses of the CA. It aims to prove/falsify theories with
scientific methods, while evaluating multiple viewpoints on the causes of human behaviour, but it may
limit these by looking too deeply into specific cognitive processes.
‘With reference to the above scenario, compare and contrast the biological and
the psychodynamic approach’
I agree with the student arguing that the biological approach (BA) and the psychodynamic approach
(PA) are alike because they both take a deterministic view of behaviour. For instance, the BA argues
that human behaviour is solely determined by biology, there is no free will involved. The biological
assumption, “Localisation of Brain Function,” states that all behaviours are localised to specific bran
regions (e.g. personality to the frontal lobe, memory to the temporal lobe/hippocrampus). This
demonstrates that humans cannot choose to behave in a certain way, it is the specific brain region
that will cause the behaviour. Similarly, the PA is alike as it argues that each innate drive determines
behaviour (e.g. the id, ego, and superego). For instance, the ego thinks rationally, and the id radically.
Therefore, the BA and the PA are more alike than the teacher told their class.
On the other hand, I agree with the teacher that the BA and the PA conflict with each other as the BA
supports only the nature argument of the nature versus nurture debate, and the PA supports both. For
example, the BA argues that behaviour is only caused by our human nature, our biology, and our
genetic inheritance. The BA’s assumption, “Evolutionary Influences,” argues that the human mind, and
human behaviour, is a product of evolution, our genetics determine our behaviour. However, the PA
argues for nature and nurture. For instance, it supports nature as our unconscious mind influences
our behaviour, and we cannot control this as our unconscious thoughts are inaccessible to us. The
