PSYC 360 Paradigms Lecture PDF

Lecture 2 — Paradigms Freud and psychodynamic personalities Freud confronted with an epidemic of “hysteria” in Europe He is intrigued by past reports of the role of hypnosis in treatment which grew his focus on the subconscious mind Deeply influenced by Charles Darwin and evolu...

Lecture 2 — Paradigms Freud and psychodynamic personalities Freud confronted with an epidemic of “hysteria” in Europe He is intrigued by past reports of the role of hypnosis in treatment which grew his focus on the subconscious mind Deeply influenced by Charles Darwin and evolutionary theory and focused on the idea that humans had a dark side and was intrigued by the work of Mesmer His theories took into account the battles between the dark and light side (in the mind), the influence of evolution and instinct, and the idea that we don’t really know why we do what we do (which was what Mesmer also found out) Presented as a hydraulic model, a life energy flowing between different psychic structures. This is called a LIBIDO. The concept of psychodynamics is the interplay and conflict between these three psychic structures, which are the ID, EGO, and the SUPER EGO The three structures of the psyche ID ○ Emerges early in development ○ Ruled by the pleasure principle, does not tolerate frustration and wants what it wants ○ Engages in primary process thinking — coping with fantasy and not reality ○ Freud thinks the ID is the driver of all activity EGO ○ Emerges in second 6 months of life ○ More of a realist and focused on the constraints of reality and practicality ○ Described as the mediator between the id and conscience or the demands of the situation SUPER EGO ○ Last structure to develop ○ Is the one that is cautious and wants to do what is right to avoid punishment ○ Functions as conscience. Freud believed that children did not have the super ego just quite yet since children are not able to fully distinguish right and wrong ○ Ego is how you understand reality but not evaluative, but super ego is not just realistic but also morally so Childhood really mattered for Freud. The way the id, the ego and the super ego battled each other and the way it resolved individually would manifest in how your life would turn out Conflict and psychopathology Conflicts occur between the drives of the id — what we call LIBIDINAL ENERGY — at every stage of development. NEUROTIC ANXIETY — anxiety produced by id, ego and superego If conflict is not resolved, the energy is fixated Psychopathy can also result in Pros and cons of Freud Pros ○ Focuses on importance of childhood in determining later outcomes. That is true. Things that are resolved or unresolved in your childhood will come back to bite you ○ Recognized that we behave in ways that are not always driven by motivations we are aware of. Some of the ways we act are driven by things outside of our conscience ○ Emphasis on role of instinct and drive Cons ○ Nonscientific. There is no way to measure or study the id in a lab. Self discipline is more of the actions of the ego and superego, and not fighting against the id. Freud usually looked at dream interpretation as a way of measuring the three psyche structures, as well as inkblots (which were only readable by the id) ○ Doesn’t lead to therapists that actually work. Psychoanalytic therapy is ineffective, so the paradigm collapses, and gives way to a new one. However, this collapse is violent and the next one to emerge hates Freud’s work Behaviorism Behavioral theory is what emerges from the aftermath of Freud’s collapsed paradigm Reaction against Freud’s focus on the unobservable and the untestable Rejects any phenomena that cannot be empirically tested Influenced by John Locke and the British Empiricists. People like John Locke looked at people as blank slates that reality wrote upon, that people learned upon reactions from the outside world Pavlov’s dog Food (unconditioned stimulus) and salvation (unconditioned response) One day, Pavlov realized that by just ringing a bell, he could get the dog to salivate without even giving it food UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS — stimulus that requires no learning, automatic and involuntary action UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE — response that also requires no learning  Now, the bell has become the CONDITIONED STIMULUS — stimulus that needs learning to interact with it Salvation becomes a conditioned response instead of unconditioned, because when in the presence of a bell, it had to be learned with the pairing of the bell and food If occurring NATURALLY, it will be unconditioned (response). If not, it will be conditioned The law of effect Came from EDWARD THORNDIKE, which demonstrated that if a behavior is followed by consequences that are unpleasant to the organism, it will be UNLEARNED and DISCONTINUED and vice versa If I initiate a behavior and the behavior gets me good stuff, I’ll repeat it If I initiate a behavior and the behavior gets me good stuff, I won’t do it again The problem is its logically flawed Theological idea that fails to be able to be tested B.F. Skinner Influenced by the law of effect, and moves into the PRINCIPLE OF REINFORCEMENT which says that stimuli evoke responses. Something happens in the environment and will always produce a consequence. The consequence of that behavior will determine whether or not the organism learns that behavior. He wanted to know what sort of reinforcers caused learning for organisms Stimulus → response → consequence POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT — give you something good i.e. getting an A after studying NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT — take away something bad i.e. taking Aspirin takes a headache away ○ ESCAPE CONDITIONING — behavior that allows for individual to escape from a negative situation. This will be learned. PUNISHMENT — the inverse of reinforcement ○ POSITIVE PUNISHMENT — give you something bad i.e. speeding ticket for speeding ○ NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT — take away something good i.e. timeout Albert Bandura and vicarious learning Conducts his influential experiments with Bobo the Clown Found that learning can occur inside You don’t have to experience things to learn → no need for stimulus + response kind of learning Focus on the INTERNAL experience rather than the behaviorist thing Pros and Cons of Behaviorism Pros ○ Lends itself well to research and scientific validation. Easily testable in experiments esp with operant and classical conditioning ○ Leads to therapies that work well, like treating phobias with exposure therapy ○ Helps us understand learning and change in powerful ways Cons ○ No focus on internal process, because we actively organize things in our brains too Humans are not blank slates and we have experience. This is disregarded by the behaviorist model. ○ Absence of emotions. Skinner thought emotion was unscientific because it wasn’t measurable in the lab. Behaviorists said that emotions were unimportant, but all human behavior is emotional and emotionally regulated ○ Doesn’t explain development because stimulus response and consequence happens in children as well as adults but doesn’t explain how they’re different Fall of behaviorism is the failure to explain the internal process, because humans aren’t blank slates and are way deeper than that Behaviorism paves the way for the idea that we actually have to LEARN HOW TO LEARN → cognitive paradigm rise The background to cognitive theory Cognitive theory and behavioral theory were NOT ANTAGONISTIC ○ Many behaviorists soon became cognitive theorists Main idea is that we all have experiences, experiences we learn from. We learn from beliefs, attitudes, and SCHEMAS — rules or guidelines that give us information on the world around ○ i.e. Hostile Attribution bias — feeling as if the world is against you (that sort of feeling). People can see the same stimulus, but interpret it in different ways. One person may be more hostile and one person may be more good natured Learning is always guided by schemas Assumption that “humans are not blank slates” is what cognitive theory was built off of Schemas and psychopathology Skinner would say that psychopathology is a result of people not learning the RIGHT RESPONSES and ○ i.e. phobia develops not as a result of schemas, but as a result of the wrong responses being reinforced Cognitive psychologists would say that psychopathology is the result of having the WRONG MENTAL SCHEMAS  ○ i.e. the feeling that everything bad that happens to me is my fault → that leads to depression Pros and cons of cognitive theory Pros ○ Lends itself well to research and scientific validation ○ Like behaviorism it leads to therapies that work Cons ○ Schemas can’t be observed physically. This is going back to the behaviorists’ argument, which was on the basis of purely empirical evidence ○ CORRELATION does not equal CAUSATION. The schema that talks about learned helplessness leads to depression, goes away when depression dies down. Therefore, the schema is ONLY ACTIVE WHEN THE PATHOLOGY IS Most of the cognitions thought to predict depression only exist when the person is depressed ○ NO EMPHASIS ON EMOTION — Emotion should be the crux of everything, not just tacked on later i.e. Schacter and Singer study, where arousal for a significant other (at least, to be) is confused with physiological arousal ○ Lack of application of technology → led to the BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM The rise of the biological paradigm The biological paradigm says that pathopsychology and all that relates to it is because of literal BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Behavior Genetics: ○ FAMILY/METHOD — compare members of a family. See if BEHAVIORAL similarity is related to GENETIC similarity ○ ADOPTION STUDY — find related individuals who never lived together and see if SIMILAR IN DIAGNOSIS ○ TWIN METHOD — twins more likely to share disorder or disorder conditions Reductionism in biological paradigm When something is reductionistic, it is made TOO SIMPLISTIC for its nature, or for its demands Complex phenomena i.e. perception are BROKEN DOWN into its simplest parts, which do not account for everything in the system The biological paradigm is criticized because when you focus on genes and chemicals, you are focusing on the trees and not the forest — losing sight of the whole for the parts Pros and cons of biological paradigm  Pros ○ New technology + MODERN SCIENCE → broadens our understanding of human behavior i.e. medication ○ Leads to very effective therapeutic INTERVENTIONS Cons ○ REDUCTIONISM ○ Biological perspective NEGATES HUMAN WILL → “what I am doing is driven by neural chemistry and genes, instead of my choices and free will as a person” Biological paradigm is starting to fall down at this time, and what will emerge should be a biosocial paradigm — a mix of biological and social factors, and focusing on genetic factors and biochemistry and its interactions Diathesis stress model All of the various paradigms discussed are just perspectives which are fundamentally different in nature DIATHESIS — inherent vulnerability; can be inherited (genetic) or acquired The idea behind it is that mental health is an interaction between diathesis and a STRESSOR in the environment ○ i.e. if you have two cups, A with little pink liquid and B with lots of pink liquid ○ If you decide to fill those two cups with pink liquid, A will fill up fine and almost to the top but not overflow. B will overflow because there is simply too much. ○ The LIQUID represents a single STRESSOR, and when you add stress to a person with little or no stress (A) → nothing bad really happens ○ If you add stress to a person with a lot of stress ALREADY (B) → that stress will overflow. The stress will get to a point where it crosses the threshold therefore spilling out and throwing that person into disordered territory To get “sick” you need both the VULNERABILITY and the STRESSOR People who are doing terrible later in life are many of which who had PREVIOUS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS This model proposes an interaction between vulnerabilities and stressors. Unless you have the vulnerability, you will not get “sick” (or at least, not that severely) The vulnerability and stressor can be CONCEPTUALIZED with different models and paradigms ○ i.e. genetic vulnerability which is BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM can interact with reinforcement history which is a BEHAVIORAL PARADIGM, to make psychopathology Important things to note: ○ Individual will only become depressed ONLY if they have both GENETIC RISK FACTOR and is exposed to NEGATIVE LIFE EVENTS Negative life event and NO GENETICS = no depression Genetics and NO NEGATIVE LIFE EVENT = no depression