1

• This section deals with metatheory– The theory of theories (!?!)

• Theory:– Statement about an observed

phenomenon– Used to predict something about

it– Can take any form (does not

have to resemble The Thing)

• Explanation– A statement about reality– Stating one thing in terms of

other things– Used to understand something

2

• Why are you copying these notes down?– (A) “I need them later to study

from, it makes sense to do so”

– (B) That is what students do during a lecture, even though many don’t look at those notes again

• Which of the two reasons is it?

• Could it be a bit of both?– Seems most of our actions are

determined by a mix of individual and group forces

3

• If it is partly a case of both, use both!

• Sticking to just one is an error!– You’re leaving stuff out!

– Reductionism (favouring one explanation for phenomenon over all others)

• Examples of reductionist explanations:– “depression is a chemical

inbalance”

– “the development of neuroses is determined by early family life”

4

• “Depression is a chemical inbalance”– Evidence: all depressed people

have decreased levels of serotonin

– Plus: giving a depressed person a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor makes them feel better

– BUT: fighting with your in-laws can lead to depression (where’s the chemistry?)

– BUT: Having your soccer team lose the world cup can lead to depression (where’s the chemistry?)

– Chemistry hypothesis is true, but also false

5

• The development of neuroses is determined by early family life– Evidence: Look at the family

histories of neurotics – all troublesome

– Helping people deal with early family issues can reduce neurotic symptoms

– BUT: in one disturbed family, some kids become neurotic, others not

– BUT: giving a neurotic medication can reduce their symptoms

6

• Psychological phenomena are complex– Difficult for simple theories to

completely explain them

• Where does the complexity come from?– Are we not just little molecules?

– A system with many small, simple parts can show emergent behaviours

– Emergent behaviour - Very simple rules can lead to amazing stuff you’d never expect

7

• Emergent behaviour example– (Don’t copy this down)

• Imagine 3 groups of little bobs, A, B, C

• A bobs love Bs and hate Cs• B bobs love Cs and hate As• C bobs love As and hate Bs

• Bobs move straight towards the ones they love, run straight away from those they hate

• Create 1000 bobs, make them leave a little trail

8

9

• Reductionist explanations could never explain why the picture is curvy

– Need to consider not only the love/hate force, but the effect of the other bobs

• Psychology (especially social) is a bit like that

– Consider: chemistry, personality, group membership, political belief, etc.

– Our current “theory technology” only allows for “reductionist” theories

• Douh! Help!

10

• We need to fix this “individual-group” controversy

• Doise gives one possible solution– Theories can be placed into

“levels of analysis”

– Helps to check if you are being reductionist in your explanation

– Not quite perfect, but helpful

11

• Doise’s Solution

• Gives a different way to think about theories– Not about reality itself

• It is a new “toolbox” for people trying to explain behaviour – says nothing about the behaviour itself

• Allows you to combine many theories to explain behaviour more fully– Helps get rid of reductionism

12

• How it works:

• Any theory (present & future) fits into one of the 4 levels:– Intra-personal– Inter-personal– Positional– Ideological

• Then select theories from different levels to explain a phenomenon– Using theories from the same

level won’t solve the reductionism

– Each level captures a different theoretical slant on reality

13

• Level 1: Intra-personal theories– Explain things in terms of forces

inside a single person

– These forces can be biological, psychological or mystical!!

• Examples:

– “crowd violence occurs due to personality factors of the perpetrators”

– “Samurai warriors committed ritual suicide (sepuku) to express their honour”

14

• Level 2: Inter-personal theories– Focuses on the forces between

actors in a situation, not the actors themselves

– Assumes that same results would occur if different individuals were in the same spots

– “crowd violence occurs because both sides work each other up”

– “Sepuku allowed the head of a family to erase the dishonour of his family, and thus improve relations between his family and others”

15

• Level 3: positional theories– Focuses on differences of

status/power between groups

– The actors are not interchangeable; the social status they bring with them is very important

– “crowd violence is a minority’s expression of their disempowerment; it is an attempt to improve their position”

– “The daimyo (feudal lords) encouraged the practice of sepuku among their warriors as a way of ensuring the fighting force was effective and loyal”

16

• Level 4: Ideological theories– Focus on a culture/groups

shared ideas of how groups should relate

– Ideologies delimit our behaviour, so studying how people adhere to them can explain social activity

– “crowd violence occurs because the crowd holds the belief that change can only occur through action”

– “Samurai warriors committed sepuku because it was part of the bushido code of conduct they believed in”

17

• These four levels let you avoid reductionism– Analyse a phenomenon from

various levels

• Does not really explain how the levels fit together– Just adding more stuff!

– What stuff belongs together?

– Is it simply addition, or do the levels have some other relationship between them?

18

• Doise: the 4 levels must articulate– The social actor engages all 4 levels

simultaneously– explanations must reflect this

• What is articulation?– Doise is not too clear (!)

– Each level contributes to the whole (linking) – eg. Seeing the team lose lowers serotonin, etc

– Consider how each level affects the others

19

• Each level is like the wagon of a train– Each pulls the others– The others pull it– Separated, but connected in

purpose

• Articulation focuses on how changes on one level will affect the other levels– In-laws visit; cultural tension (2)– Cultural tension leads to prejudice

(2 → 1)– Prejudice leads to stereotyping

(2 → 3)– Leads to anger (3 → 1)– Leads to racist comments (3 → 2)

20

• Notice that any two levels can articulate (eg 4 → 1)– Not quite like a train!

• Does Doise’s scheme work? Three questions to ask:

– Is it complete?

– Does it solve the individual-group problem?

– Is the “articulation” idea nonsense?

21

• Q1: Is it complete?

• Why 4 levels?

– Others have similar schemes with different numbers (7, 3, etc)

– These other schemes seem equally sensible

– Doise does not justify his choice

• Arbitrariness is a bad thing!

– Add another pointless level; have you improved it?

22

• You can always add levels – Add more “detail”

• Having 4 levels itself is not an error– The error is not justifying why he

restricted it to 4 levels

• Why didn’t he do it?

– Difficult to do

– Ends up as a fight with other psychologists

– Might have considered it a small problem in comparison to articulation

23

• Q2: Does it solve the individual-group

problem?

• What is the individual-group problem?– Convert 2 things into 1

• Doesn’t Doise’s scheme actually make it worse?– Convert 4 things into 1 (!)

• Not true!– Articulation idea prevents this

from happening– “4 things plus recipe for making

them into 1”

24

• Q3: Is the articulation idea nonsense?

• His most important idea

• Very vague about the idea

• “it’s good cause it works” – proof by example

• What is the relationship between the levels?– Is it causal?– Up or Down?

• Not finished yet?