Structuralism vs. Functionalism

As soon as psychology started to gain scientific relevance, so started the debate over how it was most appropriate to describe behavior and the human mind. This sparked the still continuing debate, Structuralism vs. Functionalism.

Structuralism was first introduced by Wilhelm Wundt. It was then formally named and established by one of his students named Edward B. Tichener who broke away from many of the previous ideas put forward by Wundt. Structuralism aims to describe the structure of the mind in terms of the most primitive elements of mental experience. It focused on the breaking down of the brains mental processes into its basic components. These basic components were then attempted to be discovered by a method known as introspection. Introspection can be defined as the examination or observation of one’s own mental and emotional processes. Structuralism is based on the idea that the aim of psychology is to investigate how the elements are relate to each other which is done by the study into sensations, images and feelings.

Functionalism was formulated as a reaction to structuralism and aims to explain mental processes in a more accurate manner than structuralism. It does this by focusing on the purpose of consciousness and behavior. It was brought forward by William James (1842-1910) and was derived from the theory of natural selection created by Darwin which suggests that unless characteristics of a species, including the processes in the brain, served some sort of purpose they would not be selected over time by nature and would not have survived.

There are weaknesses to both approaches. Structuralism was criticized for lacking reliability in its results due to the study of the structure of the mind being too subjective. Others argue that it was too concerned with internal behavior that cannot be easily observed and therefore not easily measured. It could also be argued that everyday psychological problems cannot be solved by looking at the sensations of them alone and the mental operations that are promoted by functionalism have to be considered.

While researching for this blog I came across something very intriguing.  No matter how much I looked for information on functionalism, and found it, I could not find any criticisms about this idea. The only one I can think of is that it as structuralism is too subjective to be observed empirically, functionalism may be too objective when we as humans are naturally subjective, and see and think in a subjective way. If you can think of any of your own criticisms or have come across any in your own research into the subject please let me know! The only one I could find simply states, “It is literature. It is beautiful, but it is not psychology,” (Fancher, R.E., 1996). I not only do not know what is meant by this but I am also astonished this is the only listed criticism I can find.

Although I can see the point of view from both structuralism and functionalism I can only find valid criticisms of structuralism. For this reason and this reason only, I am going to take the side of functionalism. If you wish to try to change my mind, be my guest.

Is it dishonest to remove outliers from data?

An outlier within data is defined as an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a sample from a population. Although this is a standard definition, most of it is still determined by the analyst themselves as it is up to them to differentiate what is considered a ‘normal’ observation. This therefore makes the resulting data subjective, rather than objective which takes away an element of its scientific value.

However it is vital that researchers be allowed to eliminate outliers. This is because more often than not an outlier in a set of data is there due to mistakes in data entry or an error in the equipment used to record the data. If ‘outliers’ appear on a regular basis, more research should be done into the experiment itself to identify whether equipment is unreliable or the methodology itself is flawed.

In a large population sample, outliers are to be expected and should be identified and investigated before being retained or discarded of. After all it is just as damaging to have a figure in the results that it there as a result of, for example, an error in equipment used than it is to discard an outlier that is there for a legitimate reason.

I myself am in agreement with Judd and McClelland’s (1989) argument that outlier removal is desirable, honest, and important. In my opinion, it is not dishonest to remove outliers if the possible causes of them are throughly looked into to and they are found to be there due to an error.