4.2.1 - Comparison of approaches
Psychological approaches often explain the same behaviour at different levels and with different assumptions about choice, evidence and change. You will compare learning, cognitive, biological, psychodynamic and humanistic accounts through determinism, nature and nurture, reductionism, scientific method and practical applications. Rather than declaring one approach universally best, you will build reasoned comparisons about which evidence and level of explanation fit a particular question.
What comparison means
The official requirement is only three words: Comparison of approaches. That does not mean "write five mini-essays." It means using the approaches you already know to make explicit AO3 links: similarities, differences, consequences and judgements.
Approach
An approach is a broad perspective in Psychology that shares basic assumptions about what causes behaviour and how behaviour should be studied.
Comparison
Comparison means explaining a similarity or difference using a shared criterion, such as determinism, nature/nurture, reductionism, scientific method or application.
Different tasks assess different AOs. Use application when a scenario asks for it, and direct comparison when the task calls for it:
| AO | What it looks like in this lesson | Example move |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | Accurate knowledge of each approach's assumptions | "The biological approach explains behaviour through genes, neurochemistry, brain structures and evolution." |
| AO2 | Applying an approach to a person, behaviour or research context | "A biological psychologist might explain Arjun's aggression by referring to testosterone or neural mechanisms." |
| AO3 | Directly evaluating similarities and differences | "This is more reductionist than the humanistic approach because it explains behaviour at a physiological level rather than through the person's subjective experience." |
A comparison paragraph needs a criterion. Without a criterion, the answer becomes two descriptions placed next to each other.
| Weak side-by-side description | Strong comparison |
|---|---|
| "The biological approach looks at genes. The cognitive approach looks at schemas." | "Both approaches can be scientific because they use controlled research, but the biological approach often measures physical processes directly, whereas the cognitive approach often infers mental processes from behaviour or models." |
| "Humanistic Psychology is about free will. Psychodynamic is about the unconscious." | "The approaches differ over determinism: humanistic Psychology assumes people can make conscious choices and strive for self-actualisation, whereas the psychodynamic approach sees behaviour as shaped by unconscious conflicts outside conscious control." |
Determinism and free will
One of the most useful comparison criteria is the extent to which an approach sees behaviour as determined.
Determinism
Determinism is the view that behaviour is caused by forces outside a person's conscious control, such as genes, reinforcement, unconscious conflict or internal mental processes.
Free will
Free will is the view that people can make conscious choices and are not fully controlled by internal or external causes.
Do not reduce this to "deterministic equals bad." Deterministic approaches can be useful because they identify causes that can be tested, predicted and sometimes changed. The AO3 issue is whether they leave out too much agency, meaning or personal responsibility.
| Approach | Position on determinism | Comparison use |
|---|---|---|
| Learning approaches | Behaviourism is strongly environmentally deterministic: behaviour is shaped by stimulus-response associations and consequences. Social learning theory is softer because mediational processes affect whether observed behaviour is imitated. | Useful for explaining behaviour learned from experience, but may underplay choice and biology. |
| Cognitive approach | Often soft deterministic: schemas and information processing influence behaviour, but people can reflect on and change thoughts. | More agency than strict behaviourism, but still sees behaviour as shaped by internal processes. |
| Biological approach | Often biologically deterministic: genes, brain structures, neurochemistry and evolution constrain behaviour. | Strong for explaining physical causes, but can underplay conscious choice and social context. |
| Psychodynamic approach | Psychically deterministic: unconscious conflicts, defence mechanisms and early childhood experiences shape adult behaviour. | Explains hidden motives, but conscious choice may be treated as less important. |
| Humanistic Psychology | Strongly linked to free will: people strive for growth, self-actualisation and congruence. | Values personal agency, but critics argue it can underestimate biological and environmental constraints. |
AO2 application: If Nina avoids dogs after being bitten, a behaviourist explanation focuses on learning through association and avoidance reinforcement. A biological explanation might ask whether she has an inherited vulnerability to anxiety. A humanistic explanation would be less likely to start with causes and more likely to ask how the fear affects Nina's sense of control, growth and personal meaning.
AO3 comparison: The behaviourist account may be more precise for predicting avoidance, but the humanistic account may capture Nina's subjective experience better. The better answer is not "one approach is right"; it is a judgement about what each approach explains well and what it misses.
Nature, nurture and levels of explanation
Comparison also asks where an approach locates the main cause of behaviour.
Nature
Nature refers to biological influences on behaviour, such as inherited genes, brain structures, hormones, neurotransmitters and evolved tendencies.
Nurture
Nurture refers to environmental influences on behaviour, such as learning history, role models, culture, family experience and social reinforcement.
Reductionism
Reductionism is explaining complex behaviour by breaking it down into smaller parts, such as stimulus-response links, information-processing steps or biological mechanisms.
Holism
Holism is explaining behaviour by considering the whole person and the interaction of many influences rather than reducing behaviour to one level.
The approaches are not just "nature" or "nurture" labels. Good comparison shows nuance.
| Approach | Nature/nurture emphasis | Reductionism or holism |
|---|---|---|
| Learning approaches | Mainly nurture: behaviour is learned through conditioning or observing models. | Behaviourism can be environmentally reductionist because it explains behaviour as stimulus-response learning. Social learning theory is less reductionist because it includes mediational processes. |
| Cognitive approach | Mixed: schemas develop through experience, but the approach focuses on internal mental processing. | Can be machine reductionist when it isolates information processing from emotion or context. Including cognition makes it broader than a simple stimulus-response account without making it holistic. |
| Biological approach | Mainly nature: genes, neurochemistry, brain structures and evolution. | Biologically reductionist because it explains behaviour at the level of genes, neurons, chemicals or brain systems. |
| Psychodynamic approach | Mixed: biological drives matter, but early childhood experience shapes personality and defence mechanisms. | Reduces behaviour to unconscious conflict, but often uses detailed case material, so it can feel more idiographic than the biological or behaviourist approaches. |
| Humanistic Psychology | Mixed: people have an innate drive toward self-actualisation, but conditions of worth from others can block growth. | The most holistic of the approaches in this topic because it focuses on the whole person's subjective experience. |
Reductionism is not automatically weak. A reductionist account can be testable and useful: for example, explaining symptoms through serotonin can support drug therapy research. The limitation is that a single level of explanation may miss the person's relationships, culture, thoughts or personal goals.
Holism is not automatically strong. A holistic approach may respect the complexity of human experience, but it can be harder to operationalise and test. Humanistic Psychology can therefore be evaluated as valuable for understanding subjective experience but less scientific than approaches that generate precise, measurable predictions.
AO3 comparison sentence: The biological approach is more reductionist than humanistic Psychology because it explains behaviour through genes, neurochemistry and brain systems, whereas humanistic Psychology explains behaviour through the whole person's drive for growth and subjective meaning. This makes biological explanations easier to test objectively, but humanistic explanations may better represent lived experience.
Science and evidence
Another high-value comparison criterion is how scientific each approach is.
Empirical method
The empirical method gains knowledge through observation, measurement and evidence rather than relying only on authority, intuition or argument.
Objectivity
Objectivity means research is not strongly affected by the researcher's personal opinions or interpretations.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means a claim could, in principle, be tested and shown to be false.
| Approach | Scientific strengths | AO3 limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Learning approaches | Behaviourism focuses on observable behaviour and often uses controlled laboratory experiments, such as conditioning research. | Animal research and artificial tasks may not generalise fully to complex human behaviour. |
| Cognitive approach | Uses controlled experiments and models to infer mental processes from measurable behaviour. Cognitive neuroscience connects this work to biological evidence. | Internal mental processes are inferred rather than directly observed, so models may oversimplify thinking. |
| Biological approach | Uses objective measures such as brain scanning, genetic evidence and neurochemical measures. | Biological measures can be correlational, and the approach may over-reduce psychological behaviour to physiology. |
| Psychodynamic approach | Offers rich clinical insight and detailed case studies. Some ideas, such as defence mechanisms, have influenced later research. | Core ideas such as unconscious conflict or the id are difficult to test directly, making parts of the approach less falsifiable. |
| Humanistic Psychology | Values qualitative evidence and personal meaning, which can have high face validity for lived experience. | It is less objective because it relies heavily on subjective reports and idiographic methods. |
The exam trap is to write "scientific = good" and "unscientific = bad." A better AO3 judgement is:
- Scientific methods improve control, replication and objective measurement.
- Less scientific methods may capture subjective experience that controlled experiments strip away.
- The best comparison explains the trade-off.
AO2 application: Suppose two researchers study why people become anxious before exams. A biological researcher might measure cortisol or brain activity. A cognitive researcher might test the role of negative schemas or attentional bias. A humanistic psychologist might interview students about pressure, worth and personal meaning. Each method creates different evidence and different blind spots.
Applications and value
Approaches are not only explanations. They lead to different applications, including therapies, behaviour-change strategies and different kinds of support. This is a powerful comparison route because it lets you judge usefulness.
| Approach | Typical applications | Comparison value |
|---|---|---|
| Learning approaches | Behaviour therapies, exposure work, imitation through role models, reinforcement programmes and behaviour modification. | Practical and focused on observable change, but may treat symptoms without exploring thoughts, biology or personal meaning. |
| Cognitive approach | Cognitive behavioural therapy, changing irrational or negative thoughts, improving memory and decision-making. | Useful when beliefs and schemas maintain distress, but may underplay biological causes or unconscious processes. |
| Biological approach | Drug therapy, brain-based explanations, genetic counselling and biological measurements. | Can lead to effective physical treatments, but may produce side effects or ignore personal and social causes. |
| Psychodynamic approach | Psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy, exploring unconscious conflict and early experience. | Explores possible unconscious causes, but those interpretations need evidence and can be difficult to test. |
| Humanistic Psychology | Support aimed at increasing congruence, reducing the effect of conditions of worth and promoting personal growth. | Respects autonomy and subjective experience, but effectiveness cannot be inferred from an appealing account of growth alone. |
AO3 comparison: A learning approach might be especially useful for a specific phobia because avoidance can be targeted directly through behavioural therapy. A humanistic approach might be more useful when the problem is low self-worth linked to conditions of worth. A biological approach targets relevant physical mechanisms, but severity alone does not establish which intervention works best. "Best" depends on the behaviour, the person and the goal of treatment.
AO2 scenario: Sam washes his hands repeatedly because he feels contaminated. A biological comparison might focus on serotonin or neural mechanisms and suggest drug therapy. A cognitive comparison might focus on intrusive thoughts and faulty beliefs about responsibility. A learning comparison might focus on the anxiety reduction that reinforces washing. These explanations can be compared, but they can also be combined in an interactionist account.
Writing comparison paragraphs
A strong AQA comparison paragraph has four moves:
- Criterion: name the comparison point.
- Both approaches: show how each approach fits the criterion.
- Evidence or terminology: use precise AO1 terms.
- So what: explain why the similarity or difference matters.
Use comparison language deliberately:
| Purpose | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Difference | "whereas", "in contrast", "unlike", "more/less than" |
| Similarity | "similarly", "both", "like", "in the same way" |
| Judgement | "this matters because", "therefore", "a strength of this is", "a limitation is" |
Model AO3 paragraph:
One difference between the biological and humanistic approaches is their level of explanation. The biological approach is biologically reductionist because it explains behaviour through genes, neurochemistry, brain structures and evolution. In contrast, humanistic Psychology is holistic because it focuses on the whole person's subjective experience, free will and drive toward self-actualisation. This difference matters because the biological approach can produce objective, testable explanations and treatments, such as drug therapy, but it may overlook personal meaning. Humanistic Psychology may understand lived experience more fully, but its concepts are harder to measure scientifically.
A comparison bank for extended answers:
| Criterion | Strong comparison move | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Determinism/free will | Compare what controls behaviour and whether choice is possible. | Saying "deterministic" without naming the determining force. |
| Nature/nurture | Compare biological inheritance with learning, social experience or conditions of worth. | Treating psychodynamic and humanistic approaches as pure nature or pure nurture. |
| Reductionism/holism | Compare the level of explanation: genes, stimulus-response links, mental processes, unconscious conflict or whole-person experience. | Assuming reductionism is always wrong or holism is always better. |
| Scientific status | Compare objectivity, control, measurement, falsifiability and replication. | Saying "case studies are bad" without explaining why interpretation can reduce objectivity. |
| Applications | Compare what each approach would do in practice. | Listing therapies without connecting them to the approach's assumptions. |
Check that the paragraph explicitly links both approaches through the same criterion. Every sentence need not repeat both names; what matters is that the explanation sustains the comparison rather than leaving the reader to infer it.