Individual Differences Approach| Section C

Individual Differences Section C

The Assumptions

The main assumption of the individual differences approach is that to understand the complexity of human behaviour and experiences, to do this it is necessary to study the differences between people rather than those things that we have in common. For example we may identify different personality traits by using IQ tests which allows us to see the similar characteristics, however despite this we all have a set of unique life experiences which shape us into the people that we are.

Explinations for everyday problems using the Individual Differences Approach 

How does the individual differences approach explain abnormality?

The individual differences approach would suggest that that abnormality could be due to our life experiences that shape us into the people we are, for example being classified as being insane or mentally ill would attach a label of abnormality to a person alienating them from the rest of the society. Rosenhan suggested that a person would be classed as abnormal due to the labels attached to having a mental illness. For example in his study even though all of the researches acted normal upon admittance to the psychiatric hospitals they were still deemed as insane and had to remain institutionalised between 11 to 52 days.

How does the individual differences approach explain an addiction to gambling?

The individual differences approach would suggest that addiction to gambling is caused due to the differences between individuals rather than the commonalities between individuals. For example people who gamble are only a small minority of the rest of the society which make us different. Griffiths would suggest that gambling addition is due to the personalisation of the machine that the gamblers use. For example if the gamblers were to lose they were more likely to blame the situation on not concentrating or if they were to lose they would feel like the machine is rewarding them for the hard work which is what makes gambling addictive.

How does the individual differences approach explain multiple personality disorder?

The individual differences approach states that it is our life experiences that shapes us who we are therefor multiple personality disorder is a product of our life experiences, such as being punished for something as a child. Thigpen and Cleckley suggested that multiple personality disorder patients have created different personalities as a coping mechanism when being punished. For example eve white from their case study would be the personality that got punished when Eve Black did something naughty such as going into the forbidden woods as a way of avoiding being punished.

 Similarities and differences between the studies in the individual differences approach

Similarities and differences between Thigpen and Cleckley’s case of multiple personality disorder and Rosenhan’s sane in insane places:

One similarity would be that both Rosenhan and Thigpen and Cleckley have ethical issues. Rosenhan’s patients had to follow the hospitals procedures such as taking medicine whilst they were institutionalised which could have made them believe that they were insane and could have potentially put them in harmful situations. Thigpen and cleckley used hypnosis as one of taw ways of interviewing a personality which could have potentially brought back experiences and memories that Eve did not want to remember which puts the participants in harm. Another similarity is that both Thigpen and Cleckley dealt with psychiatric problems. Thigpen and cleckley studied the issue of multiple personality disorder, where as Rosenhan studied the labelling of people suffering with schizophrenia in psychiatric hospitals.

A difference between Thigpen and Cleckley and Rosenhan is the experimental method they used. Rosenhan did a participant observation where the researchers being the participant recorder how they were treated in psychiatric hospitals when they were acting sane, whereas Thigpen and Cleckley did an in-depth case study on one individual.

Similarities and differences between Rosenhan on being sane in insane places and Griffiths on gambling behaviour on fruit machines

One similarity between Rosenhan and Griffiths is that both studies were high in ecological validity. Rosenhan’s study was high in ecological validity as pseudo patients were observing behaviour in real psychiatric hospitals in California and were looking at an issue that is relevant in how institutions were run. Griffiths studied the behaviour of real gamblers in a real everyday arcade setting. Another similarity is both studies collected quantitative and qualitative data. Rosenhan collected quantitative data by how many psychiatrists and nurses thought that real patients were pseudo patients admitted to their hospitals and quantitative data that was collected by researchers of the behaviours and comments made by nurses and staff in their hospitals where as Griffiths collected quantitative data from total plays, total time , play rate, end stake wins the win rate in time and win rate in plays by each individual in normal condition and the qualitative comments made by the participants in the thinking aloud condition.

A differences between Rosenhan and Griffiths is that Rosenhan dealt with something that is already classed as a psychiatric problem such as the labels given to a person that was insane but is back to being sane in the case of schizophrenia and Griffiths deals with addiction which is something that could potentially become a psychiatric problem in the future.

Similarities and differences between Griffiths on gambling behaviour on fruit machines and Thigpen and Cleckley on multiple personality disorder

One similarity between Griffiths and Thigpen and Cleckley is that both studies collected both quantitative and qualitative data. Griffiths collected quantitative data from total plays, total time , play rate, end stake wins the win rate in time and win rate in plays by each individual in normal condition and the qualitative comments made by the participants in the thinking aloud condition. And Thigpen and Cleckley collected quantitative data by carrying out IQ tests on each of the personalities studied and qualitative data by the comments made under hypnosis therapy. Another similarity is that both studies looked at natural phenomenon. Griffiths looked at gambling behaviour and Thigpen and Cleckley studied a person suffering with multiple personality disorder.

One difference between Griffiths and Thigpen and Cleckley is that both used a different experimental method. Thigpen and Cleckley used a case study method where one patient is studied in detail over a long period of time whereas Griffiths used a field experiment where he controlled variables in a natural setting which in this case was the arcade. Another difference between Thigpen and Cleckley and Griffiths is that Thigpen and Cleckley studied something that is a psychiatric problem which is multiple personality disorder whereas Griffiths studied something that has a potential to be a psychiatric problem which is gambling.

Strengths and weaknesses of the individual differences approach

One strength of the individual differences approach is that it can provide useful information in improving the experience of people with mental health problems. This is a strength because it can lead to a revision of the way that people are diagnosed and treated. For example in Griffiths study the information collected from the study could guide us in what causes gamblers to become addicted and how to stop this process from happening in the first place. Another strength is that the individual differences approach has been the development for using psychiatric tests to measure the differences between individuals in the qualities such as personality and intelligence. This is a strength because psychometric tests provide a reliable and quantitative data which can be easily analysed and therefore similarities and differences between individuals can be discovered. For example in Thigpen and Cleckley’s study  they showed us  how the different personalities of eve white  had different IQ levels which allowed us to see a significant differences between these personalities. One weakness of the individual differences approach is that it can rely too heavily on dispositional explanations at the expense of situational explanations. This is a problem because behaviour can therefore can therefore be attributed solely  to a person’s own characteristics or disposition to external factors such as the situation a person is in are ignored.  For example  in Thigpen and Cleckley’s study they claimed that the 3 faces of eve were significantly different however to an insignificant witness the video evidence 100 hours  often makes the differences of personalities easy to identify however they may not be that easy to identify in a different environment in real life. Another weakness with the individual differences approach is the ethical approach is the ethical issues raised with labelling people as being different. This is a weakness because labelling people as different or abnormal can have negative effect on individuals. For example in Rosenhan’s study those pseudo participants who stayed in the psychiatric hospitals for 52 days could have ended up believing their labels and believe that they actually suffered with the psychosis.