I AM TRYING TO DO AN ESSAY ON EXPLAINING HUMAN BEHAVIOUR USING ONLY ONE PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH. AS TOU MAY UNDERSTAND THIS HAS IT'S PROBLEMS AS I DONT BELIEVE ONLY ONE APPROACH HAS ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.THAT'S WHY THERE ISN'T ONLY ONE I ASSUME !I STARTED WITH FREUD AND CO AND THEN MOVED ON TO BEHAVIOURISM BOTH HAVE BEEN LEFT AS I KEEP FEELING THE NEED TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER APPROACH WITHIN THE SAME ESSAY TO EXPLAIN THINGS IN MORE DETAIL I CAN'T DO THIS SO I AM LOOKING FOR THE BEST APPROACH TO EXPLAIN THINGS ALL IN ONE GO. ANY ADVICE ANYONE?

-- CLAIR D WOOD (CLAIRCDW@AOL.COM), November 29, 2001

Answers

For what it may be worth, It sounds to me like you are doing approximately the right thing -- finding out what aspects of human behavior (and don't forget *experience*) are best explained by which of the major approaches. As you have recognized, no one of them explains all aspects better than all the others. Psychoanalysis is better a some areas, behaviorism better at others, neurological, genetic, humanistic, and cognitive approaches better at others still. The ongoing search for one approach that captures all areas better than all the others remains worthwhile, but it may just turn out that multiple approaches are required to explain the many things people do and feel. After all our motivations come from many sources. There's nothing wrong with such pluralism. Many now embrace it.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), November 29, 2001.

If you have to look at it from one approach, i suggest looking at it from a biological perspective. There is a lot of information on sexual behaviour, linked to animal behaviour. You can link a biological basis to cognitivism and behaviourism, which can use some of the information which you already have. I wrote a successful essay like this using just biology. Try to find 'Physiology of Behaviour' although i can't remember who it is by. That has plenty of info in it!

-- Beth Hayes (bethmhayes@hotmail.com), November 29, 2001.

Hi Clair, OK, Freud is good & behaviorism too. So, have you looked at including a developmental compent? Try E. Erickson's stages of development, and include Piaget. This will give you the evolving sense of the phenomina. You might look at A. Maslow to add a dynamic component in the heirarchy of needs. Did you encompass both operant and classical conditioning? Finally, look at the Gestalt school, I suggest K. Lewin, but not in the original, read Leeper's account of Lewin. Good Luck, David

-- david clark (doclark@yorku.ca), November 30, 2001.

I am Currently on a 2000 word essay part off my A level and the title is (why cant one approach explain psychology?) So i'm in there with you buddy! I'd stick with behaviourism for one simple reason psychologist study human behaviour we have our choices we do our mistakes no one has forced us to. hope it helps :)

-- .gary (thisledome@blackburnmail.com), October 04, 2004.

I am currently looking for something somewhat similar, and am ending up trying to develop an approach, but so far the best I've found might be either transactional analysis or Ornstein's MultiMind -- essentially the idea of various roles, identities, or "programs" (like computer program modules) which a person employs in reaction to conditions. Whether you start with a biological, cognitive, conditioned emotional, or whatever context, explaining behaviour in terms of "scripts" or "wheels" (the latter from Ornstein), one is able to isolate a behaviour sequence to a relatively simple "plot". This is like describing a particualr computer program rather than "how computers work", which would be extremely difficult as a general question.

-- Blue Pilgrim (bluepilgrim@grics.net), October 07, 2004.