This is a three-part post on bias in research, reductionism and bias in behavior.

Researchers view findings through specific (theoretical) lenses, like the biological perspective (focusing on genetics and brain chemistry) or the cognitive perspective (focusing on mental processes such as memory). Each lens can lead to different interpretations of the same data.

For example, with the biological perspective, a study on aggression could be explained by chemical imbalances in the brain. While the social learning theory will explain that learned behavior stems from observing others.

This issue with viewing things through such lenses is that it often reduces complex behaviors to a single cause, aka reductionism. This strips away the broader social, cultural, or environmental factors.

Reductionism can be split into two types: Biological Reductionism and Environmental Reductionism.

Biological and Environmental Reductionism

• Biological Reductionism assumes that behaviors can be explained solely by biological factors, such as genetics or brain chemistry
• Environmental Reductionism suggests that behavior is primarily shaped by environmental factors, such as upbringing or culture

Reductionism has been criticized on the basis that it discounts complex human nature and dismisses individual differences.

One of the most notable examples of reductionism in psychology is the explanation of depression purely through biological factors. In this (biological) model, depression is viewed as a result of imbalances in brain chemistry, often framed as low serotonin levels. The serotonin hypothesis posits that increasing serotonin through medication (ie. SSRIs) can relieve depressive symptoms

Why It’s Important to Study This Bias:
While biological factors play a role in depression, this reductionist view ignores the sociocultural and cognitive factors contributing to the disorder. For instance, life stress, social isolation, and negative thinking patterns also play critical roles in the development and persistence of depression.

While reductionism can help researchers understand specific variables, it often neglects the complex, interconnected nature of human behavior. For example, if a researcher solely focuses on genes to explain depression, they may ignore the role of socio-economic factors, leading to an incomplete understanding of the disorder.

Focusing solely on biological explanations can limit treatment options, overlook root causes, and fail to address broader social or psychological factors, thus missing opportunities for holistic care. While including other approaches ensures a more accurate, nuanced, and ethical approach to psychological research and practice.

Another example is behaviorism. B.F. Skinner’s behaviorism reduced human behavior to simple stimulus-response patterns based on his experiments with rats and pigeons. According to this perspective, behavior is solely a result of environmental conditioning, with little emphasis on internal processes such as thought, emotion, or motivation. This view has been critiqued for ignoring the cognitive and emotional complexities of human beings.

Behaviorism’s reductionist view has led to highly controlled and simplistic research, which fails to capture the full scope of human experiences. It also ignores individual differences in how people process their environment. Behaviorism has limited use in explaining complex psychological phenomena, such as memory, consciousness, and emotional responses. These cannot be fully understood by only focusing on external behaviors.

Read here for more on Bias in Research
Read here for more on Bias in Behavior