Strengths And Weaknesses Of Psychodynamic Approach

Behaviourists would disagree with Psychoanalysts and Humanists and believed that behaviour can be objectively and scientifically measured in a nomothetic approach. Clinical techniques such as lab experiments were favoured due to the fact they allowed allowed any extraneous variables to be controlled, such as light or heat. Their theories and hypothesis were often tested using mainly animals, due to behaviourists assuming they learn the same way as a human would, but are often more convenient to study. Whilst you could argue that an artificial experiment lacking any ecological validity cannot be generalised in the real world, practical applications of their methods are still favoured in current society, such as positive and negative reinforcements, token economies and systematic desensitisation (Clarke, 2009). The use of Aversion therapy for alcoholism for example, adapts the process of classical conditioning. Associating a neutral stimulus, in this case alcohol, with an unconditioned
Each perspective has their own strengths and weaknesses. Where the Psychodynamic approach comes under scrutiny for many reasons, suggesting that Freud’s ideas were extremely far fetched, the theory does allow us to realise that childhood is in fact a vital period of our life. However based on so little evidence, it seems impossible to suggest we will all behave the same way. In contrast, behaviourists take on a highly scientific approach to their theories, and believe we are all born with a blank slate. Where as it could be criticised for taking on such a reductionist method, their ability to provide evidence to back up their theories seems to set them apart from the other perspectives. Where as behaviourist and Psychodynamic approaches are more deterministic, humanists claim to promote free will, however, do we really have free will if we are considered “deficient” if we don't fulfil each of the hierarchy of