To what extent can psychology be considered a science? (8 marks)

To formulate an answer to this question requires some thought into what actually constitutes a science. Science requires the standardisation of procedures when conducting a study, in order to control for the effects of extraneous variables. In Grant et al.'s study into context-dependent memory (1998), all participants wore headphones; regardless of whether they were listening to background noise through the headphones or not. In this way, Grant et al. controlled for the potential effect that wearing headphones would have on the performance of participants on the listening tasks they had to complete. This standardised the procedure for all participants, allowing greater confidence in the internal validity of the study - Grant et al. could more confidently conclude that the independent variable was the only variable to affect the dependent variable. In this way, psychology could be considered a science due to the high standardisation of some methodology used. However, psychology cannot always be considered a science. For example, scientific study must be objective, and not subjective to bias. However, when considering the work of Sigmund Freud, this is not always the case. As seen with his case study of Little Hans (1909), Freud interpreted the strange behaviour and phobia of Hans through his Oedipus Complex - a strong attachment to his mother, and viewing his father as a rival for his mother's affection. However, this was not the result of any quantitative study. Only qualitative data was collected, which was interpreted by Freud using his own experience and theories - another psychologist could interpret Hans' case study in a completely different way: for example, a behavioural psychologist viewing this attachment as 'cupboard love'. In this way, psychology could be said to have the potential to be subjective, rendering it somewhat unscientific.