A Sample Research Paper for English 1302

Chase Lay 
English 1302:770 
Spring 1996

In the field of psychology, as well as other disciplines dealing with the human mind, the bond that the behavioral and biological perspective share has always been and important one. When observing the practitioners of the science it is easy to see the relationship at work, and truly realize the importance of the bond in text, in film, in the lab, and in the classroom. The science of the mind enjoys a rich history; a history that chronicles the shared triumphs of the behavioral and biological models. The history continues to grow and can be followed by reading current newspapers, books, and magazines. A particularly interesting article appeared in the December 1995 American Psychological Association Monitor, Beth Azar wrote the eye-opening composition, “Mental disabilities and the brain-gene link,” about the importance of collaboration between behavioral and biological research of mental disabilities. A particularly interesting and touching passage from the text describes:  

It is important that psychologists of the present and future use this relationship between the two models in order to do their jobs to the best of their ability. But most importantly they must never forget the virtues of the behavioral view on which the biological relies. For while in all scientific disciplines of the human mind the biological perspective works to help understand the physiology and chemical function of the brain, it relies on the behavioral perspective for guidance where research, diagnosis, and treatment are concerned. 

Since the beginning of the science of psychology there had been something shared between these two models. Psychologists have been tying specific behaviors to specific sites in the brain for over one-hundred years now and will hopefully continue to do so. Psychologists, psychiatrist, and neurologists alike will need to work together in order to unlock the mystery, the miracle, the psychological phenomenon that is the human mind. Unfortunately medical advancements and specialization are threatening to keep separate the mountains of information that should be shared between behavioral and biological viewpoints. 

In the field of psychology there are several different styles and perspectives that address the study of the human mind. The “humanistic,” “ psychodynamic,” “cognitive,” “biological,” and “behavioral” make up the varying approaches of the discipline, but no two styles of psychology seem to have the relationship, the correlation of data, that the biological and behavioral perspectives quietly share. Sadly, this relationship is being forgotten, and the behavioral perspective seems to be losing credit were credit is due. 

John B. Watson (1878-1958), the originator of the behavioral perspective, believed in using only the overt data that could be collected from a patient. It was Watson’s belief that biological function of the had little to do with a person’s observable behavior or latent mental illness (Feldman 15). This was obviously a narrow view, but it is a model for psychology that has undoubtedly made major contributions in the advancement of the science. And today, it is still a very effective means of diagnosis, but seems to be losing out to biological perspective. Where the behavioral perspective once preceded the biological--and actually aided in biological discovery--the roles sometimes seem to be reversed. Faced with a mentally ill person a doctor, rather than spending time observing the patient trying to correlate a certain behavior to a particular part of the brain, hurries the afflicted to the local hospital to have an EEG, or a PET scan run making a diagnosis based on the read-out. While it would seem that such steps would seem to work it is easy to link an unrelated brain lesion to the illness at hand. 

That these wonderful, extremely helpful advancements in medical technology can have only a limited effect if field study is neglected cannot be denied. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists should never fail to sing the praises of the behavioral perspective which is responsible for developing the science the human mind to the point at which it stands today. And, especially, let us not neglect to apply the perspective to our study of the mind. Not only would such practices offer the opportunity for false diagnosis, but also useless, even harmful treatment. Biopsychologists, neuropsychologists, and the like still do not know enough about the physiology of the brain to make speculation based on a read out from an EEG, or some other brain scan. The biological perspective relies on the behavioral, the behavioral perspective acting as a primer of sorts for the biological model, and more collaborating group research should be done in order to strengthen the bond between the two, and eventually map the brain completely. 

The biological perspective is defined in Robert S. Feldman’s third edition of Essentials of Understanding Psychology: The biological perspective is the psychological model that views behavior from the perspective of biological functioning (Feldman 14). Biological purists who work with people suffering neurological afflictions are more interested in what a patients brain is doing, rather than what the patient is actually doing, observing the patients actions and speech. The type of psychologist who might subscribe to such a view may be a neuropsychologist or a biopsychologist. These scientists of the mind could probably be found in a research facility, or working in a hospital somewhere staring at EEG readouts on a monitor. Much of the biological research that is done is genetic research, as the doctors are trying to find genetic links to behavior, and mental illness. New discoveries are being made everyday to help in our understanding of the brain and how it works; as well as genes and how they effect us. 

The biological perspective does much for us and gets due respect from scientists as well as journalists who cover stories of biological breakthrough whenever discoveries are made. One such essay appeared in the January 21st edition of The New York Times. In the article “Brian-Tied Gene Defect May Explain Why Schizophrenics Hear Voices,” Denise Grady reports that scientists have linked a genetic defect to a brain abnormality that could help explain schizophrenia-this is the first time researchers have linked a genetic defect to a specific brain abnormality were mental illness was concerned. Researchers say that the defect alone does not cause the condition, but could be one of the contributing factors (Grady 1). Their research involved a brain structure that responds to nicotine which lead the researchers to the theory that nicotine could provide momentary relief from the effects of schizophrenia.² 

Continuing, Grady claims that the experiments were conducted by Dr. Robert Freedman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado and director of schizophrenia research at the Veterans Affairs Medical in Denver, and his colleagues designed their experiments around schizophrenics well documented inability to filter stimuli. They made use of a tone test in which a tone is administered and an electrical response is measured in order to find the schizophrenics in a group. In a normal person the second response to the tone would be less intense than the first, but in schizophrenics the second response is as intense as the first. The researcher studied 9 families with 104 members, including 36 schizophrenics. Thirty-five of the schizophrenics, along with 22 of their normal relatives, tested positive for the abnormal brain to the tone test. Studying all the family members for a genetic pattern relative to those with the abnormal response, they discovered a possible location for a genetic defect in an area on chromosome 15. Simultaneously, they studied rats to find which parts of the brain cells were involved the response to the tone test. The key to a normal response, also the possible source of schizophrenia, was a structure called the alpha-7-nicotinic receptor, which responds to the chemical messengers acetylcholine and nicotine (Grady 2).³ 

These new findings are wonderful and seem to be promising in the fight against schizophrenia. However, in Grady’s article it could be inferred that the data from Dr. Freedman’s research was reached by way of the biological perspective alone. While, certainly, schizophrenia appears to be a biological disease a psychiatrist would have to ask him or her self, was it the biological perspective alone that helped in Dr. Freedman’s research.? The answer is no. Almost all biological discovery is some how precipitated by the observation of behavior. 

On the surface it may seem so, but this is not the case. Behavioral research had a major role to play acting as a guide for biological researchers, offering clues as to were to look for the causes of schizophrenia. Grady has failed to represent the years and years of behavioral study that has gone into the explication of schizophrenia.⁴ Grady wrote that “scientists have linked a genetic defect . . . to schizophrenia.” It was also stated that a person with “too few nicotinic receptors,” could be genetically predisposed to being schizophrenic (Grady 2). This is certainly true, but just because the genes are there does not mean a person is doomed. Grady did not point out the fact that even though a person my have the right genes giving them the potential to suffer from schizophrenia the disease my never show if the environment in which a person lives is a healthy one. A schizophrenic can lead a well adjusted life if he or she grows up in a sound environment. And this is why the behavioral perspective is so important. When one thinks of the behavioral model after reading this article it raises a few questions. How did they come to look for such a defect? What made researchers look for receptors the respond to nicotine? 

The answer is smoking. It would seem to be obvious. It has been well documented that schizophrenics, frequently, are smokers. Nicotine appears to give brief relief from the flood of stimuli that plagues the afflicted (Neergard 1).⁵ This is information that would have certainly been useful to know, for it was written in the text that the alpha-7-nicotinic receptor responds to acetylcholine and nicotine, but Grady, whether purposefully or by negligence, ignored this important information. These findings are indeed profound; however, this discovery may have never been made had the correlation between smoking and schizophrenia not been made by an alert behavioral perspective-minded psychologist. 

So it is easy to see how a narrow view my have profoundly grave effects on research; as well as the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Behaviorists in the varying specialized fields that make up the group that studies the mind have always played an important role in study. From John B. Watson to the extremely thorough behavioral purist Zing Yang Kuo, these scientists have made great progress in better understanding the human mind (Rodkin 2). Their seemingly simple-minded approach to the exploration of the human mind is so very important. From the mapping of cultural norms to the way we learn, behavioral psychologists help us help ourselves. 

An illustration of this principle occurred at the Center for Child and Media Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands. An experiment of pure behavior research was conducted by Juliette H. Walma van der Molen, Ph.D., and Tom H.A. van der Voort, Ph.D., and recounted in their article, “Children’s Recall of Television and Print News: A Media Comparison Study,” that appeared in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 1. In the article the pair claimed that they studied 152 fourth through sixth graders who were tested to see how well they retained information from both text and televised media. What was discovered was the children retained the televised information better than printed text (Walma van der Molen, H. A. van der Voort 1-2). In contrast to other studies of a more serious nature the data from this experiment seems trite, but this certainly is useful information that could be put to good use by parents, teachers, and psychological researchers. 

However, one must remember not to sing the praises of the behavioral model alone, for it is important to approach any science from all perspectives. It brings to mind a story in Richard A. Kasschau’s Understanding Psychology. The story told of three very wise blind men who came upon a sleeping elephant. Because they could not see the elephant they each began to touch different parts of the elephant in order to discover what it was that blocked their passage. One man felt of the tusk, and described a small, hard, pointed creature. The second man explored the trunk describing it creature as long, wormlike, and very flexible. The third man, positioned along side the animal, disagreed with both men, and spoke of a very wide, very round object. Each man was correct in illustrating the particulars of the beast, but not the animal as a whole (Kasschau 7). This story told by so many psychology professors is a simple but relevant analogy. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists should take an eclectic approach in their quest to better understand the mind. All to often this is not the case, and it is unfortunate. 

An avid reader, or even the occasional reader of psychology text would not find it difficult to find glaring instances of a psychologist or psychiatrist misinterpreted a patient’s symptoms and consequently making an inaccurate diagnosis. Stories of such lack of rigor abound and causes for the false diagnosis can be varied.⁶ However, more often than not the mistake is caused by the failure to view symptoms from a behavioral perspective first. Usually the person evaluating the patient will fail to pay close attention to the subject’s behavior, trying to look for the simplest operant causes first, as should be the procedure. While any faulty diagnosis is damaging to a mental patient, in can be acutely harmful if the treatment based on the prognosis is the prescription of drugs or the application of some type of surgery. 

One such blunder occurred in Portugal in the 1930’s in Portugal when neurologist Egos Moniz devised a procedure called the “prefrontal leucotomy.” According to Oliver Sacks’ book An Anthropologist on Mars, Moniz created the operation and quickly applied it to twenty patients, some with anxiety disorders and depression, as well as a few with chronic schizophrenia. The operation consisted of a tool, similar to an ice pick, that was inserted into the frontal lobe in order to do damage to the lobe. The goal was to relieve patients of mental ill, and while it succeeded in stopping the anxiety, the depression, the chronic schizophrenia, the procedure for the most part it was successful in turning the patients into incapacitated burdens (Sacks 62-63). Dr. Moniz’s patients were not the only victims destined to suffer from such a procedure. The operation created by Moniz, despite his lack of thoroughness, and perhaps dishonesty, sparked a flood of interest in the psychological community all over the world.7 The excitement was most strong in America were neurologist Walter Freeman created a horrible new form of surgery he called a “transorbital lobotomy.” Freeman’s description of the procedure is horrible at best. It consisted of, “knocking [the patient] out with a shock and while they are under. . .thrusting an ice pick up between the eyeball and the eyelid through. . .orbital lobe. . . and making the lateral cut by swinging the thing from side to side” (Sacks 62). This operation is undoubtedly unsafe and more than likely unnecessary. It makes one angry thinking of all the patients that could have successfully been treated using the behavioral approach first, rather than just jumping in blindly. Sacks himself recounts his days at a state hospital between 1966 to 1990 during which he reported seeing dozens of lobotomized patients, describing them as “pathetic” and “murdered, by their ‘cure’ ” (Sacks 64). 

The preceding is a sobering case in which it can clearly be seen that the doctor failed to examine the patient’s behavior and past. In the case of Dr. Moniz’s and Dr. Freeman it was a fatal mistake. And it is also analogous to things that occur today. With our brain scanning equipment at a doctor’s disposal, making their job easier, it would not be surprising to find that an abomination similar to the story of Dr. Moniz be repeated. When looking at an MRI readout, a doctor could tie an unrelated brain lesion to a person’s recent feelings of depression. The patient could be suffering only from passing depression caused by the death of a loved one (Feldman 419). If the doctor prescribes a therapeutic drug he or she could be setting up the patient for a dependency. These are the sorts of things that can happen when the collaboration of the behavioral and biological models are ignored, but when they are brought together wonderful discoveries, that can effect us as humans, are made. 

A mental disease that most people have been exposed to, either directly or indirectly, is Alzheimer’s disease. This disease has an expansive body of research that has been conducted using both perspectives. In the Discovery Channel film, The Brain: Our Universe Within, the history of Alzheimer’s is related for the viewer. The illness was first discovered in 1906 by the German psychiatrist Alois Alzheimer who was perplexed by a patient of his. Dr. Alzheimer’s patient was a woman about in her 50’s who was experiencing memory loss, paranoia, and hallucinations. After she died at the age of 56, Dr. Alzheimer performed an autopsy and dissected her brain. What he found was a tangled web of dendrites and axons belonging to diseased neurons. At the time, the good doctor did not know what it was that caused theses neurons to become so diseased and disfigured. 

Since those early days in Alzheimer’s research, much has been discovered about the disease using behavioral-biological discoveries. We now know that the neurons are destroyed throughout the brain, particularly in the hippocampus. The hippocampus acts as a distributor of new memory; holding the memories until it is time for the memories to be moved to the cortex-one of the reasons Alzheimer’s patients have trouble forming new memories (The Brian: Our Universe Within). It is now believed that the destruction of the neurons is caused by the formation of senile or neuritic plaques, or chemical deposits of degenerating nerve cells combined with the protein beta amyloid. These cause the neurofibrillary tangles, or malformations in the nerve cells, essentially attacking the neurons (Alzheimer’s Disease). As a result of this neuron destruction, a diseased brain can actually weight one pound where a healthy brain weights as much as three pounds. Also revealed about Alzheimer’s has been that there is low production of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine which is used by the brain to produce new memory (The Brian: Our Universe Within). 

With all that has been learned about the condition the trend in behavioral-biological study continues. Also found in the Discovery Channel video is the research being conducted by Dr. David Snowden of the University of Kentucky. Dr. Snowden has been doing a case study on the sisters of the order of Notre Dame who have agreed to donate their brains to study after their respective deaths. What he has encountered with the sisters is that there is a low incidence of Alzheimer’s among them, and the ones who do experience symptoms they are usually mild. The sisters are well educated and maintain a relatively high level of intellectual activity. This lead Dr. Snowden to believe that early brain development and a high level of brain activity kept fairly constant through one’s life can help to fend off Alzheimer’s until late in life, or at least keep symptoms mild with the onset of the affliction (The Brain: Our Universe Within). Another shinning, well documented example of behavioral study leading the way to biological discovery. 

After reading this paper the initial claim that says the relationship between the behavioral and biological perspectives has always been an important one stands firm. The representations for such a claim thrive in text and are plainly shown in this paper. The fact that the behavioral perspective helps in acting as a primer for research, and a guide in diagnosing and treating disease is apparent. The profound mistakes made by Dr. Moniz and Dr. Freeman that illustrate clearly the significance of the bond, were recounted for the reader by Oliver Sacks. For every patient treated by the two men there could have been an alternative treatment had the doctors only taken the time to look a little deeper using the duel source strategy, a treatment that would not have robbed those people of their livelihoods. The continuing journey towards the understanding and cure of Alzheimer’s is yet another prime lesson in research and medical practition as well; a journey that was initiated by the observation of behavior. And for all that we have learned about the latent biological causes-guided there by behavioral study in almost every discovery-there is much more to learn. And even though current medical technology is so good at leading us away from the behavioral me must do our best to hold tight to the model. Denise Grady’s article of schizophrenia showed us how biological research can bring us closer to the cause of disease, but failed to show the behavioral study done to help the progress of these studies. 

The varying fields that deal with the study of the human mind have always relied on the behavioral-biological duel approach to study and treatment. Obviously, the science enjoys a rich history portraying the bond in text, film, and in the classroom. Beth Azar’s article illustrated this for us very well. She told of little 13 year old Sally who had astounding command of the English language despite an IQ in the low 50’s, and of the behavioral-biological research that was precipitated by the “conundrum” (Azar 2). And it showed how all research should be conducted, with an eclectic appeal. 

And what now? How can this knowledge of procedure be used in the future? Hopefully, psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists alike will subscribe to the behavioral-biological approach to study in the future. And in doing so scientists will rep great rewards for the human race, by working hard to map the human mind ethically and with patients. In the future there will be a less indiscreet action, and more logical thinking when practicing their respective disciplines. But is only through this cooperation and compromise that such grade achievements can be made. The effectiveness of the behavioral-biological approach cannot be disputed. The usefulness of the view is solidified by all of the evidence that surrounds us, and a researcher would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. No matter the end result in genetic or biological study, it is always precipitated by the observation of behavior, and the recognition of a mental condition that some how correlates to the biological discovery. 

¹William’s syndrome is an extremely rare congenital condition in which suffers may have incredible command of language but are severely deficient in most other intellectual areas. 

²Grady went on to write that the reaction to the findings were mixed among researchers. Some were positive, Dr. Richard Wyatt, head of neuropsychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health said that the findings were “intuitively very strong.” Dr. Wyatt digressed and went on to express that the findings needed validity through replication (Grady 1). 

³According to Grady another team verified Freedman’s findings, still Freedman feels further study is needed to solidify the findings. If the data holds true it would suggest that people having defective or too few nicotinic receptors may be predisposed to schizophrenia (Grady 2). 

⁴Grady also failed to point out the environmental factors that can play a role in causing schizophrenia. Often the disease while have operant causes contributing such as traumatic environment, isolated traumatic experience. It can also be caused by damage to the limbic system (The Brain: Our Universe Within). 

⁵The nicotine stimulates the subcortical brain reward mechanisms and the prefrontal cortex, thought by some to be hypoactive in schizophrenia (Long 1). 

⁶One particularly humorous instance of subtle oversight was recounted by Dr. George Mount of Mountain View College. According to Dr. Mount a patient at the Dallas Veterans’ Administration Hospital was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he complained of hearing voices. One day, after being placed behind a lead wall designed to protect radiologists, the voices stopped. As it was the man’s fillings in his molars were picking up radio signals causing him to hear “voices” (Mount). 

⁷Ironically Moniz was acclaimed as a “savior” and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1951. This was described by Macdonald Critchley as a “chronicle of shame” (Sacks 63).

Feldman, Robert. Essentials of Understanding Psychology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Grady, Denise. "Brain-Tied Gene Defect May Explain Why Schizophrenics Hear Voices." New York Times 21-1 (1997) 1-3.

Long, Phillip W. "Smoking and Schizophrenic Patients." The Harvard Medical School Mental Health Letter1 (1988): 1.

Neergaard, Lauran. "Study Links Gene to Schizophrenia, Discovery Solves Smoking Mystery."  Detroit Free Press 21-1 (1997): 1.

Sacks, Oliver. An Anthropologist on Mars. New York: Vintage, 1995.

(Reprinted by permission from Chase Lay)

(Return to the Top) 

This page was last modified on July 9, 2005,
and is maintained by Dr. Geoffrey A. Grimes.
.