in research studies psychologists rely heavily upon

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
• Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
• Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 3. Psychological Science

3.1 Psychologists Use the Scientific Method to Guide Their Research

Learning objectives.

• Describe the principles of the scientific method and explain its importance in conducting and interpreting research.
• Differentiate laws from theories and explain how research hypotheses are developed and tested.
• Discuss the procedures that researchers use to ensure that their research with humans and with animals is ethical.

Psychologists aren’t the only people who seek to understand human behaviour and solve social problems. Philosophers, religious leaders, and politicians, among others, also strive to provide explanations for human behaviour. But psychologists believe that research is the best tool for understanding human beings and their relationships with others. Rather than accepting the claim of a philosopher that people do (or do not) have free will, a psychologist would collect data to empirically test whether or not people are able to actively control their own behaviour. Rather than accepting a politician’s contention that creating (or abandoning) a new centre for mental health will improve the lives of individuals in the inner city, a psychologist would empirically assess the effects of receiving mental health treatment on the quality of life of the recipients. The statements made by psychologists are empirical, which means they are based on systematic collection and analysis of data .

The Scientific Method

All scientists (whether they are physicists, chemists, biologists, sociologists, or psychologists) are engaged in the basic processes of collecting data and drawing conclusions about those data. The methods used by scientists have developed over many years and provide a common framework for developing, organizing, and sharing information. The scientific method  is the set of assumptions, rules, and procedures scientists use to conduct research .

In addition to requiring that science be empirical, the scientific method demands that the procedures used be objective , or free from the personal bias or emotions of the scientist . The scientific method proscribes how scientists collect and analyze data, how they draw conclusions from data, and how they share data with others. These rules increase objectivity by placing data under the scrutiny of other scientists and even the public at large. Because data are reported objectively, other scientists know exactly how the scientist collected and analyzed the data. This means that they do not have to rely only on the scientist’s own interpretation of the data; they may draw their own, potentially different, conclusions.

Most new research is designed to replicate — that is, to repeat, add to, or modify — previous research findings. The scientific method therefore results in an accumulation of scientific knowledge through the reporting of research and the addition to and modification of these reported findings by other scientists.

Laws and Theories as Organizing Principles

One goal of research is to organize information into meaningful statements that can be applied in many situations. Principles that are so general as to apply to all situations in a given domain of inquiry are known as laws . There are well-known laws in the physical sciences, such as the law of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, and there are some universally accepted laws in psychology, such as the law of effect and Weber’s law. But because laws are very general principles and their validity has already been well established, they are themselves rarely directly subjected to scientific test.

The next step down from laws in the hierarchy of organizing principles is theory. A theory  is an integrated set of principles that explains and predicts many, but not all, observed relationships within a given domain of inquiry . One example of an important theory in psychology is the stage theory of cognitive development proposed by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. The theory states that children pass through a series of cognitive stages as they grow, each of which must be mastered in succession before movement to the next cognitive stage can occur . This is an extremely useful theory in human development because it can be applied to many different content areas and can be tested in many different ways.

Good theories have four important characteristics. First, good theories are general , meaning they summarize many different outcomes . Second, they are parsimonious , meaning they provide the simplest possible account of those outcomes . The stage theory of cognitive development meets both of these requirements. It can account for developmental changes in behaviour across a wide variety of domains, and yet it does so parsimoniously — by hypothesizing a simple set of cognitive stages. Third, good theories provide ideas for future research. The stage theory of cognitive development has been applied not only to learning about cognitive skills, but also to the study of children’s moral (Kohlberg, 1966) and gender (Ruble & Martin, 1998) development.

Finally, good theories are falsifiable  (Popper, 1959), which means the variables of interest can be adequately measured and the relationships between the variables that are predicted by the theory can be shown through research to be incorrect . The stage theory of cognitive development is falsifiable because the stages of cognitive reasoning can be measured and because if research discovers, for instance, that children learn new tasks before they have reached the cognitive stage hypothesized to be required for that task, then the theory will be shown to be incorrect.

No single theory is able to account for all behaviour in all cases. Rather, theories are each limited in that they make accurate predictions in some situations or for some people but not in other situations or for other people. As a result, there is a constant exchange between theory and data: existing theories are modified on the basis of collected data, and the new modified theories then make new predictions that are tested by new data, and so forth. When a better theory is found, it will replace the old one. This is part of the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

The Research Hypothesis

Theories are usually framed too broadly to be tested in a single experiment. Therefore, scientists use a more precise statement of the presumed relationship between specific parts of a theory — a research hypothesis — as the basis for their research. A research hypothesis  is a specific and falsifiable prediction about the relationship between or among two or more variables , where a variable  is any attribute that can assume different values among different people or across different times or places . The research hypothesis states the existence of a relationship between the variables of interest and the specific direction of that relationship. For instance, the research hypothesis “Using marijuana will reduce learning” predicts that there is a relationship between one variable, “using marijuana,” and another variable called “learning.” Similarly, in the research hypothesis “Participating in psychotherapy will reduce anxiety,” the variables that are expected to be related are “participating in psychotherapy” and “level of anxiety.”

When stated in an abstract manner, the ideas that form the basis of a research hypothesis are known as conceptual variables. Conceptual variables  are abstract ideas that form the basis of research hypotheses . Sometimes the conceptual variables are rather simple — for instance, age, gender, or weight. In other cases the conceptual variables represent more complex ideas, such as anxiety, cognitive development, learning, self-esteem, or sexism.

The first step in testing a research hypothesis involves turning the conceptual variables into measured variables , which are variables consisting of numbers that represent the conceptual variables . For instance, the conceptual variable “participating in psychotherapy” could be represented as the measured variable “number of psychotherapy hours the patient has accrued,” and the conceptual variable “using marijuana” could be assessed by having the research participants rate, on a scale from 1 to 10, how often they use marijuana or by administering a blood test that measures the presence of the chemicals in marijuana.

Psychologists use the term operational definition  to refer to a precise statement of how a conceptual variable is turned into a measured variable . The relationship between conceptual and measured variables in a research hypothesis is diagrammed in Figure 3.1. The conceptual variables are represented in circles at the top of the figure (Psychotherapy and anxiety), and the measured variables are represented in squares at the bottom (number of hours the patient has spent in psychotherapy and anxiety concerns as reported by the patient). The two vertical arrows, which lead from the conceptual variables to the measured variables, represent the operational definitions of the two variables. The arrows indicate the expectation that changes in the conceptual variables (psychotherapy and anxiety) will cause changes in the corresponding measured variables (number of hours in psychotherapy and reported anxiety concernts). The measured variables are then used to draw inferences about the conceptual variables.

Table 3.1 lists some potential operational definitions of conceptual variables that have been used in psychological research. As you read through this list, note that in contrast to the abstract conceptual variables, the measured variables are very specific. This specificity is important for two reasons. First, more specific definitions mean that there is less danger that the collected data will be misunderstood by others. Second, specific definitions will enable future researchers to replicate the research.

Conducting Ethical Research

One of the questions that all scientists must address concerns the ethics of their research. Physicists are concerned about the potentially harmful outcomes of their experiments with nuclear materials. Biologists worry about the potential outcomes of creating genetically engineered human babies. Medical researchers agonize over the ethics of withholding potentially beneficial drugs from control groups in clinical trials. Likewise, psychologists are continually considering the ethics of their research.

Research in psychology may cause some stress, harm, or inconvenience for the people who participate in that research. For instance, researchers may require introductory psychology students to participate in research projects and then deceive these students, at least temporarily, about the nature of the research. Psychologists may induce stress, anxiety, or negative moods in their participants, expose them to weak electrical shocks, or convince them to behave in ways that violate their moral standards. And researchers may sometimes use animals in their research, potentially harming them in the process.

Decisions about whether research is ethical are made using established ethical codes developed by scientific organizations, such as the Canadian Psychological Association, and federal governments. In Canada, the federal agencies, Health Canada, and the Canadian Institute for Health Research provide the guidelines for ethical standards in research. Some research, such as the research conducted by the Nazis on prisoners during World War II, is perceived as immoral by almost everyone. Other procedures, such as the use of animals in research testing the effectiveness of drugs, are more controversial.

Scientific research has provided information that has improved the lives of many people. Therefore, it is unreasonable to argue that because scientific research has costs, no research should be conducted. This argument fails to consider the fact that there are significant costs to not doing research and that these costs may be greater than the potential costs of conducting the research (Rosenthal, 1994). In each case, before beginning to conduct the research, scientists have attempted to determine the potential risks and benefits of the research and have come to the conclusion that the potential benefits of conducting the research outweigh the potential costs to the research participants.

Characteristics of an Ethical Research Project Using Human Participants

• Trust and positive rapport are created between the researcher and the participant.
• The rights of both the experimenter and participant are considered, and the relationship between them is mutually beneficial.
• The experimenter treats the participant with concern and respect and attempts to make the research experience a pleasant and informative one.
• Before the research begins, the participant is given all information relevant to his or her decision to participate, including any possibilities of physical danger or psychological stress.
• The participant is given a chance to have questions about the procedure answered, thus guaranteeing his or her free choice about participating.
• After the experiment is over, any deception that has been used is made public, and the necessity for it is explained.
• The experimenter carefully debriefs the participant, explaining the underlying research hypothesis and the purpose of the experimental procedure in detail and answering any questions.
• The experimenter provides information about how he or she can be contacted and offers to provide information about the results of the research if the participant is interested in receiving it. (Stangor, 2011)

This list presents some of the most important factors that psychologists take into consideration when designing their research. The most direct ethical concern of the scientist is to prevent harm to the research participants. One example is the well-known research of Stanley Milgram (1974) investigating obedience to authority. In these studies, participants were induced by an experimenter to administer electric shocks to another person so that Milgram could study the extent to which they would obey the demands of an authority figure. Most participants evidenced high levels of stress resulting from the psychological conflict they experienced between engaging in aggressive and dangerous behaviour and following the instructions of the experimenter. Studies such as those by Milgram are no longer conducted because the scientific community is now much more sensitized to the potential of such procedures to create emotional discomfort or harm.

Another goal of ethical research is to guarantee that participants have free choice regarding whether they wish to participate in research. Students in psychology classes may be allowed, or even required, to participate in research, but they are also always given an option to choose a different study to be in, or to perform other activities instead. And once an experiment begins, the research participant is always free to leave the experiment if he or she wishes to. Concerns with free choice also occur in institutional settings, such as in schools, hospitals, corporations, and prisons, when individuals are required by the institutions to take certain tests, or when employees are told or asked to participate in research.

Researchers must also protect the privacy of the research participants. In some cases data can be kept anonymous by not having the respondents put any identifying information on their questionnaires. In other cases the data cannot be anonymous because the researcher needs to keep track of which respondent contributed the data. In this case, one technique is to have each participant use a unique code number to identify his or her data, such as the last four digits of the student ID number. In this way the researcher can keep track of which person completed which questionnaire, but no one will be able to connect the data with the individual who contributed them.

Perhaps the most widespread ethical concern to the participants in behavioural research is the extent to which researchers employ deception. Deception   occurs whenever research participants are not completely and fully informed about the nature of the research project before participating in it . Deception may occur in an active way, such as when the researcher tells the participants that he or she is studying learning when in fact the experiment really concerns obedience to authority. In other cases the deception is more passive, such as when participants are not told about the hypothesis being studied or the potential use of the data being collected.

Some researchers have argued that no deception should ever be used in any research (Baumrind, 1985). They argue that participants should always be told the complete truth about the nature of the research they are in, and that when participants are deceived there will be negative consequences, such as the possibility that participants may arrive at other studies already expecting to be deceived. Other psychologists defend the use of deception on the grounds that it is needed to get participants to act naturally and to enable the study of psychological phenomena that might not otherwise get investigated. They argue that it would be impossible to study topics such as altruism, aggression, obedience, and stereotyping without using deception because if participants were informed ahead of time what the study involved, this knowledge would certainly change their behaviour. The codes of ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association and the Tri-Council Policy Statement of Canada’s three federal research agencies (the Canadian Institute of Health Research [CIHR], the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC], and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [SSHRC] or “the Agencies”) allow researchers to use deception, but these codes also require them to explicitly consider how their research might be conducted without the use of deception.

Ensuring that Research Is Ethical

Making decisions about the ethics of research involves weighing the costs and benefits of conducting versus not conducting a given research project. The costs involve potential harm to the research participants and to the field, whereas the benefits include the potential for advancing knowledge about human behaviour and offering various advantages, some educational, to the individual participants. Most generally, the ethics of a given research project are determined through a cost-benefit analysis , in which the costs are compared with the benefits . If the potential costs of the research appear to outweigh any potential benefits that might come from it, then the research should not proceed.

Arriving at a cost-benefit ratio is not simple. For one thing, there is no way to know ahead of time what the effects of a given procedure will be on every person or animal who participates or what benefit to society the research is likely to produce. In addition, what is ethical is defined by the current state of thinking within society, and thus perceived costs and benefits change over time. In Canada, the Tri-Council regulations require that all universities receiving funds from the Agencies set up an Ethical Review Board (ERB) to determine whether proposed research meets department regulations. The ERB  is a committee of at least five members whose goal it is to determine the cost-benefit ratio of research conducted within an institution . The ERB must approve the procedures of all the research conducted at the institution before the research can begin. The board may suggest modifications to the procedures, or (in rare cases) it may inform the scientist that the research violates Tri-Council Research Policy Statement and thus cannot be conducted at all.

One important tool for ensuring that research is ethical is the use of informed consent . A sample informed consent form is shown in Figure 3.2, Informed consent , conducted before a participant begins a research session, is designed to explain the research procedures and inform the participant of his or her rights during the investigation . The informed consent explains as much as possible about the true nature of the study, particularly everything that might be expected to influence willingness to participate, but it may in some cases withhold some information that allows the study to work.

The informed consent form explains the research procedures and informs the participant of his or her rights during the investigation. Informed consent should address the following issues:

• A very general statement about the purpose of the study
• A brief description of what the participants will be asked to do
• A brief description of the risks, if any, and what the researcher will do to restore the participant
• A statement informing participants that they may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without being penalized
• A statement regarding how the participant’s confidentiality will be protected
• Encouragement to ask questions about participation
• Instructions regarding whom to contact if there are concerns
• Information regarding where the subjects may be informed about the study’s findings

Because participating in research has the potential for producing long-term changes in the research participants, all participants should be fully debriefed immediately after their participation. The debriefing  is a procedure designed to fully explain the purposes and procedures of the research and remove any harmful after-effects of participation .

Research with Animals

Because animals make up an important part of the natural world, and because some research cannot be conducted using humans, animals are also participants in psychological research (Figure 3.3). Most psychological research using animals is now conducted with rats, mice, and birds, and the use of other animals in research is declining (Thomas & Blackman, 1992). As with ethical decisions involving human participants, a set of basic principles has been developed that helps researchers make informed decisions about such research; a summary is shown below.

Canadian Psychological Association Guidelines on Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

The following are some of the most important ethical principles from the Canadian Psychological Association’s (CPA) guidelines on research with animals.

• II.45 Not use animals in their research unless there is a reasonable expectation that the research will increase understanding of the structures and processes underlying behaviour, or increase understanding of the particular animal species used in the study, or result eventually in benefits to the health and welfare of humans or other animals.
• II.46 Use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only if an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.
• II.47 Make every effort to minimize the discomfort, illness, and pain of animals. This would include performing surgical procedures only under appropriate anaesthesia, using techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery and, if disposing of experimental animals is carried out at the termination of the study, doing so in a humane way. (Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists)
• II.48 Use animals in classroom demonstrations only if the instructional objectives cannot be achieved through the use of video-tapes, films, or other methods, and if the type of demonstration is warranted by the anticipated instructional gain  (Canadian Psychological Association, 2000).

Because the use of animals in research involves a personal value, people naturally disagree about this practice. Although many people accept the value of such research (Plous, 1996), a minority of people, including animal-rights activists, believe that it is ethically wrong to conduct research on animals. This argument is based on the assumption that because animals are living creatures just as humans are, no harm should ever be done to them.

Most scientists, however, reject this view. They argue that such beliefs ignore the potential benefits that have come, and continue to come, from research with animals. For instance, drugs that can reduce the incidence of cancer or AIDS may first be tested on animals, and surgery that can save human lives may first be practised on animals. Research on animals has also led to a better understanding of the physiological causes of depression, phobias, and stress, among other illnesses. In contrast to animal-rights activists, then, scientists believe that because there are many benefits that accrue from animal research, such research can and should continue as long as the humane treatment of the animals used in the research is guaranteed.

Key Takeaways

• Psychologists use the scientific method to generate, accumulate, and report scientific knowledge.
• Basic research, which answers questions about behaviour, and applied research, which finds solutions to everyday problems, inform each other and work together to advance science.
• Research reports describing scientific studies are published in scientific journals so that other scientists and laypersons may review the empirical findings.
• Organizing principles, including laws, theories, and research hypotheses, give structure and uniformity to scientific methods.
• Concerns for conducting ethical research are paramount. Researchers ensure that participants are given free choice to participate and that their privacy is protected. Informed consent and debriefing help provide humane treatment of participants.
• A cost-benefit analysis is used to determine what research should and should not be allowed to proceed.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Give an example from personal experience of how you or someone you know has benefited from the results of scientific research.
• Find and discuss a research project that in your opinion has ethical concerns. Explain why you find these concerns to be troubling.
• Indicate your personal feelings about the use of animals in research. When should and should not animals be used? What principles have you used to come to these conclusions?

Image Attributions

Figure 3.3: “ Wistar rat ” by Janet Stephens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wistar_rat.jpg) is in the public domain .

Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited.  American Psychologist, 40 , 165–174.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (third edition) [PDF] . Retrieved July 2014 from http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Ethics_Code_Psych.pdf

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.),  The development of sex differences . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Milgram, S. (1974).  Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education.  Psychological Science, 7 , 352–358.

Popper, K. R. (1959).  The logic of scientific discovery . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research.  Psychological Science, 5 , 127–134.

Ruble, D., & Martin, C. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.),  Handbook of child psychology  (5th ed., pp. 933–1016). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Stangor, C. (2011).  Research methods for the behavioral sciences  (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cengage.

Thomas, G., & Blackman, D. (1992). The future of animal studies in psychology.  American Psychologist, 47 , 1678.

Long Descriptions

Figure 3.2 long description: Sample research consent form.

My name is [insert your name], and this research project is part of the requirement for a [insert your degree program] at [blank] University. My credentials with [blank] university can be established by telephoning [insert name and number of supervisor].

This document constitutes an agreement to participate in my research project, the objective of which is to [insert research objectives and the sponsoring organization here].

The research will consist of [insert your methodology] and its foreseen to last [insert amount of time]. The foreseen questions will refer to [insert summary of foreseen questions]. In addition to submitting my final report to [blank] University in partial fulfillment for a [insert your degree program], I will also be sharing my search findings with [insert your sponsoring organization]. [Disclose all the purposes to which the research data is going to be put, e.g. journal articles, books, etc.].

Information will be recorded in hand-written format (or taped/videotaped, etc) and where appropriate, summarized, in anonymous format, in the body of the final report. At no time will any specific comments be attributed to any individual unless specific agreement has been obtained beforehand. All documentation will be kept strictly confidential.

A copy of the final report will be published. A copy will be housed at [blank] university, available online through [blank] and will be publicly accessible. Access and distribution will be unrestricted.

[Disclose any and all conflicts of interest and how those will be managed.]

You are not compelled to participate in this research project. If you do choose to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without prejudice. Similarly, if you choose not to participate in this research project, this information will also be maintained in confidence.

By signing this letter, you give free and informed consent to participate in this project.

Name (Please print), Signed: Date: [Return to Figure 3.2]

Introduction to Psychology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by Jennifer Walinga and Charles Stangor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Module 1: Introduction to Psychology & Psychology Research

The scientific method, what you’ll learn to do: define and apply the scientific method to psychology.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. In this way, research enables scientists to separate fact from simple opinion. Having good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives. In this section, you’ll see how psychologists use the scientific method to study and understand behavior.

Learning Objectives

• Explain the steps of the scientific method
• Describe why the scientific method is important to psychology
• Summarize the processes of informed consent and debriefing
• Explain how research involving humans or animals is regulated

Figure 1. Some of our ancestors, across the world and over the centuries, believed that trephination—the practice of making a hole in the skull, as shown here—allowed evil spirits to leave the body, thus curing mental illness and other disorders. (credit: “taiproject”/Flickr)

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This module explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

The Process of Scientific Research

Figure 2. The scientific method is a process for gathering data and processing information. It provides well-defined steps to standardize how scientific knowledge is gathered through a logical, rational problem-solving method.

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method. Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on.

The basic steps in the scientific method are:

• Observe a natural phenomenon and define a question about it
• Make a hypothesis, or potential solution to the question
• Test the hypothesis
• If the hypothesis is true, find more evidence or find counter-evidence
• If the hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again
• Draw conclusions and repeat–the scientific method is never-ending, and no result is ever considered perfect

In order to ask an important question that may improve our understanding of the world, a researcher must first observe natural phenomena. By making observations, a researcher can define a useful question. After finding a question to answer, the researcher can then make a prediction (a hypothesis) about what he or she thinks the answer will be. This prediction is usually a statement about the relationship between two or more variables. After making a hypothesis, the researcher will then design an experiment to test his or her hypothesis and evaluate the data gathered. These data will either support or refute the hypothesis. Based on the conclusions drawn from the data, the researcher will then find more evidence to support the hypothesis, look for counter-evidence to further strengthen the hypothesis, revise the hypothesis and create a new experiment, or continue to incorporate the information gathered to answer the research question.

The Basic Principles of the Scientific Method

Two key concepts in the scientific approach are theory and hypothesis. A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena that can be used to make predictions about future observations. A hypothesis is a testable prediction that is arrived at logically from a theory. It is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests (Figure 2).

Figure 3. The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results.

Other key components in following the scientific method include verifiability, predictability, falsifiability, and fairness. Verifiability means that an experiment must be replicable by another researcher. To achieve verifiability, researchers must make sure to document their methods and clearly explain how their experiment is structured and why it produces certain results.

Predictability in a scientific theory implies that the theory should enable us to make predictions about future events. The precision of these predictions is a measure of the strength of the theory.

Falsifiability refers to whether a hypothesis can disproved. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be logically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show that there is no support for the hypothesis. Even when a hypothesis cannot be shown to be false, that does not necessarily mean it is not valid. Future testing may disprove the hypothesis. This does not mean that a hypothesis has to be shown to be false, just that it can be tested.

To determine whether a hypothesis is supported or not supported, psychological researchers must conduct hypothesis testing using statistics. Hypothesis testing is a type of statistics that determines the probability of a hypothesis being true or false. If hypothesis testing reveals that results were “statistically significant,” this means that there was support for the hypothesis and that the researchers can be reasonably confident that their result was not due to random chance. If the results are not statistically significant, this means that the researchers’ hypothesis was not supported.

Fairness implies that all data must be considered when evaluating a hypothesis. A researcher cannot pick and choose what data to keep and what to discard or focus specifically on data that support or do not support a particular hypothesis. All data must be accounted for, even if they invalidate the hypothesis.

Applying the Scientific Method

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later module, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

Remeber that a good scientific hypothesis is  falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory module that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors (Figure 3). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

Figure 4. Many of the specifics of (a) Freud’s theories, such as (b) his division of the mind into id, ego, and superego, have fallen out of favor in recent decades because they are not falsifiable. In broader strokes, his views set the stage for much of psychological thinking today, such as the unconscious nature of the majority of psychological processes.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Link to Learning

Want to participate in a study? Visit this website and click on a link that sounds interesting to you in order to participate in online research.

Why the Scientific Method Is Important for Psychology

The use of the scientific method is one of the main features that separates modern psychology from earlier philosophical inquiries about the mind. Compared to chemistry, physics, and other “natural sciences,” psychology has long been considered one of the “social sciences” because of the subjective nature of the things it seeks to study. Many of the concepts that psychologists are interested in—such as aspects of the human mind, behavior, and emotions—are subjective and cannot be directly measured. Psychologists often rely instead on behavioral observations and self-reported data, which are considered by some to be illegitimate or lacking in methodological rigor. Applying the scientific method to psychology, therefore, helps to standardize the approach to understanding its very different types of information.

The scientific method allows psychological data to be replicated and confirmed in many instances, under different circumstances, and by a variety of researchers. Through replication of experiments, new generations of psychologists can reduce errors and broaden the applicability of theories. It also allows theories to be tested and validated instead of simply being conjectures that could never be verified or falsified. All of this allows psychologists to gain a stronger understanding of how the human mind works.

Scientific articles published in journals and psychology papers written in the style of the American Psychological Association (i.e., in “APA style”) are structured around the scientific method. These papers include an Introduction, which introduces the background information and outlines the hypotheses; a Methods section, which outlines the specifics of how the experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis; a Results section, which includes the statistics that tested the hypothesis and state whether it was supported or not supported, and a Discussion and Conclusion, which state the implications of finding support for, or no support for, the hypothesis. Writing articles and papers that adhere to the scientific method makes it easy for future researchers to repeat the study and attempt to replicate the results.

Visit this website to apply the scientific method and practice its steps by using them to solve a murder mystery, determine why a student is in trouble, and design an experiment to test house paint.

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, as you will read in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound. This section presents how ethical considerations affect the design and implementation of research conducted today.

Research Involving Human Participants

Any experiment involving the participation of human subjects is governed by extensive, strict guidelines designed to ensure that the experiment does not result in harm. Any research institution that receives federal support for research involving human participants must have access to an institutional review board (IRB) . The IRB is a committee of individuals often made up of members of the institution’s administration, scientists, and community members (Figure 1). The purpose of the IRB is to review proposals for research that involves human participants. The IRB reviews these proposals with the principles mentioned above in mind, and generally, approval from the IRB is required in order for the experiment to proceed.

Figure 1. An institution’s IRB meets regularly to review experimental proposals that involve human participants. (credit: modification of work by Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE)/Flickr)

An institution’s IRB requires several components in any experiment it approves. For one, each participant must sign an informed consent form before they can participate in the experiment. An informed consent form provides a written description of what participants can expect during the experiment, including potential risks and implications of the research. It also lets participants know that their involvement is completely voluntary and can be discontinued without penalty at any time. Furthermore, the informed consent guarantees that any data collected in the experiment will remain completely confidential. In cases where research participants are under the age of 18, the parents or legal guardians are required to sign the informed consent form.

While the informed consent form should be as honest as possible in describing exactly what participants will be doing, sometimes deception is necessary to prevent participants’ knowledge of the exact research question from affecting the results of the study. Deception involves purposely misleading experiment participants in order to maintain the integrity of the experiment, but not to the point where the deception could be considered harmful. For example, if we are interested in how our opinion of someone is affected by their attire, we might use deception in describing the experiment to prevent that knowledge from affecting participants’ responses. In cases where deception is involved, participants must receive a full debriefing upon conclusion of the study—complete, honest information about the purpose of the experiment, how the data collected will be used, the reasons why deception was necessary, and information about how to obtain additional information about the study.

Dig Deeper: Ethics and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Unfortunately, the ethical guidelines that exist for research today were not always applied in the past. In 1932, poor, rural, black, male sharecroppers from Tuskegee, Alabama, were recruited to participate in an experiment conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, with the aim of studying syphilis in black men (Figure 2). In exchange for free medical care, meals, and burial insurance, 600 men agreed to participate in the study. A little more than half of the men tested positive for syphilis, and they served as the experimental group (given that the researchers could not randomly assign participants to groups, this represents a quasi-experiment). The remaining syphilis-free individuals served as the control group. However, those individuals that tested positive for syphilis were never informed that they had the disease.

While there was no treatment for syphilis when the study began, by 1947 penicillin was recognized as an effective treatment for the disease. Despite this, no penicillin was administered to the participants in this study, and the participants were not allowed to seek treatment at any other facilities if they continued in the study. Over the course of 40 years, many of the participants unknowingly spread syphilis to their wives (and subsequently their children born from their wives) and eventually died because they never received treatment for the disease. This study was discontinued in 1972 when the experiment was discovered by the national press (Tuskegee University, n.d.). The resulting outrage over the experiment led directly to the National Research Act of 1974 and the strict ethical guidelines for research on humans described in this chapter. Why is this study unethical? How were the men who participated and their families harmed as a function of this research?

Figure 2. A participant in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study receives an injection.

Visit this website to learn more about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

Research Involving Animal Subjects

Figure 3. Rats, like the one shown here, often serve as the subjects of animal research.

This does not mean that animal researchers are immune to ethical concerns. Indeed, the humane and ethical treatment of animal research subjects is a critical aspect of this type of research. Researchers must design their experiments to minimize any pain or distress experienced by animals serving as research subjects.

Whereas IRBs review research proposals that involve human participants, animal experimental proposals are reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) . An IACUC consists of institutional administrators, scientists, veterinarians, and community members. This committee is charged with ensuring that all experimental proposals require the humane treatment of animal research subjects. It also conducts semi-annual inspections of all animal facilities to ensure that the research protocols are being followed. No animal research project can proceed without the committee’s approval.

• Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Psychology and the Scientific Method: From Theory to Conclusion, content on the scientific method principles. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/researching-psychology-2/the-scientific-method-26/psychology-and-the-scientific-method-from-theory-to-conclusion-123-12658/images/the-scientific-method/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Introduction to Psychological Research, Why is Research Important?, Ethics. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Hp5zMFYB@9/Why-Is-Research-Important . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Research picture. Authored by : Mediterranean Center of Medical Sciences. Provided by : Flickr. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/mcmscience/17664002728 . License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.1 Psychology as a Science

Learning objectives.

• Explain why using our intuition about everyday behaviour is insufficient for a complete understanding of the causes of behaviour.
• Describe the difference between values and facts and explain how the scientific method is used to differentiate between the two.

Despite the differences in their interests, areas of study, and approaches, all psychologists have one thing in common: they rely on scientific methods. Research psychologists use scientific methods to create new knowledge about the causes of behaviour, whereas psychologist-practitioners , such as clinical, counselling, industrial-organizational, and school psychologists, use existing research to enhance the everyday life of others. The science of psychology is important for both researchers and practitioners.

Of all of the sciences, psychology is probably the one that most non-scientists feel they know the most about. Because psychology is concerned with people and why they do what they do, we are all “intuitive’ or “naive” psychologists. We rely on common sense, experience, and intuition in understanding why people do what they do. We all have an interest in asking and answering questions about our world, and in making sense of ourselves and other people. We want to know why things happen, when and if they are likely to happen again, and how to reproduce or change them. Such knowledge enables us to predict our own behaviour and that of others. We may even collect data  (i.e., any information collected through formal observation or measurement) to aid us in this undertaking. It has been argued that people are “everyday scientists” who conduct research projects to answer questions about behaviour (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). When we perform poorly on an important test, we try to understand what caused our failure to remember or understand the material and what might help us do better the next time. When our good friends Monisha and Charlie break up, despite the fact that they appeared to have a relationship made in heaven, we try to determine what happened. When we contemplate the rise of terrorist acts around the world, we try to investigate the causes of this problem by looking at the terrorists themselves, the situation around them, and others’ responses to them.

The problem of intuition

The results of these “everyday” research projects teaches us about human behaviour. We learn through experience what happens when we give someone bad news, that some people develop depression, and that aggressive behaviour occurs frequently in our society. We develop theories to explain all of these occurrences; however, it is important to remember that everyone’s experiences are somewhat unique. My theory about why people suffer from depression may be completely different to yours, yet we both feel as though we are “right.” The obvious problem here is that we cannot generalize from one person’s experiences to people in general. We might both be wrong!

The problem with the way people collect and interpret data in their everyday lives is that they are not always particularly thorough or accurate. Often, when one explanation for an event seems right, we adopt that explanation as the truth even when other explanations are possible and potentially more accurate. Furthermore, we fall victim to confirmation bias; that is, we tend to seek information that confirms our beliefs regardless of the accuracy of those beliefs and discount any evidence to the contrary. Psychologists have found a variety of cognitive and motivational biases that frequently influence our perceptions and lead us to draw erroneous conclusions (Fiske & Taylor, 2007; Hsee & Hastie, 2006; Kahneman, 2011). Even feeling confident about our beliefs is not an indicator of their accuracy. For example, eyewitnesses to violent crimes are often extremely confident in their identifications of the perpetrators of these crimes, but research finds that eyewitnesses are no less confident in their identifications when they are incorrect than when they are correct (Cutler & Wells, 2009; Wells & Hasel, 2008). In summary, accepting explanations without empirical evidence may lead us to faulty thinking and erroneous conclusions. Our faulty thinking is not limited to the present; it also occurs when we try to make sense of the past. We have a tendency to tell ourselves “I knew it all along” when making sense of past events; this is known as hindsight bias (Kahneman, 2011). Thus, one of the goals of psychology education is to make people become better thinkers, better consumers of ideas, and better at understanding how our own biases get in the way of true knowledge.

Why psychologists rely on empirical methods

All scientists, whether they are physicists, chemists, biologists, sociologists, or psychologists, use empirical methods to study the topics that interest them. Empirical methods include the processes of collecting and organizing data and drawing conclusions about those data. The empirical methods used by scientists have developed over many years and provide a basis for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data within a common framework in which information can be shared. We can label the scientific method  as the set of assumptions, rules, and procedures that scientists use to conduct empirical research.

Although scientific research is an important method of studying human behaviour, not all questions can be answered using scientific approaches. Statements that cannot be objectively measured or objectively determined to be true or false are not within the domain of scientific inquiry. Scientists therefore draw a distinction between values and facts. Values are personal statements such as “Abortion should not be permitted in this country,” “I will go to heaven when I die,” or “It is important to study psychology.” Facts are objective statements determined to be accurate through empirical study. Examples are “The homicide rate in Canada has been generally declining over the past 45 years” or “Research demonstrates that individuals who are exposed to highly stressful situations over long periods of time develop more health problems than those who are not.”

When we try to find new facts, we express our prediction about what we believe to be true in a hypothesis. An example of a hypothesis would be “People who eat fruits and vegetables daily have better health than people who never eat fruits and vegetables.” For this to become fact, we must test this hypothesis in research and show the evidence that supports it. This is a testable hypothesis, because it would be possible to do the research. It is also falsifiable, meaning that if our prediction is wrong, and eating fruits and vegetables daily does not lead to better health, we will have the data to show us that we are wrong.

Ideas or values are not always testable or falsifiable: science can neither prove nor disprove them. For example, the famous Viennese neurologist Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, believed that the unconscious part of our mind is ultimately responsible when we experience anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions. He thought that emotional conflicts and adverse childhood experiences became lodged in the unconscious because consciously acknowledging them was threatening to our sense of wellbeing. This theory is built on a largely untestable idea: the existence of an unconscious. Given that by definition we cannot describe it, it is difficult to see how we could prove its existence or its role in our lives. That does not mean that the unconscious does not exist, but as we’ll see, we need to find a way to look for its existence using testable and falsifiable hypotheses.

Although scientists use research to help establish facts, the distinction between values or opinions and facts is not always clear-cut. Sometimes statements that scientists consider to be factual turn out later, on the basis of further research, to be partially or even entirely incorrect. Although scientific procedures do not necessarily guarantee that the answers to questions will be objective and unbiased, science is still the best method for drawing objective conclusions about the world around us. When old facts are discarded, they are replaced with new facts based on new and correct data. Although science is not perfect, the requirements of empiricism and objectivity result in a much greater chance of producing an accurate understanding of human behaviour than is available through other approaches.

Levels of explanation in psychology

The study of psychology spans many different topics at many different levels of explanation . Lower levels of explanation are more closely tied to biological influences, such as genes, neurons, neurotransmitters, and hormones, whereas the middle levels of explanation refer to the abilities and characteristics of individual people, and the highest levels of explanation relate to social groups, organizations, and cultures (Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000).

The same topic can be studied within psychology at different levels of explanation, as shown in the table below. For instance, the psychological disorder known as depression affects millions of people worldwide and is known to be caused by biological, social, and cultural factors. Studying and helping alleviate depression can be accomplished at low levels of explanation by investigating how chemicals in the brain influence the experience of depression. This approach has allowed psychologists to develop and prescribe drugs, such as Prozac, which may decrease depression in many individuals (Williams, Simpson, Simpson, & Nahas, 2009). At the middle levels of explanation, psychological therapy is directed at helping individuals cope with negative life experiences that may cause depression. At the highest level, psychologists study differences in the prevalence of depression between men and women and across cultures. The occurrence of psychological disorders, including depression, is substantially higher for women than for men, and it is also higher in Western cultures, such as in Canada, the United States, and Europe, than in Eastern cultures, such as in India, China, and Japan (Chen, Wang, Poland, & Lin, 2009; Seedat et al., 2009). These sex and cultural differences provide insight into the factors that cause depression. The study of depression in psychology helps remind us that no one level of explanation can explain everything. All levels of explanation, from biological to personal to cultural, are essential for a better understanding of human behaviour.

Critical thinking in psychology

Rational, objective thinking is a hallmark of science. Scientists need to be able to critically think about a problem or issue from a variety of perspectives, but it is not just scientists who need to be good thinkers. Critical thinking skills allow you to be a good consumer of ideas. Before deciding to buy a car, most people would spend some time evaluating what they wanted to buy, how much money they have to spend, what kind of car has a good safety record, and so on. The same thinking processes can be applied to ideas. These critical thinking processes are not necessarily intuitive. The good thing is that we can be taught what they are and how to use them. Thus, learning to think critically is a skill we can acquire with practise. Carole Wade (1995) outlined eight processes that are used in critical thinking:

• Ask questions and be willing to wonder  — Curiosity precedes all scientific discoveries and is the basis for acquiring knowledge. For example, suppose you are interested in whether physical exercise is important for mood. Questions you might be wondering about could include: Does getting exercise change your mood? Do people who work out daily feel happier than people who don’t get any exercise? Does the kind of exercise matter? How much exercise makes a difference? How do you measure mood anyway?
• Define the problem  — We need to think about exactly what we want to know about the connection between exercise and mood. There are many ways to define exercise: it might mean walking every day to some people or lifting weights or doing yoga to others. Similarly, some people might interpret mood to be something fairly fleeting, while other people might think mood refers to clinical depression. We need to define the issue or question we are interested in.
• Examine the evidence — Empirical evidence is the kind of support that critical thinkers seek. While you may be aware that a friend or relative felt better when they started running every day, that kind of evidence is anecdotal — it relates to one person, and we don’t know if it would apply to other people. To look for evidence, we should turn to properly conducted studies. In psychology, these are most easily found in a searchable database called PsycINFO that is available through university libraries. PsycINFO contains a vast index of all of the scholarly work published in psychology. Users can often download the original research articles straight from the PsycINFO website.
• Analyze assumptions and biases — Whenever we are reasoning about an idea, we are bound to begin with certain assumptions. For example, we might assume that exercise is good for mood because we usually assume that there is no downside to exercise. It helps if we can identify how we feel or think about an idea. All people are prone to some degree to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for evidence that supports your belief, while at the same time, discounting any that disconfirms it. This type of bias might be reflected in the social media accounts we follow — we follow people who think like us and do not follow people who might have opposing, although possible valid, points of view.
• Avoid emotional reasoning — This process is related to the previous one. It is hard to think about anything in a completely objective manner. Having a vested interest in an issue, or personal knowledge about it, often creates an emotional bias that we may not even be well aware of. Feeling strongly about something does not make us think rationally; in fact, it can be a barrier to rational thinking. Consider any issue you feel strongly about. How easy is it to separate your emotions from your objectivity?
• Avoid oversimplification — Simplicity is comfortable, but it may not be accurate. We often strive for simple explanations for events because we don’t have access to all of the information we need to fully understand the issue. This process relates to the need to ask questions. We should be asking ourselves “What don’t I know about this issue?” Sometimes issues are so complex that we can only address one little part. For example, there are likely to be many things that affect mood; while we might be able to understand the connection to some types of physical exercise, we are not addressing any of the myriad other social, cognitive, and biological factors that may be important.
• Consider other interpretations — Whenever you hear a news story telling you that something is good for you, it is wise to dig a little deeper. For example, many news stories report on research concerning the effects of alcohol. They may report that small amounts of alcohol have some positive health effects, that abstaining completely from alcohol is not good for you, and so on. A critical thinker would want to know more about how those studies were done, and they might suggest that perhaps moderate social drinkers differ from abstainers in a variety of lifestyle habits. Perhaps there are other interpretations for the link between alcohol consumption and health.
• Tolerate uncertainty — Uncertainty is uncomfortable. We want to know why things happen for good reasons. We are always trying to make sense of the world, and we look for explanations. However, sometimes things are complicated and uncertain, or we don’t yet have an explanation for it. Sometimes we just have to accept that we don’t yet have a full picture of why something happens or what causes what. We need to remain open to more information. It is helpful to be able to point out what we don’t know, as well as what we do.

Psychology and pseudoscience

It is important to understand both what psychology is and what it is not. Psychology is a science because it uses and relies on the scientific method as a way to acquire knowledge. Science is an open activity, meaning that results are shared and published. Many scientists conduct research on the same topic, although perhaps from slightly different angles. You can think of scientific knowledge as a snowball — the more knowledge we have, the bigger the snowball, and if it carries on rolling, scientists carry on conducting research at an issue from multiple angles and perspectives. Thus, science is essentially a collaborative process, with all aspects of process and results thrown open to the wider community for consideration and analysis. In science, your conclusions have to be based on empirical evidence, and the merits of the conclusions will have to be judged by peers before they are published. This process is called peer review , and it ensures that what gets published has been reviewed for its adherence to scientific methods and for the accuracy of its conclusions.

Occasionally, we may read a news story or see an advertisement purporting to have information that will change our lives. Such stories often allude to evidence but fail to show where to find it, or they rely on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. They sometimes use celebrity endorsements and claim that if we do not act immediately to buy their information or product, we will lose out. Typically, these claims are targeted at significant concerns such as weight loss, unhappiness, unspecified pain, and the like — often the very areas that psychologists are attempting to learn more about. Pseudoscience is the term often used to describe such claims; equivalent terms are “bad science” or “junk science.” Fortunately, we can use the critical thinking processes outlined above to evaluate the veracity of claims that seem too good to be true.

Research Focus

Pseudoscience alert: Your handwriting does not reveal your character

One of the common beliefs that people have about personality is that it is revealed in one’s handwriting. Graphology is a pseudoscience that purports to show that aspects of our handwriting reflect aspects of our character. Reader’s Digest (LaBianca & Gibson, 2020) claims to explain the meaning of handwriting characteristics, such as spacing, size of characters, and how you cross your t’ s. “If you dot your i ’s high on the page, you likely have an active imagination, according to handwriting analysis experts. A closely dotted i is the mark of an organized and detail-oriented mind. If you dot your i ’s to the left, you might be a procrastinator, and if you dot your i ’s with a circle, you likely have playful and childlike qualities” (LaBianca & Gibson, 2020, “How do you dot your i ’s?”).

Graphology has a long history (e.g., Münsterberg, 1915; Downey, 1919) and is related to many other attempts to explain people’s character based on aspects of physical appearance, such as the shape of one’s face, size of one’s hands, or bumps on one’s head (i.e., phrenology). People have always been interested in personality and how to measure, describe, and explain it.

Unfortunately, this attempt to understand people’s personality or career prospects by reading their handwriting has no empirical evidence to support it (Dazzi & Pedrabissi, 2009; Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio, & Beyerstein, 2010). Even though graphology was debunked several decades ago, the Reader’s Digest article on their website in 2020 shows that the belief persists.

Key Takeaways

• Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behaviour.
• Commonsense thinking is not always correct.
• We are not always aware of the errors in reasoning that we make.
• People are frequently unaware of the causes of their own behaviours.
• Psychologists use the scientific method to collect, analyze, and interpret evidence.
• Employing the scientific method allows the scientist to collect empirical data objectively, which adds to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
• Psychological phenomena are complex, and making predictions about them is difficult because of individual differences and because they are multiply determined at different levels of explanation.
• Critical thinking involves a number of processes that can be specified and practised.
• Pseudoscience often involves claims about topics that psychologists are interested in; students should be able to evaluate pseudoscientific claims using critical thinking.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Can you think of a time when you used your intuition to analyze an outcome, only to be surprised later to find that your explanation was completely incorrect? Did this surprise help you understand how intuition may sometimes lead us astray?
• Describe the scientific method in a way that someone who knows nothing about science could understand it.
• Consider a behaviour that you find to be important and think about its potential causes at different levels of explanation. How do you think psychologists would study this behaviour?
• Using the eight processes of critical thinking, evaluate a common proverb or myth, such as “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” or “We only use 10% of our brain.”
• Find a claim online for a weight loss pill and use the critical thinking processes to decide if it is an example of pseudoscience.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches.  Psychological Bulletin, 126 (6), 829–843.

Chen, P.-Y., Wang, S.-C., Poland, R. E., & Lin, K.-M. (2009). Biological variations in depression and anxiety between East and West.  CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 15 (3), 283–294.

Cutler, B. L., & Wells, G. L. (2009). Expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. In J. L. Skeem, S. O. Lilienfeld, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.),  Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy  (pp. 100–123). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Dazzi, C., & Pedrabissi, L. (2009). Graphology and personality: An empirical study on validity of handwriting analysis. Psychological Reports , 105 (3 Pt2), 1255–1268.

Downey, J. E. (1919). Graphology and the psychology of handwriting . Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2007).  Social cognition: From brains to culture . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy?  Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (1), 31–37.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Toronto, ON: Random House.

LaBianca, J., & Gibson, B. (2020). Here’s what your handwriting says about you. Reader’s Digest . Retrieved from https://www.rd.com/advice/work-career/handwriting-analysis

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 Great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behaviour. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Münsterberg, H. (1915). Business psychology . Chicago, IL: LaSalle Extension University.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).  Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Seedat, S., Scott, K. M., Angermeyer, M. C., Berglund, P., Bromet, E. J., Brugha, T. S., & Kessler, R. C. (2009). Cross-national associations between gender and mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys.  Archives of General Psychiatry, 66 (7), 785–795.

Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking.  Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 24–28.

Wells, G. L., & Hasel, L. E. (2008). Eyewitness identification: Issues in common knowledge and generalization. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.),  Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom  (pp. 159–176). Malden, NJ: Blackwell.

Williams, N., Simpson, A. N., Simpson, K., & Nahas, Z. (2009). Relapse rates with long-term antidepressant drug therapy: A meta-analysis.  Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 24 (5), 401–408.

Psychology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2020 by Sally Walters is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Res Metr Anal

The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review

Salomé elizabeth scholtz.

1 Community Psychosocial Research (COMPRES), School of Psychosocial Health, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Werner de Klerk

Leon t. de beer.

2 WorkWell Research Institute, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Research methods play an imperative role in research quality as well as educating young researchers, however, the application thereof is unclear which can be detrimental to the field of psychology. Therefore, this systematised review aimed to determine what research methods are being used, how these methods are being used and for what topics in the field. Our review of 999 articles from five journals over a period of 5 years indicated that psychology research is conducted in 10 topics via predominantly quantitative research methods. Of these 10 topics, social psychology was the most popular. The remainder of the conducted methodology is described. It was also found that articles lacked rigour and transparency in the used methodology which has implications for replicability. In conclusion this article, provides an overview of all reported methodologies used in a sample of psychology journals. It highlights the popularity and application of methods and designs throughout the article sample as well as an unexpected lack of rigour with regard to most aspects of methodology. Possible sample bias should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. It is recommended that future research should utilise the results of this study to determine the possible impact on the field of psychology as a science and to further investigation into the use of research methods. Results should prompt the following future research into: a lack or rigour and its implication on replication, the use of certain methods above others, publication bias and choice of sampling method.

Introduction

Psychology is an ever-growing and popular field (Gough and Lyons, 2016 ; Clay, 2017 ). Due to this growth and the need for science-based research to base health decisions on (Perestelo-Pérez, 2013 ), the use of research methods in the broad field of psychology is an essential point of investigation (Stangor, 2011 ; Aanstoos, 2014 ). Research methods are therefore viewed as important tools used by researchers to collect data (Nieuwenhuis, 2016 ) and include the following: quantitative, qualitative, mixed method and multi method (Maree, 2016 ). Additionally, researchers also employ various types of literature reviews to address research questions (Grant and Booth, 2009 ). According to literature, what research method is used and why a certain research method is used is complex as it depends on various factors that may include paradigm (O'Neil and Koekemoer, 2016 ), research question (Grix, 2002 ), or the skill and exposure of the researcher (Nind et al., 2015 ). How these research methods are employed is also difficult to discern as research methods are often depicted as having fixed boundaries that are continuously crossed in research (Johnson et al., 2001 ; Sandelowski, 2011 ). Examples of this crossing include adding quantitative aspects to qualitative studies (Sandelowski et al., 2009 ), or stating that a study used a mixed-method design without the study having any characteristics of this design (Truscott et al., 2010 ).

The inappropriate use of research methods affects how students and researchers improve and utilise their research skills (Scott Jones and Goldring, 2015 ), how theories are developed (Ngulube, 2013 ), and the credibility of research results (Levitt et al., 2017 ). This, in turn, can be detrimental to the field (Nind et al., 2015 ), journal publication (Ketchen et al., 2008 ; Ezeh et al., 2010 ), and attempts to address public social issues through psychological research (Dweck, 2017 ). This is especially important given the now well-known replication crisis the field is facing (Earp and Trafimow, 2015 ; Hengartner, 2018 ).

Due to this lack of clarity on method use and the potential impact of inept use of research methods, the aim of this study was to explore the use of research methods in the field of psychology through a review of journal publications. Chaichanasakul et al. ( 2011 ) identify reviewing articles as the opportunity to examine the development, growth and progress of a research area and overall quality of a journal. Studies such as Lee et al. ( 1999 ) as well as Bluhm et al. ( 2011 ) review of qualitative methods has attempted to synthesis the use of research methods and indicated the growth of qualitative research in American and European journals. Research has also focused on the use of research methods in specific sub-disciplines of psychology, for example, in the field of Industrial and Organisational psychology Coetzee and Van Zyl ( 2014 ) found that South African publications tend to consist of cross-sectional quantitative research methods with underrepresented longitudinal studies. Qualitative studies were found to make up 21% of the articles published from 1995 to 2015 in a similar study by O'Neil and Koekemoer ( 2016 ). Other methods in health psychology, such as Mixed methods research have also been reportedly growing in popularity (O'Cathain, 2009 ).

A broad overview of the use of research methods in the field of psychology as a whole is however, not available in the literature. Therefore, our research focused on answering what research methods are being used, how these methods are being used and for what topics in practice (i.e., journal publications) in order to provide a general perspective of method used in psychology publication. We synthesised the collected data into the following format: research topic [areas of scientific discourse in a field or the current needs of a population (Bittermann and Fischer, 2018 )], method [data-gathering tools (Nieuwenhuis, 2016 )], sampling [elements chosen from a population to partake in research (Ritchie et al., 2009 )], data collection [techniques and research strategy (Maree, 2016 )], and data analysis [discovering information by examining bodies of data (Ktepi, 2016 )]. A systematised review of recent articles (2013 to 2017) collected from five different journals in the field of psychological research was conducted.

Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) describe systematised reviews as the review of choice for post-graduate studies, which is employed using some elements of a systematic review and seldom more than one or two databases to catalogue studies after a comprehensive literature search. The aspects used in this systematised review that are similar to that of a systematic review were a full search within the chosen database and data produced in tabular form (Grant and Booth, 2009 ).

Sample sizes and timelines vary in systematised reviews (see Lowe and Moore, 2014 ; Pericall and Taylor, 2014 ; Barr-Walker, 2017 ). With no clear parameters identified in the literature (see Grant and Booth, 2009 ), the sample size of this study was determined by the purpose of the sample (Strydom, 2011 ), and time and cost constraints (Maree and Pietersen, 2016 ). Thus, a non-probability purposive sample (Ritchie et al., 2009 ) of the top five psychology journals from 2013 to 2017 was included in this research study. Per Lee ( 2015 ) American Psychological Association (APA) recommends the use of the most up-to-date sources for data collection with consideration of the context of the research study. As this research study focused on the most recent trends in research methods used in the broad field of psychology, the identified time frame was deemed appropriate.

Psychology journals were only included if they formed part of the top five English journals in the miscellaneous psychology domain of the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2017 ). The Scimago Journal and Country Rank provides a yearly updated list of publicly accessible journal and country-specific indicators derived from the Scopus® database (Scopus, 2017b ) by means of the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator developed by Scimago from the algorithm Google PageRank™ (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2017 ). Scopus is the largest global database of abstracts and citations from peer-reviewed journals (Scopus, 2017a ). Reasons for the development of the Scimago Journal and Country Rank list was to allow researchers to assess scientific domains, compare country rankings, and compare and analyse journals (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2017 ), which supported the aim of this research study. Additionally, the goals of the journals had to focus on topics in psychology in general with no preference to specific research methods and have full-text access to articles.

The following list of top five journals in 2018 fell within the abovementioned inclusion criteria (1) Australian Journal of Psychology, (2) British Journal of Psychology, (3) Europe's Journal of Psychology, (4) International Journal of Psychology and lastly the (5) Journal of Psychology Applied and Interdisciplinary.

Journals were excluded from this systematised review if no full-text versions of their articles were available, if journals explicitly stated a publication preference for certain research methods, or if the journal only published articles in a specific discipline of psychological research (for example, industrial psychology, clinical psychology etc.).

The researchers followed a procedure (see Figure 1 ) adapted from that of Ferreira et al. ( 2016 ) for systematised reviews. Data collection and categorisation commenced on 4 December 2017 and continued until 30 June 2019. All the data was systematically collected and coded manually (Grant and Booth, 2009 ) with an independent person acting as co-coder. Codes of interest included the research topic, method used, the design used, sampling method, and methodology (the method used for data collection and data analysis). These codes were derived from the wording in each article. Themes were created based on the derived codes and checked by the co-coder. Lastly, these themes were catalogued into a table as per the systematised review design.

Systematised review procedure.

According to Johnston et al. ( 2019 ), “literature screening, selection, and data extraction/analyses” (p. 7) are specifically tailored to the aim of a review. Therefore, the steps followed in a systematic review must be reported in a comprehensive and transparent manner. The chosen systematised design adhered to the rigour expected from systematic reviews with regard to full search and data produced in tabular form (Grant and Booth, 2009 ). The rigorous application of the systematic review is, therefore discussed in relation to these two elements.

Firstly, to ensure a comprehensive search, this research study promoted review transparency by following a clear protocol outlined according to each review stage before collecting data (Johnston et al., 2019 ). This protocol was similar to that of Ferreira et al. ( 2016 ) and approved by three research committees/stakeholders and the researchers (Johnston et al., 2019 ). The eligibility criteria for article inclusion was based on the research question and clearly stated, and the process of inclusion was recorded on an electronic spreadsheet to create an evidence trail (Bandara et al., 2015 ; Johnston et al., 2019 ). Microsoft Excel spreadsheets are a popular tool for review studies and can increase the rigour of the review process (Bandara et al., 2015 ). Screening for appropriate articles for inclusion forms an integral part of a systematic review process (Johnston et al., 2019 ). This step was applied to two aspects of this research study: the choice of eligible journals and articles to be included. Suitable journals were selected by the first author and reviewed by the second and third authors. Initially, all articles from the chosen journals were included. Then, by process of elimination, those irrelevant to the research aim, i.e., interview articles or discussions etc., were excluded.

To ensure rigourous data extraction, data was first extracted by one reviewer, and an independent person verified the results for completeness and accuracy (Johnston et al., 2019 ). The research question served as a guide for efficient, organised data extraction (Johnston et al., 2019 ). Data was categorised according to the codes of interest, along with article identifiers for audit trails such as authors, title and aims of articles. The categorised data was based on the aim of the review (Johnston et al., 2019 ) and synthesised in tabular form under methods used, how these methods were used, and for what topics in the field of psychology.

The initial search produced a total of 1,145 articles from the 5 journals identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a final sample of 999 articles ( Figure 2 ). Articles were co-coded into 84 codes, from which 10 themes were derived ( Table 1 ).

Journal article frequency.

Codes used to form themes (research topics).

These 10 themes represent the topic section of our research question ( Figure 3 ). All these topics except, for the final one, psychological practice , were found to concur with the research areas in psychology as identified by Weiten ( 2010 ). These research areas were chosen to represent the derived codes as they provided broad definitions that allowed for clear, concise categorisation of the vast amount of data. Article codes were categorised under particular themes/topics if they adhered to the research area definitions created by Weiten ( 2010 ). It is important to note that these areas of research do not refer to specific disciplines in psychology, such as industrial psychology; but to broader fields that may encompass sub-interests of these disciplines.

Topic frequency (international sample).

In the case of developmental psychology , researchers conduct research into human development from childhood to old age. Social psychology includes research on behaviour governed by social drivers. Researchers in the field of educational psychology study how people learn and the best way to teach them. Health psychology aims to determine the effect of psychological factors on physiological health. Physiological psychology , on the other hand, looks at the influence of physiological aspects on behaviour. Experimental psychology is not the only theme that uses experimental research and focuses on the traditional core topics of psychology (for example, sensation). Cognitive psychology studies the higher mental processes. Psychometrics is concerned with measuring capacity or behaviour. Personality research aims to assess and describe consistency in human behaviour (Weiten, 2010 ). The final theme of psychological practice refers to the experiences, techniques, and interventions employed by practitioners, researchers, and academia in the field of psychology.

Articles under these themes were further subdivided into methodologies: method, sampling, design, data collection, and data analysis. The categorisation was based on information stated in the articles and not inferred by the researchers. Data were compiled into two sets of results presented in this article. The first set addresses the aim of this study from the perspective of the topics identified. The second set of results represents a broad overview of the results from the perspective of the methodology employed. The second set of results are discussed in this article, while the first set is presented in table format. The discussion thus provides a broad overview of methods use in psychology (across all themes), while the table format provides readers with in-depth insight into methods used in the individual themes identified. We believe that presenting the data from both perspectives allow readers a broad understanding of the results. Due a large amount of information that made up our results, we followed Cichocka and Jost ( 2014 ) in simplifying our results. Please note that the numbers indicated in the table in terms of methodology differ from the total number of articles. Some articles employed more than one method/sampling technique/design/data collection method/data analysis in their studies.

What follows is the results for what methods are used, how these methods are used, and which topics in psychology they are applied to . Percentages are reported to the second decimal in order to highlight small differences in the occurrence of methodology.

Firstly, with regard to the research methods used, our results show that researchers are more likely to use quantitative research methods (90.22%) compared to all other research methods. Qualitative research was the second most common research method but only made up about 4.79% of the general method usage. Reviews occurred almost as much as qualitative studies (3.91%), as the third most popular method. Mixed-methods research studies (0.98%) occurred across most themes, whereas multi-method research was indicated in only one study and amounted to 0.10% of the methods identified. The specific use of each method in the topics identified is shown in Table 2 and Figure 4 .

Research methods in psychology.

Research method frequency in topics.

Secondly, in the case of how these research methods are employed , our study indicated the following.

Sampling −78.34% of the studies in the collected articles did not specify a sampling method. From the remainder of the studies, 13 types of sampling methods were identified. These sampling methods included broad categorisation of a sample as, for example, a probability or non-probability sample. General samples of convenience were the methods most likely to be applied (10.34%), followed by random sampling (3.51%), snowball sampling (2.73%), and purposive (1.37%) and cluster sampling (1.27%). The remainder of the sampling methods occurred to a more limited extent (0–1.0%). See Table 3 and Figure 5 for sampling methods employed in each topic.

Sampling use in the field of psychology.

Sampling method frequency in topics.

Designs were categorised based on the articles' statement thereof. Therefore, it is important to note that, in the case of quantitative studies, non-experimental designs (25.55%) were often indicated due to a lack of experiments and any other indication of design, which, according to Laher ( 2016 ), is a reasonable categorisation. Non-experimental designs should thus be compared with experimental designs only in the description of data, as it could include the use of correlational/cross-sectional designs, which were not overtly stated by the authors. For the remainder of the research methods, “not stated” (7.12%) was assigned to articles without design types indicated.

From the 36 identified designs the most popular designs were cross-sectional (23.17%) and experimental (25.64%), which concurred with the high number of quantitative studies. Longitudinal studies (3.80%), the third most popular design, was used in both quantitative and qualitative studies. Qualitative designs consisted of ethnography (0.38%), interpretative phenomenological designs/phenomenology (0.28%), as well as narrative designs (0.28%). Studies that employed the review method were mostly categorised as “not stated,” with the most often stated review designs being systematic reviews (0.57%). The few mixed method studies employed exploratory, explanatory (0.09%), and concurrent designs (0.19%), with some studies referring to separate designs for the qualitative and quantitative methods. The one study that identified itself as a multi-method study used a longitudinal design. Please see how these designs were employed in each specific topic in Table 4 , Figure 6 .

Design use in the field of psychology.

Design frequency in topics.

Data collection and analysis —data collection included 30 methods, with the data collection method most often employed being questionnaires (57.84%). The experimental task (16.56%) was the second most preferred collection method, which included established or unique tasks designed by the researchers. Cognitive ability tests (6.84%) were also regularly used along with various forms of interviewing (7.66%). Table 5 and Figure 7 represent data collection use in the various topics. Data analysis consisted of 3,857 occurrences of data analysis categorised into ±188 various data analysis techniques shown in Table 6 and Figures 1 – 7 . Descriptive statistics were the most commonly used (23.49%) along with correlational analysis (17.19%). When using a qualitative method, researchers generally employed thematic analysis (0.52%) or different forms of analysis that led to coding and the creation of themes. Review studies presented few data analysis methods, with most studies categorising their results. Mixed method and multi-method studies followed the analysis methods identified for the qualitative and quantitative studies included.

Data collection in the field of psychology.

Data collection frequency in topics.

Data analysis in the field of psychology.

Results of the topics researched in psychology can be seen in the tables, as previously stated in this article. It is noteworthy that, of the 10 topics, social psychology accounted for 43.54% of the studies, with cognitive psychology the second most popular research topic at 16.92%. The remainder of the topics only occurred in 4.0–7.0% of the articles considered. A list of the included 999 articles is available under the section “View Articles” on the following website: https://methodgarden.xtrapolate.io/ . This website was created by Scholtz et al. ( 2019 ) to visually present a research framework based on this Article's results.

This systematised review categorised full-length articles from five international journals across the span of 5 years to provide insight into the use of research methods in the field of psychology. Results indicated what methods are used how these methods are being used and for what topics (why) in the included sample of articles. The results should be seen as providing insight into method use and by no means a comprehensive representation of the aforementioned aim due to the limited sample. To our knowledge, this is the first research study to address this topic in this manner. Our discussion attempts to promote a productive way forward in terms of the key results for method use in psychology, especially in the field of academia (Holloway, 2008 ).

With regard to the methods used, our data stayed true to literature, finding only common research methods (Grant and Booth, 2009 ; Maree, 2016 ) that varied in the degree to which they were employed. Quantitative research was found to be the most popular method, as indicated by literature (Breen and Darlaston-Jones, 2010 ; Counsell and Harlow, 2017 ) and previous studies in specific areas of psychology (see Coetzee and Van Zyl, 2014 ). Its long history as the first research method (Leech et al., 2007 ) in the field of psychology as well as researchers' current application of mathematical approaches in their studies (Toomela, 2010 ) might contribute to its popularity today. Whatever the case may be, our results show that, despite the growth in qualitative research (Demuth, 2015 ; Smith and McGannon, 2018 ), quantitative research remains the first choice for article publication in these journals. Despite the included journals indicating openness to articles that apply any research methods. This finding may be due to qualitative research still being seen as a new method (Burman and Whelan, 2011 ) or reviewers' standards being higher for qualitative studies (Bluhm et al., 2011 ). Future research is encouraged into the possible biasness in publication of research methods, additionally further investigation with a different sample into the proclaimed growth of qualitative research may also provide different results.

Review studies were found to surpass that of multi-method and mixed method studies. To this effect Grant and Booth ( 2009 ), state that the increased awareness, journal contribution calls as well as its efficiency in procuring research funds all promote the popularity of reviews. The low frequency of mixed method studies contradicts the view in literature that it's the third most utilised research method (Tashakkori and Teddlie's, 2003 ). Its' low occurrence in this sample could be due to opposing views on mixing methods (Gunasekare, 2015 ) or that authors prefer publishing in mixed method journals, when using this method, or its relative novelty (Ivankova et al., 2016 ). Despite its low occurrence, the application of the mixed methods design in articles was methodologically clear in all cases which were not the case for the remainder of research methods.

Additionally, a substantial number of studies used a combination of methodologies that are not mixed or multi-method studies. Perceived fixed boundaries are according to literature often set aside, as confirmed by this result, in order to investigate the aim of a study, which could create a new and helpful way of understanding the world (Gunasekare, 2015 ). According to Toomela ( 2010 ), this is not unheard of and could be considered a form of “structural systemic science,” as in the case of qualitative methodology (observation) applied in quantitative studies (experimental design) for example. Based on this result, further research into this phenomenon as well as its implications for research methods such as multi and mixed methods is recommended.

Discerning how these research methods were applied, presented some difficulty. In the case of sampling, most studies—regardless of method—did mention some form of inclusion and exclusion criteria, but no definite sampling method. This result, along with the fact that samples often consisted of students from the researchers' own academic institutions, can contribute to literature and debates among academics (Peterson and Merunka, 2014 ; Laher, 2016 ). Samples of convenience and students as participants especially raise questions about the generalisability and applicability of results (Peterson and Merunka, 2014 ). This is because attention to sampling is important as inappropriate sampling can debilitate the legitimacy of interpretations (Onwuegbuzie and Collins, 2017 ). Future investigation into the possible implications of this reported popular use of convenience samples for the field of psychology as well as the reason for this use could provide interesting insight, and is encouraged by this study.

Additionally, and this is indicated in Table 6 , articles seldom report the research designs used, which highlights the pressing aspect of the lack of rigour in the included sample. Rigour with regards to the applied empirical method is imperative in promoting psychology as a science (American Psychological Association, 2020 ). Omitting parts of the research process in publication when it could have been used to inform others' research skills should be questioned, and the influence on the process of replicating results should be considered. Publications are often rejected due to a lack of rigour in the applied method and designs (Fonseca, 2013 ; Laher, 2016 ), calling for increased clarity and knowledge of method application. Replication is a critical part of any field of scientific research and requires the “complete articulation” of the study methods used (Drotar, 2010 , p. 804). The lack of thorough description could be explained by the requirements of certain journals to only report on certain aspects of a research process, especially with regard to the applied design (Laher, 20). However, naming aspects such as sampling and designs, is a requirement according to the APA's Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS-Quant) (Appelbaum et al., 2018 ). With very little information on how a study was conducted, authors lose a valuable opportunity to enhance research validity, enrich the knowledge of others, and contribute to the growth of psychology and methodology as a whole. In the case of this research study, it also restricted our results to only reported samples and designs, which indicated a preference for certain designs, such as cross-sectional designs for quantitative studies.

Data collection and analysis were for the most part clearly stated. A key result was the versatile use of questionnaires. Researchers would apply a questionnaire in various ways, for example in questionnaire interviews, online surveys, and written questionnaires across most research methods. This may highlight a trend for future research.

With regard to the topics these methods were employed for, our research study found a new field named “psychological practice.” This result may show the growing consciousness of researchers as part of the research process (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003 ), psychological practice, and knowledge generation. The most popular of these topics was social psychology, which is generously covered in journals and by learning societies, as testaments of the institutional support and richness social psychology has in the field of psychology (Chryssochoou, 2015 ). The APA's perspective on 2018 trends in psychology also identifies an increased amount of psychology focus on how social determinants are influencing people's health (Deangelis, 2017 ).

This study was not without limitations and the following should be taken into account. Firstly, this study used a sample of five specific journals to address the aim of the research study, despite general journal aims (as stated on journal websites), this inclusion signified a bias towards the research methods published in these specific journals only and limited generalisability. A broader sample of journals over a different period of time, or a single journal over a longer period of time might provide different results. A second limitation is the use of Excel spreadsheets and an electronic system to log articles, which was a manual process and therefore left room for error (Bandara et al., 2015 ). To address this potential issue, co-coding was performed to reduce error. Lastly, this article categorised data based on the information presented in the article sample; there was no interpretation of what methodology could have been applied or whether the methods stated adhered to the criteria for the methods used. Thus, a large number of articles that did not clearly indicate a research method or design could influence the results of this review. However, this in itself was also a noteworthy result. Future research could review research methods of a broader sample of journals with an interpretive review tool that increases rigour. Additionally, the authors also encourage the future use of systematised review designs as a way to promote a concise procedure in applying this design.

Our research study presented the use of research methods for published articles in the field of psychology as well as recommendations for future research based on these results. Insight into the complex questions identified in literature, regarding what methods are used how these methods are being used and for what topics (why) was gained. This sample preferred quantitative methods, used convenience sampling and presented a lack of rigorous accounts for the remaining methodologies. All methodologies that were clearly indicated in the sample were tabulated to allow researchers insight into the general use of methods and not only the most frequently used methods. The lack of rigorous account of research methods in articles was represented in-depth for each step in the research process and can be of vital importance to address the current replication crisis within the field of psychology. Recommendations for future research aimed to motivate research into the practical implications of the results for psychology, for example, publication bias and the use of convenience samples.

Ethics Statement

This study was cleared by the North-West University Health Research Ethics Committee: NWU-00115-17-S1.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Aanstoos C. M. (2014). Psychology . Available online at: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/eds/detail/detail?sid=18de6c5c-2b03-4eac-94890145eb01bc70%40sessionmgr4006&vid$=$1&hid$=$4113&bdata$=$JnNpdGU9ZWRzL~WxpdmU%3d#AN$=$93871882&db$=$ers
• American Psychological Association (2020). Science of Psychology . Available online at: https://www.apa.org/action/science/
• Appelbaum M., Cooper H., Kline R. B., Mayo-Wilson E., Nezu A. M., Rao S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report . Am. Psychol. 73 :3. 10.1037/amp0000191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandara W., Furtmueller E., Gorbacheva E., Miskon S., Beekhuyzen J. (2015). Achieving rigor in literature reviews: insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support . Commun. Ass. Inform. Syst. 37 , 154–204. 10.17705/1CAIS.03708 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barr-Walker J. (2017). Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: a systematized review . J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 105 , 69–79. 10.5195/JMLA.2017.109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bittermann A., Fischer A. (2018). How to identify hot topics in psychology using topic modeling . Z. Psychol. 226 , 3–13. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000318 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bluhm D. J., Harman W., Lee T. W., Mitchell T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: a decade of progress . J. Manage. Stud. 48 , 1866–1891. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breen L. J., Darlaston-Jones D. (2010). Moving beyond the enduring dominance of positivism in psychological research: implications for psychology in Australia . Aust. Psychol. 45 , 67–76. 10.1080/00050060903127481 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burman E., Whelan P. (2011). Problems in / of Qualitative Research . Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaichanasakul A., He Y., Chen H., Allen G. E. K., Khairallah T. S., Ramos K. (2011). Journal of Career Development: a 36-year content analysis (1972–2007) . J. Career. Dev. 38 , 440–455. 10.1177/0894845310380223 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chryssochoou X. (2015). Social Psychology . Inter. Encycl. Soc. Behav. Sci. 22 , 532–537. 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24095-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cichocka A., Jost J. T. (2014). Stripped of illusions? Exploring system justification processes in capitalist and post-Communist societies . Inter. J. Psychol. 49 , 6–29. 10.1002/ijop.12011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clay R. A. (2017). Psychology is More Popular Than Ever. Monitor on Psychology: Trends Report . Available online at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/11/trends-popular
• Coetzee M., Van Zyl L. E. (2014). A review of a decade's scholarly publications (2004–2013) in the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology . SA. J. Psychol . 40 , 1–16. 10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Counsell A., Harlow L. (2017). Reporting practices and use of quantitative methods in Canadian journal articles in psychology . Can. Psychol. 58 , 140–147. 10.1037/cap0000074 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deangelis T. (2017). Targeting Social Factors That Undermine Health. Monitor on Psychology: Trends Report . Available online at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/11/trend-social-factors
• Demuth C. (2015). New directions in qualitative research in psychology . Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 49 , 125–133. 10.1007/s12124-015-9303-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. (2003). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues , 2nd Edn. London: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drotar D. (2010). A call for replications of research in pediatric psychology and guidance for authors . J. Pediatr. Psychol. 35 , 801–805. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq049 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2017). Is psychology headed in the right direction? Yes, no, and maybe . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 656–659. 10.1177/1745691616687747 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earp B. D., Trafimow D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology . Front. Psychol. 6 :621. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezeh A. C., Izugbara C. O., Kabiru C. W., Fonn S., Kahn K., Manderson L., et al.. (2010). Building capacity for public and population health research in Africa: the consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) model . Glob. Health Action 3 :5693. 10.3402/gha.v3i0.5693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira A. L. L., Bessa M. M. M., Drezett J., De Abreu L. C. (2016). Quality of life of the woman carrier of endometriosis: systematized review . Reprod. Clim. 31 , 48–54. 10.1016/j.recli.2015.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fonseca M. (2013). Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections . Available online at: http://www.editage.com/insights/most-common-reasons-for-journal-rejections
• Gough B., Lyons A. (2016). The future of qualitative research in psychology: accentuating the positive . Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 50 , 234–243. 10.1007/s12124-015-9320-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant M. J., Booth A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info. Libr. J. 26 , 91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grix J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research . Politics 22 , 175–186. 10.1111/1467-9256.00173 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunasekare U. L. T. P. (2015). Mixed research method as the third research paradigm: a literature review . Int. J. Sci. Res. 4 , 361–368. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2735996 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hengartner M. P. (2018). Raising awareness for the replication crisis in clinical psychology by focusing on inconsistencies in psychotherapy Research: how much can we rely on published findings from efficacy trials? Front. Psychol. 9 :256. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00256 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holloway W. (2008). Doing intellectual disagreement differently . Psychoanal. Cult. Soc. 13 , 385–396. 10.1057/pcs.2008.29 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivankova N. V., Creswell J. W., Plano Clark V. L. (2016). Foundations and Approaches to mixed methods research , in First Steps in Research , 2nd Edn. K. Maree (Pretoria: Van Schaick Publishers; ), 306–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson M., Long T., White A. (2001). Arguments for British pluralism in qualitative health research . J. Adv. Nurs. 33 , 243–249. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01659.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston A., Kelly S. E., Hsieh S. C., Skidmore B., Wells G. A. (2019). Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide . J. Clin. Epidemiol. 108 , 64–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ketchen D. J., Jr., Boyd B. K., Bergh D. D. (2008). Research methodology in strategic management: past accomplishments and future challenges . Organ. Res. Methods 11 , 643–658. 10.1177/1094428108319843 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ktepi B. (2016). Data Analytics (DA) . Available online at: https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=24c978f0-6685-4ed8-ad85-fa5bb04669b9%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=113931286&db=ers
• Laher S. (2016). Ostinato rigore: establishing methodological rigour in quantitative research . S. Afr. J. Psychol. 46 , 316–327. 10.1177/0081246316649121 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C. (2015). The Myth of the Off-Limits Source . Available online at: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/research/
• Lee T. W., Mitchell T. R., Sablynski C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999 . J. Vocat. Behav. 55 , 161–187. 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leech N. L., Anthony J., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2007). A typology of mixed methods research designs . Sci. Bus. Media B. V Qual. Quant 43 , 265–275. 10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt H. M., Motulsky S. L., Wertz F. J., Morrow S. L., Ponterotto J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: promoting methodological integrity . Qual. Psychol. 4 , 2–22. 10.1037/qup0000082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe S. M., Moore S. (2014). Social networks and female reproductive choices in the developing world: a systematized review . Rep. Health 11 :85. 10.1186/1742-4755-11-85 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maree K. (2016). Planning a research proposal , in First Steps in Research , 2nd Edn, ed Maree K. (Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; ), 49–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maree K., Pietersen J. (2016). Sampling , in First Steps in Research, 2nd Edn , ed Maree K. (Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; ), 191–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngulube P. (2013). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in library and information science in sub-Saharan Africa . ESARBICA J. 32 , 10–23. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10500/22397 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Nieuwenhuis J. (2016). Qualitative research designs and data-gathering techniques , in First Steps in Research , 2nd Edn, ed Maree K. (Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; ), 71–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nind M., Kilburn D., Wiles R. (2015). Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods . Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 18 , 561–576. 10.1080/13645579.2015.1062628 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Cathain A. (2009). Editorial: mixed methods research in the health sciences—a quiet revolution . J. Mix. Methods 3 , 1–6. 10.1177/1558689808326272 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Neil S., Koekemoer E. (2016). Two decades of qualitative research in psychology, industrial and organisational psychology and human resource management within South Africa: a critical review . SA J. Indust. Psychol. 42 , 1–16. 10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1350 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie A. J., Collins K. M. (2017). The role of sampling in mixed methods research enhancing inference quality . Köln Z Soziol. 2 , 133–156. 10.1007/s11577-017-0455-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perestelo-Pérez L. (2013). Standards on how to develop and report systematic reviews in psychology and health . Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 13 , 49–57. 10.1016/S1697-2600(13)70007-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pericall L. M. T., Taylor E. (2014). Family function and its relationship to injury severity and psychiatric outcome in children with acquired brain injury: a systematized review . Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 56 , 19–30. 10.1111/dmcn.12237 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson R. A., Merunka D. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility . J. Bus. Res. 67 , 1035–1041. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J., Lewis J., Elam G. (2009). Designing and selecting samples , in Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers , 2nd Edn, ed Ritchie J., Lewis J. (London: Sage; ), 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (2011). When a cigar is not just a cigar: alternative perspectives on data and data analysis . Res. Nurs. Health 34 , 342–352. 10.1002/nur.20437 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M., Voils C. I., Knafl G. (2009). On quantitizing . J. Mix. Methods Res. 3 , 208–222. 10.1177/1558689809334210 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scholtz S. E., De Klerk W., De Beer L. T. (2019). A data generated research framework for conducting research methods in psychological research .
• Scimago Journal & Country Rank (2017). Available online at: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3201&year=2015
• Scopus (2017a). About Scopus . Available online at: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri (accessed February 01, 2017).
• Scopus (2017b). Document Search . Available online at: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri (accessed February 01, 2017).
• Scott Jones J., Goldring J. E. (2015). ‘I' m not a quants person'; key strategies in building competence and confidence in staff who teach quantitative research methods . Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 18 , 479–494. 10.1080/13645579.2015.1062623 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith B., McGannon K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in quantitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology . Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 11 , 101–121. 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stangor C. (2011). Introduction to Psychology . Available online at: http://www.saylor.org/books/
• Strydom H. (2011). Sampling in the quantitative paradigm , in Research at Grass Roots; For the Social Sciences and Human Service Professions , 4th Edn, eds de Vos A. S., Strydom H., Fouché C. B., Delport C. S. L. (Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; ), 221–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toomela A. (2010). Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless . Front. Psychol. 1 :29. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00029 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Truscott D. M., Swars S., Smith S., Thornton-Reid F., Zhao Y., Dooley C., et al.. (2010). A cross-disciplinary examination of the prevalence of mixed methods in educational research: 1995–2005 . Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 13 , 317–328. 10.1080/13645570903097950 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiten W. (2010). Psychology Themes and Variations . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. [ Google Scholar ]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Conducting Research in Social Psychology

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 38949

Learning Objectives

• Explain why social psychologists rely on empirical methods to study social behavior.
• Provide examples of how social psychologists measure the variables they are interested in.
• Review the three types of research designs, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of each type.
• Consider the role of validity in research, and describe how research programs should be evaluated.

Social psychologists are not the only people interested in understanding and predicting social behavior or the only people who study it. Social behavior is also considered by religious leaders, philosophers, politicians, novelists, and others, and it is a common topic on TV shows. But the social psychological approach to understanding social behavior goes beyond the mere observation of human actions. Social psychologists believe that a true understanding of the causes of social behavior can only be obtained through a systematic scientific approach, and that is why they conduct scientific research. Social psychologists believe that the study of social behavior should be empirical—that is, based on the collection and systematic analysis of observable data .

The Importance of Scientific Research

Because social psychology concerns the relationships among people, and because we can frequently find answers to questions about human behavior by using our own common sense or intuition, many people think that it is not necessary to study it empirically (Lilienfeld, 2011). But although we do learn about people by observing others and therefore social psychology is in fact partly common sense, social psychology is not entirely common sense.

In case you are not convinced about this, perhaps you would be willing to test whether or not social psychology is just common sense by taking a short true-or-false quiz. If so, please have a look at Table 1.1 and respond with either “True” or “False.” Based on your past observations of people’s behavior, along with your own common sense, you will likely have answers to each of the questions on the quiz. But how sure are you? Would you be willing to bet that all, or even most, of your answers have been shown to be correct by scientific research? Would you be willing to accept your score on this quiz for your final grade in this class? If you are like most of the students in my classes, you will get at least some of these answers wrong. (To see the answers and a brief description of the scientific research supporting each of these topics, please go to the Chapter Summary at the end of this chapter.)

One of the reasons we might think that social psychology is common sense is that once we learn about the outcome of a given event (e.g., when we read about the results of a research project), we frequently believe that we would have been able to predict the outcome ahead of time. For instance, if half of a class of students is told that research concerning attraction between people has demonstrated that “opposites attract,” and if the other half is told that research has demonstrated that “birds of a feather flock together,” most of the students in both groups will report believing that the outcome is true and that they would have predicted the outcome before they had heard about it. Of course, both of these contradictory outcomes cannot be true. The problem is that just reading a description of research findings leads us to think of the many cases that we know that support the findings and thus makes them seem believable. The tendency to think that we could have predicted something that we probably would not have been able to predict is called the hindsight bias.

Our common sense also leads us to believe that we know why we engage in the behaviors that we engage in, when in fact we may not. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues have conducted a variety of studies showing that we do not always understand the causes of our own actions. When we think about a behavior before we engage in it, we believe that the thinking guided our behavior, even when it did not (Morewedge, Gray, & Wegner, 2010). People also report that they contribute more to solving a problem when they are led to believe that they have been working harder on it, even though the effort did not increase their contribution to the outcome (Preston & Wegner, 2007). These findings, and many others like them, demonstrate that our beliefs about the causes of social events, and even of our own actions, do not always match the true causes of those events.

Social psychologists conduct research because it often uncovers results that could not have been predicted ahead of time. Putting our hunches to the test exposes our ideas to scrutiny. The scientific approach brings a lot of surprises, but it also helps us test our explanations about behavior in a rigorous manner. It is important for you to understand the research methods used in psychology so that you can evaluate the validity of the research that you read about here, in other courses, and in your everyday life.

Social psychologists publish their research in scientific journals, and your instructor may require you to read some of these research articles. The most important social psychology journals are listed in Table 1.2. If you are asked to do a literature search on research in social psychology, you should look for articles from these journals.

We’ll discuss the empirical approach and review the findings of many research projects throughout this book, but for now let’s take a look at the basics of how scientists use research to draw overall conclusions about social behavior. Keep in mind as you read this book, however, that although social psychologists are pretty good at understanding the causes of behavior, our predictions are a long way from perfect. We are not able to control the minds or the behaviors of others or to predict exactly what they will do in any given situation. Human behavior is complicated because people are complicated and because the social situations that they find themselves in every day are also complex. It is this complexity—at least for me—that makes studying people so interesting and fun.

Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

One important aspect of using an empirical approach to understand social behavior is that the concepts of interest must be measured (Figure 1.4). If we are interested in learning how much Sarah likes Robert, then we need to have a measure of her liking for him. But how, exactly, should we measure the broad idea of “liking”? In scientific terms, the characteristics that we are trying to measure are known as conceptual variables, and the particular method that we use to measure a variable of interest is called an operational definition.

For anything that we might wish to measure, there are many different operational definitions, and which one we use depends on the goal of the research and the type of situation we are studying. To better understand this, let’s look at an example of how we might operationally define “Sarah likes Robert.”

An idea or conceptual variable (such as “how much Sarah likes Robert”) is turned into a measure through an operational definition.

One approach to measurement involves directly asking people about their perceptions using self-report measures. Self-report measures are measures in which individuals are asked to respond to questions posed by an interviewer or on a questionnaire . Generally, because any one question might be misunderstood or answered incorrectly, in order to provide a better measure, more than one question is asked and the responses to the questions are averaged together. For example, an operational definition of Sarah’s liking for Robert might involve asking her to complete the following measure:

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree

The operational definition would be the average of her responses across the three questions. Because each question assesses the attitude differently, and yet each question should nevertheless measure Sarah’s attitude toward Robert in some way, the average of the three questions will generally be a better measure than would any one question on its own.

Although it is easy to ask many questions on self-report measures, these measures have a potential disadvantage. As we have seen, people’s insights into their own opinions and their own behaviors may not be perfect, and they might also not want to tell the truth—perhaps Sarah really likes Robert, but she is unwilling or unable to tell us so. Therefore, an alternative to self-report that can sometimes provide a more valid measure is to measure behavior itself. Behavioral measures are measures designed to directly assess what people do . Instead of asking Sara how much she likes Robert, we might instead measure her liking by assessing how much time she spends with Robert or by coding how much she smiles at him when she talks to him. Some examples of behavioral measures that have been used in social psychological research are shown in Table 1.3.

Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain

Still another approach to measuring our thoughts and feelings is to measure brain activity, and recent advances in brain science have created a wide variety of new techniques for doing so. One approach, known as electroencephalography (EEG), is a technique that records the electrical activity produced by the brain’s neurons through the use of electrodes that are placed around the research participant’s head . An electroencephalogram (EEG) can show if a person is asleep, awake, or anesthetized because the brain wave patterns are known to differ during each state. An EEG can also track the waves that are produced when a person is reading, writing, and speaking with others. A particular advantage of the technique is that the participant can move around while the recordings are being taken, which is useful when measuring brain activity in children who often have difficulty keeping still. Furthermore, by following electrical impulses across the surface of the brain, researchers can observe changes over very fast time periods.

This woman is wearing an EEG cap. goocy – Research – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Although EEGs can provide information about the general patterns of electrical activity within the brain, and although they allow the researcher to see these changes quickly as they occur in real time, the electrodes must be placed on the surface of the skull, and each electrode measures brain waves from large areas of the brain. As a result, EEGs do not provide a very clear picture of the structure of the brain.

But techniques exist to provide more specific brain images. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a neuroimaging technique that uses a magnetic field to create images of brain structure and function . In research studies that use the fMRI, the research participant lies on a bed within a large cylindrical structure containing a very strong magnet. Nerve cells in the brain that are active use more oxygen, and the need for oxygen increases blood flow to the area. The fMRI detects the amount of blood flow in each brain region and thus is an indicator of which parts of the brain are active.

Very clear and detailed pictures of brain structures (see Figure 1.5) can be produced via fMRI. Often, the images take the form of cross-sectional “slices” that are obtained as the magnetic field is passed across the brain. The images of these slices are taken repeatedly and are superimposed on images of the brain structure itself to show how activity changes in different brain structures over time. Normally, the research participant is asked to engage in tasks while in the scanner, for instance, to make judgments about pictures of people, to solve problems, or to make decisions about appropriate behaviors. The fMRI images show which parts of the brain are associated with which types of tasks. Another advantage of the fMRI is that is it noninvasive. The research participant simply enters the machine and the scans begin.

The fMRI creates images of brain structure and activity. In this image, the red and yellow areas represent increased blood flow and thus increased activity.

Reigh LeBlanc – Reigh’s Brain rlwat – CC BY-NC 2.0; Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

Although the scanners themselves are expensive, the advantages of fMRIs are substantial, and scanners are now available in many university and hospital settings. The fMRI is now the most commonly used method of learning about brain structure, and it has been employed by social psychologists to study social cognition, attitudes, morality, emotions, responses to being rejected by others, and racial prejudice, to name just a few topics (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Lieberman, Hariri, Jarcho, Eisenberger, & Bookheimer, 2005; Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Richeson et al., 2003).

Observational Research

Once we have decided how to measure our variables, we can begin the process of research itself. As you can see in Table 1.4, there are three major approaches to conducting research that are used by social psychologists—the observational approach , the correlational approach , and the experimental approach . Each approach has some advantages and disadvantages.

The most basic research design, observational research, is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner . Although it is possible in some cases to use observational data to draw conclusions about the relationships between variables (e.g., by comparing the behaviors of older versus younger children on a playground), in many cases the observational approach is used only to get a picture of what is happening to a given set of people at a given time and how they are responding to the social situation. In these cases, the observational approach involves creating a type of “snapshot” of the current state of affairs.

One advantage of observational research is that in many cases it is the only possible approach to collecting data about the topic of interest. A researcher who is interested in studying the impact of a hurricane on the residents of New Orleans, the reactions of New Yorkers to a terrorist attack, or the activities of the members of a religious cult cannot create such situations in a laboratory but must be ready to make observations in a systematic way when such events occur on their own. Thus observational research allows the study of unique situations that could not be created by the researcher. Another advantage of observational research is that the people whose behavior is being measured are doing the things they do every day, and in some cases they may not even know that their behavior is being recorded.

One early observational study that made an important contribution to understanding human behavior was reported in a book by Leon Festinger and his colleagues (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956). The book, called When Prophecy Fails , reported an observational study of the members of a “doomsday” cult. The cult members believed that they had received information, supposedly sent through “automatic writing” from a planet called “Clarion,” that the world was going to end. More specifically, the group members were convinced that the earth would be destroyed, as the result of a gigantic flood, sometime before dawn on December 21, 1954.

When Festinger learned about the cult, he thought that it would be an interesting way to study how individuals in groups communicate with each other to reinforce their extreme beliefs. He and his colleagues observed the members of the cult over a period of several months, beginning in July of the year in which the flood was expected. The researchers collected a variety of behavioral and self-report measures by observing the cult, recording the conversations among the group members, and conducting detailed interviews with them. Festinger and his colleagues also recorded the reactions of the cult members, beginning on December 21, when the world did not end as they had predicted. This observational research provided a wealth of information about the indoctrination patterns of cult members and their reactions to disconfirmed predictions. This research also helped Festinger develop his important theory of cognitive dissonance.

Despite their advantages, observational research designs also have some limitations. Most important, because the data that are collected in observational studies are only a description of the events that are occurring, they do not tell us anything about the relationship between different variables. However, it is exactly this question that correlational research and experimental research are designed to answer.

The Research Hypothesis

Because social psychologists are generally interested in looking at relationships among variables, they begin by stating their predictions in the form of a precise statement known as a research hypothesis . A research hypothesis is a statement about the relationship between the variables of interest and about the specific direction of that relationship . For instance, the research hypothesis “People who are more similar to each other will be more attracted to each other” predicts that there is a relationship between a variable called similarity and another variable called attraction. In the research hypothesis “The attitudes of cult members become more extreme when their beliefs are challenged,” the variables that are expected to be related are extremity of beliefs and the degree to which the cults’ beliefs are challenged.

Because the research hypothesis states both that there is a relationship between the variables and the direction of that relationship, it is said to be falsifiable. Being falsifiable means that the outcome of the research can demonstrate empirically either that there is support for the hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between the variables was correctly specified) or that there is actually no relationship between the variables or that the actual relationship is not in the direction that was predicted . Thus the research hypothesis that “people will be more attracted to others who are similar to them” is falsifiable because the research could show either that there was no relationship between similarity and attraction or that people we see as similar to us are seen as less attractive than those who are dissimilar.

Correlational Research

The goal of correlational research is to search for and test hypotheses about the relationships between two or more variables. In the simplest case, the correlation is between only two variables, such as that between similarity and liking, or between gender (male versus female) and helping.

In a correlational design, the research hypothesis is that there is an association (i.e., a correlation) between the variables that are being measured. For instance, many researchers have tested the research hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior, such that people who play violent video games more frequently would also display more aggressive behavior.

A statistic known as the Pearson correlation coefficient (symbolized by the letter r ) is normally used to summarize the association, or correlation, between two variables. The correlation coefficient can range from −1 (indicating a very strong negative relationship between the variables) to +1 (indicating a very strong positive relationship between the variables). Research has found that there is a positive correlation between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior and that the size of the correlation is about r = .30 (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010).

One advantage of correlational research designs is that, like observational research (and in comparison with experimental research designs in which the researcher frequently creates relatively artificial situations in a laboratory setting), they are often used to study people doing the things that they do every day. And correlational research designs also have the advantage of allowing prediction. When two or more variables are correlated, we can use our knowledge of a person’s score on one of the variables to predict his or her likely score on another variable. Because high-school grade point averages are correlated with college grade point averages, if we know a person’s high-school grade point average, we can predict his or her likely college grade point average. Similarly, if we know how many violent video games a child plays, we can predict how aggressively he or she will behave. These predictions will not be perfect, but they will allow us to make a better guess than we would have been able to if we had not known the person’s score on the first variable ahead of time.

Despite their advantages, correlational designs have a very important limitation. This limitation is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables that have been measured. An observed correlation between two variables does not necessarily indicate that either one of the variables caused the other. Although many studies have found a correlation between the number of violent video games that people play and the amount of aggressive behaviors they engage in, this does not mean that viewing the video games necessarily caused the aggression. Although one possibility is that playing violent games increases aggression,

another possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite to what has been hypothesized. Perhaps increased aggressiveness causes more interest in, and thus increased viewing of, violent games. Although this causal relationship might not seem as logical to you, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of the observed correlation.

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of another variable that was not measured in the research. Common-causal variables (also known as third variables) are variables that are not part of the research hypothesis but that cause both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produce the observed correlation between them (Figure 1.6). It has been observed that students who sit in the front of a large class get better grades than those who sit in the back of the class. Although this could be because sitting in the front causes the student to take better notes or to understand the material better, the relationship could also be due to a common-causal variable, such as the interest or motivation of the students to do well in the class. Because a student’s interest in the class leads him or her to both get better grades and sit nearer to the teacher, seating position and class grade are correlated, even though neither one caused the other.

The correlation between where we sit in a large class and our grade in the class is likely caused by the influence of one or more common-causal variables.

The possibility of common-causal variables must always be taken into account when considering correlational research designs. For instance, in a study that finds a correlation between playing violent video games and aggression, it is possible that a common-causal variable is producing the relationship. Some possibilities include the family background, diet, and hormone levels of the children. Any or all of these potential common-causal variables might be creating the observed correlation between playing violent video games and aggression. Higher levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, for instance, may cause children to both watch more violent TV and behave more aggressively.

I like to think of common-causal variables in correlational research designs as “mystery” variables, since their presence and identity is usually unknown to the researcher because they have not been measured. Because it is not possible to measure every variable that could possibly cause both variables, it is always possible that there is an unknown common-causal variable. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: Correlation does not imply causation.

Experimental Research

The goal of much research in social psychology is to understand the causal relationships among variables, and for this we use experiments. Experimental research designs are research designs that include the manipulation of a given situation or experience for two or more groups of individuals who are initially created to be equivalent, followed by a measurement of the effect of that experience .

In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variables and the dependent variables. The independent variable refers to the situation that is created by the experimenter through the experimental manipulations , and the dependent variable refers to the variable that is measured after the manipulations have occurred . In an experimental research design, the research hypothesis is that the manipulated independent variable (or variables) causes changes in the measured dependent variable (or variables). We can diagram the prediction like this, using an arrow that points in one direction to demonstrate the expected direction of causality:

viewing violence (independent variable) → aggressive behavior (dependent variable)

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000), which was designed to directly test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would cause increased aggressive behavior. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played the video game that they had been given for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, they participated in a competitive task with another student in which they had a chance to deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of their opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behavior) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design and the results of the experiment are shown in Figure 1.7.

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) an assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case, by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to measuring the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the experimental manipulation allows ruling out the possibility of common-causal variables that cause both the independent variable and the dependent variable. In experimental designs, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions, which involves determining separately for each participant which condition he or she will experience through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a website such as http://randomizer.org . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups. Let’s call them Group A and Group B. Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that before the experimental manipulation occurred , the students in Group A were, on average , equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable , including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as family, peers, hormone levels, and diet—and, in fact, everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation—they had the participants in Group A play the violent video game and the participants in Group B the nonviolent video game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups and found that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game. Because they had created initial equivalence between the groups, when the researchers observed differences in the duration of white noise blasts between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, they could draw the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was which video game they had played.

When we create a situation in which the groups of participants are expected to be equivalent before the experiment begins, when we manipulate the independent variable before we measure the dependent variable, and when we change only the nature of independent variables between the conditions, then we can be confident that it is the independent variable that caused the differences in the dependent variable. Such experiments are said to have high internal validity , where internal validity refers to the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the causal relationship between the variables .

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experimental research designs do have limitations. One is that the experiments are usually conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. To counter this, in some cases experiments are conducted in everyday settings—for instance, in schools or other organizations . Such field experiments are difficult to conduct because they require a means of creating random assignment to conditions, and this is frequently not possible in natural settings.

A second and perhaps more important limitation of experimental research designs is that some of the most interesting and important social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behavior, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join suicide cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs because it is simply not possible to manipulate mob size or cult membership.

Factorial Research Designs

Social psychological experiments are frequently designed to simultaneously study the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable. Factorial research designs are experimental designs that have two or more independent variables . By using a factorial design, the scientist can study the influence of each variable on the dependent variable (known as the main effects of the variables) as well as how the variables work together to influence the dependent variable (known as the interaction between the variables). Factorial designs sometimes demonstrate the person by situation interaction.

In one such study, Brian Meier and his colleagues (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006) tested the hypothesis that exposure to aggression-related words would increase aggressive responses toward others. Although they did not directly manipulate the social context, they used a technique common in social psychology in which they primed (i.e., activated) thoughts relating to social settings. In their research, half of their participants were randomly assigned to see words relating to aggression and the other half were assigned to view neutral words that did not relate to aggression. The participants in the study also completed a measure of individual differences in agreeableness —a personality variable that assesses the extent to which the person sees themselves as compassionate, cooperative, and high on other-concern.

Then the research participants completed a task in which they thought they were competing with another student. Participants were told that they should press the space bar on the computer as soon as they heard a tone over their headphones, and the person who pressed the button the fastest would be the winner of the trial. Before the first trial, participants set the intensity of a blast of white noise that would be delivered to the loser of the trial. The participants could choose an intensity ranging from 0 (no noise) to the most aggressive response (10, or 105 decibels). In essence, participants controlled a “weapon” that could be used to blast the opponent with aversive noise, and this setting became the dependent variable. At this point, the experiment ended.

In this experiment by Meier, Robinson, and Wilkowski (2006) the independent variables are type of priming (aggression or neutral) and participant agreeableness (high or low). The dependent variable is the white noise level selected (a measure of aggression). The participants who were low in agreeableness became significantly more aggressive after seeing aggressive words, but those high in agreeableness did not.

As you can see in Figure 1.8, there was a person by situation interaction. Priming with aggression-related words (the situational variable) increased the noise levels selected by participants who were low on agreeableness, but priming did not increase aggression (in fact, it decreased it a bit) for students who were high on agreeableness. In this study, the social situation was important in creating aggression, but it had different effects for different people.

Deception in Social Psychology Experiments

You may have wondered whether the participants in the video game study and that we just discussed were told about the research hypothesis ahead of time. In fact, these experiments both used a cover story— a false statement of what the research was really about . The students in the video game study were not told that the study was about the effects of violent video games on aggression, but rather that it was an investigation of how people learn and develop skills at motor tasks like video games and how these skills affect other tasks, such as competitive games. The participants in the task performance study were not told that the research was about task performance . In some experiments, the researcher also makes use of an experimental confederate— a person who is actually part of the experimental team but who pretends to be another participant in the study . The confederate helps create the right “feel” of the study, making the cover story seem more real.

In many cases, it is not possible in social psychology experiments to tell the research participants about the real hypotheses in the study, and so cover stories or other types of deception may be used. You can imagine, for instance, that if a researcher wanted to study racial prejudice, he or she could not simply tell the participants that this was the topic of the research because people may not want to admit that they are prejudiced, even if they really are. Although the participants are always told—through the process of informed consent —as much as is possible about the study before the study begins, they may nevertheless sometimes be deceived to some extent. At the end of every research project, however, participants should always receive a complete debriefing in which all relevant information is given, including the real hypothesis, the nature of any deception used, and how the data are going to be used.

Interpreting Research

No matter how carefully it is conducted or what type of design is used, all research has limitations. Any given research project is conducted in only one setting and assesses only one or a few dependent variables. And any one study uses only one set of research participants. Social psychology research is sometimes criticized because it frequently uses college students from Western cultures as participants (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). But relationships between variables are only really important if they can be expected to be found again when tested using other research designs, other operational definitions of the variables, other participants, and other experimenters, and in other times and settings.

External validity refers to the extent to which relationships can be expected to hold up when they are tested again in different ways and for different people . Science relies primarily upon replication—that is, the repeating of research —to study the external validity of research findings. Sometimes the original research is replicated exactly, but more often, replications involve using new operational definitions of the independent or dependent variables, or designs in which new conditions or variables are added to the original design. And to test whether a finding is limited to the particular participants used in a given research project, scientists may test the same hypotheses using people from different ages, backgrounds, or cultures. Replication allows scientists to test the external validity as well as the limitations of research findings.

In some cases, researchers may test their hypotheses, not by conducting their own study, but rather by looking at the results of many existing studies, using a meta-analysis— a statistical procedure in which the results of existing studies are combined to determine what conclusions can be drawn on the basis of all the studies considered together . For instance, in one meta-analysis, Anderson and Bushman (2001) found that across all the studies they could locate that included both children and adults, college students and people who were not in college, and people from a variety of different cultures, there was a clear positive correlation (about r = .30) between playing violent video games and acting aggressively. The summary information gained through a meta-analysis allows researchers to draw even clearer conclusions about the external validity of a research finding.

It is important to realize that the understanding of social behavior that we gain by conducting research is a slow, gradual, and cumulative process. The research findings of one scientist or one experiment do not stand alone—no one study “proves” a theory or a research hypothesis. Rather, research is designed to build on, add to, and expand the existing research that has been conducted by other scientists. That is why whenever a scientist decides to conduct research, he or she first reads journal articles and book chapters describing existing research in the domain and then designs his or her research on the basis of the prior findings. The result of this cumulative process is that over time, research findings are used to create a systematic set of knowledge about social psychology (Figure 1.9).

Key Takeaways

• Social psychologists study social behavior using an empirical approach. This allows them to discover results that could not have been reliably predicted ahead of time and that may violate our common sense and intuition.
• The variables that form the research hypothesis, known as conceptual variables, are assessed using measured variables by using, for instance, self-report, behavioral, or neuroimaging measures.
• Observational research is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. In some cases, it may be the only approach to studying behavior.
• Correlational and experimental research designs are based on developing falsifiable research hypotheses.
• Correlational research designs allow prediction but cannot be used to make statements about causality. Experimental research designs in which the independent variable is manipulated can be used to make statements about causality.
• Social psychological experiments are frequently factorial research designs in which the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable are studied.
• All research has limitations, which is why scientists attempt to replicate their results using different measures, populations, and settings and to summarize those results using meta-analyses.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Find journal articles that report observational, correlational, and experimental research designs. Specify the research design, the research hypothesis, and the conceptual and measured variables in each design.
• Liking another person
• Life satisfaction

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12 (5), 353–359.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 833–863). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302 (5643), 290–292.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293 (5537), 2105–2108.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61–83.

Lieberman, M. D., Hariri, A., Jarcho, J. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2005). An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nature Neuroscience, 8 (6), 720–722.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011, June 13). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist. doi: 10.1037/a0023963

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related crimes. Psychological Science, 17 (2), 136–142.

Morewedge, C. K., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Perish the forethought: Premeditation engenders misperceptions of personal control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 260–278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14 (8), 1215–1229.

Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). The eureka error: Inadvertent plagiarism by misattributions of effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 575–584.

Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., et al.#8230.

Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (12), 1323–1328.

• The Scientific Method
• Steps for Conducting a Research Study
• Social Science Research

Discipline-Specific Research Methods

• Understanding Social Science Research
• Return to Social Science Toolkit Home

Anthropologists Gerontologists Psychologists Sociologists Summary

Natural scientists and some behavioral scientists rely heavily on classic experimentation as the primary tool for scientific research. The power of the experimental method is that scientists tightly control the conditions under which a phenomenon is observed so that they can minimize the likelihood that observations are due to chance or error. In so doing, researchers can determine "causality"—that is, they can conclude that a change in one variable causes a change in another.

Classic experimentation is not always possible in the social sciences. Social scientists study complex phenomena such as cultures, social norms, and behavior that are dynamic and are affected by multiple factors; therefore, it is not always possible to conduct true experiments because it is impossible to allow for every influential factor.

So, how do social scientists conduct research? Do anthropologists tend to use different methods than psychologists, for example? If so, what are the methods typically used by each discipline? Do social scientists ever "borrow" methods used by other disciplines to answer their research questions?

To introduce this topic, let’s look at the ways that different social science disciplines might investigate the life stage known as "retirement." Try to predict research questions that might be posed by different disciplines and the methods that they might use to answer them before you click on the lenses on the left side of the graphic.

Figure 4.18 Retirement, Through a Social Sciences Lens

Anthropologists

Anthropologists have a varied toolkit available to them to answer their research questions. They are well-known for their qualitative research approach, although they also use quantitative methods. Human beings are complex biological and cultural organisms, so anthropologists will integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches in their work.

Here’s an example to illustrate this: People must drink and eat to survive. How would an anthropologist study this behavior? An anthropologist may use a quantitative research approach to examine how food is apportioned differently between men and women in diverse settings. The anthropologist may ask the research question—are men allotted more high-protein food than women in certain cultures, and if so, what are the health outcomes of this difference? An anthropologist also may seek to understand and represent the ways men and women feel about these differences in food apportionment; this is a qualitative research question.

The two research methods that are thought to distinguish anthropology from other social science disciplines are ethnography and participant observation .

Ethnography is a research method that employs personal observations of a living culture. In their fieldwork, anthropologists ask open-ended questions that allow people to respond as they wish. Anthropologists call the people they study informants or consultants to emphasize the expertise of the people and the fact that the people are the experts rather the "subjects" of experiments or "respondents" to a survey with forced-choice questions.

To construct an ethnography, anthropologists ask informants to detail their life histories, draw pictures and maps, tell stories, demonstrate how they make their art and artifacts, or cook their food. In other words, they ask informants to show and tell what it means to live their particular lives. They use statistical procedures or qualitative analyses to make sense of their data.

Anthropologists are interested in uncovering both emic and etic points of view―that is, they try to identify the point of view of the people being studied ("emic") as well as other "outside" perspectives ("etic"). For example, surveys often ask demographic questions that divide people into groups according to age, education, income, marital status, religion, and ethnic group or race. These are standard "etic" categories, typically agreed upon by Western researchers as important markers of difference. On the other hand, people may or may not identify themselves according to these categories, and they may also have other "emic" categories for grouping people, such as clan, political group, or musical style. Indeed, they may not think in terms of differences among people at all.

To better understand the "emic" and "etic" perspectives for the people they are studying, cultural anthropologists use participant observation . In this way, they experience a culture from the "inside" and the "outside." Participant observation is a fieldwork method in which a researcher lives in and participates in a culture. At the same time, he or she observes everyday life and learns how the society actually works.

Gerontologists

Gerontologists are interdisciplinary by training, so they rely on a variety of research methods to answer important scientific questions about aging. They may use surveys to gather information about attitudes and feelings. They may use unstructured interviews and observations to better understand the experience of aging from the perspective of an older adult. Gerontologists interested in health outcomes may collect physical and behavioral measurements.

Because gerontologists are interested in the process of aging, they rely heavily on research designs that follow participants through time. Two such examples are:

longitudinal studies (also known as " panel studies ") that collect data repeatedly from the same participants over an extended period of time.

cohort sequential design , a longitudinal design that follows multiple cohorts across time and allows researchers to differentiate among age, period, and cohort effects (described below). The primary disadvantage of this type of research is that it is expensive, labor-intensive, and takes a long time to complete.

The challenge for gerontologists is to determine whether changes are due to cohort effects , period effects , or age effects .

Cohort effects = Differences between age groups due to the time period in which people are born and raised.

For example, the experience of an African American person born in 1930 (prior to the Civil Rights movement) is very different from that of an African American person born in 1980.

Period effects = Differences between age groups attributable to an historic event or time period.

As an example, if we notice that US alcohol consumption in people 50 and older increases dramatically between 1930 and 1940, we might draw the conclusion that as people get older, they drink more; however, if we remember that Prohibition ended in 1933, we might draw a very different conclusion. That is, the reason people seemed to drink more as they got older is that the ban on alcohol ended during the time period of interest.

Age effects = Physiological, psychosocial, and behavioral changes that are attributable to getting older.

For example, nearly all of us will have some degree of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) as we get older, but what are the psychosocial and behavioral changes that are attributable to the aging process? One example of a true aging effect is that of criminal behavior. Across many generations and time periods, it has been shown that criminality is higher among teens and young adults. As people age, they are less likely to commit crimes (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983).

When gerontologists are not interested in "process"(change over time), they may choose a cross-sectional study design. Cross-sectional studies gather data across groups at a single point in time. They tell researchers little about whether differences in age groups can be attributed to age, period, or cohort effects. For example, a gerontologist may compare the eating habits of two groups of 75-year-old men—one group that lives at home, and another in an assisted living environment.

Gerontologists often use their research to advocate for changes in policy and legislation that directly impact older Americans. They are at the forefront when it comes to decisions on Social Security, retirement, Medicare, transportation, and other issues.

Psychologists

Modern psychology is defined as the scientific study of behavior and mental processes and how they are affected by an organism's physical state, mental state, and external environment (Tavris & Wade, 1995).

Let's break down the definition. Behavior refers to any action that can be observed and measured. For example, smiling at a friend, crying at a movie, or blinking your eyes in response to a bright light are examples of behaviors. Mental processes refer to internal aspects of our lives, including thinking, feeling, and perceiving. Thus, calculating 7 + 9, recalling your 16th birthday, and experiencing happiness are mental processes. Our behavior and mental experiences can influence or be influenced by genetics, physical health, level of intelligence, economic situation, culture, ethnicity, and other aspects of our environment.

An important element of psychological research is empiricism , the reliance on information from direct observation and measurement. Experimental psychologists test their hypotheses on laboratory animals in controlled environments, while clinical psychologists conduct their research on human subjects in their natural surroundings.

Psychologists rely heavily on the following research designs:

Correlational research that examines the relationship between variables. Correlational research does not yield cause-and-effect conclusions.

Descriptive research that describes the characteristics of a population or phenomenon of interest. Through the use of descriptive statistics such as averages, frequencies, and ranges, researchers can make observations about the prevalence of certain variables and can make comparisons among groups.

Because psychologists are interested in the measurement of behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, they are skilled in the development and use of instruments that capture those constructs. Sophisticated statistical tools allow them to analyze and interpret correlational and descriptive research data.

Sociologists

Sociologists seek to uncover the social factors that affect behavior. The goal of sociologists is to obtain data that test assumptions about the social world. The sociological perspective requires us to look beyond our common sense (which can be faulty), our experience (which can be limited), and our values (which are bound in time and culture) to gain new understandings of the social world.

Sociologists may use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods in their research. The methods used for a sociological study depend upon the research questions being asked.

Quantitative research in sociology employs methods such as surveys (developed to answer specific research questions) and secondary data analysis (research using existing data sets gathered for general purposes). A quantitative design attempts to amass information from large numbers of people. It often requires respondents to answer prepared (close-ended) questions. Close-ended questions are limiting in that they do not allow respondents to describe how they see or experience their world.

Qualitative research employs some of the methods already discussed for other social sciences. Qualitative methods include interviews (asking people open-ended questions), content analysis (research to study content to uncover the explicit and implicit or hidden meanings), and participant observation (observation of, and involvement in, the social interaction patterns of groups). In qualitative studies, sociologists may ask subjects why they act in certain ways or what rules and assumptions govern their behavior. Questions in qualitative research instruments are more open-ended.

The following are limitations of qualitative methods:

• greater potential for bias (because researchers themselves can be influenced by their subjects)
• difficulty in generalizing findings to larger groups, given the small sample size in studies

What sets the social science disciplines apart from each other? Anthropologists, gerontologists, psychologists, and sociologists all select their research designs and methods based on clearly articulated research hypotheses and questions. Their designs and methods can be either qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. What truly sets the disciplines apart are the principles and theories that guide their research and interpretation of data.

For more information on those principles and theories, check out the Social Science Perspectives module.

Choosing to Focus on Research as a Psychologist

Sponsored school(s).

As one of the most popular undergraduate majors in the United States, psychology prepares students to gain entrance in a range of rewarding and exciting careers. Every year, students will cultivate an interest in pursuing an advanced course of study that solely concentrates on the research aspect of psychology. Educators and experts stress the importance of students preparing early for the application process, thoroughly researching their options, and becoming more active within the field.

See " So I majored in psychology ".

The Process of Psychology Research

The Scientific Method is a set of principles and procedures that researchers use to create questions, collect data, and arrive at conclusions . This approach allows researchers to accomplish their goals for their psychological studies, which is to describe, explain, predict, and in some cases, influence processes or behaviors of the mind. The ultimate goal of scientific research in psychology is to illustrate behaviors and give details on why they take place. Researchers also strive to predict (and sometimes, modify) human behavior.

Before people begin the process of research, they must select a topic of study. Researchers then conduct an exhaustive review of existing publications and information that relates to the subject. In the end, it becomes clearer as to which topic questions remain unanswered. A researcher may examine books and academic journals that date back decades to assess the most relevant topics of study. All background material helps a researcher formulate the first step in the psychology research process – the hypothesis.

The four steps of the research process are:

Step 1 – Formulate a Testable Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables, or a specific occurrence or trend. Researchers go on to provide an explanation of their research, which either proves or disproves their theories.

Step 2 – Create a Study and Collect Data: There are two basic types of research methods to consider that fit the need to collect data for a study – descriptive research and experimental research.

Step 3 – Examine Data and Reach Conclusions: A researcher looks over the information they collect, and with the help of statistics, they summarize the data, analyze results and draw conclusions about their findings.

Step 4 – Report the Findings of the Study : Researchers lastly share their findings by creating a description of the study, and publish an article in an academic or professional journal.

Types of Psychology Research Methods

Psychology research takes place inside of laboratories, and often includes experiments, testing, and the analysis of statistical data. Psychology researchers may also work in the field (gathering data in hospitals, schools, workplaces, and even on city streets) with a goal to observe and study behavior in their most naturally-occurring settings.

Not every psychology researcher will use the same methods to study their topic of interest, and it all depends on his or her sources of information, data samples, and data collection techniques.

A researcher may collect qualitative data, quantitative data, or both.

Qualitative psychological data involves research findings that do not include statistical or other related procedures, while quantitative psychological data involves research findings that incorporate a mathematical model or statistical estimation.

Common approaches and data collection methods for psychology research include:

• Case Studies: A thorough analysis of a single person, small group, or event, such as studying a man with a rare, incurable brain disease.
• Content Analysis: A study of recorded human communications, such as books, laws and art. Examples include the analysis of the speeches of Kennedy and Nixon in televised debates, or the examination of graffiti of males and females in public bathrooms.
• Cross Sectional Study: Samples of a population sheds light on information relating to specific measures. An example is a researcher who questions whether sugar consumption affects a specific health concern.
• Field Experiments: Traveling to hunter-gatherer regions in South America to test out universal relationship behaviors is an example of research that studies subjects in his or her natural setting.
• Survey: Random sampling of a population using a question-format collects valuable information. Examples include public health, market research, and government surveys.

Education Requirements of a Psychology Researcher

A bachelor's degree in psychology allows people to work as research or administrative assistants for psychologists. Other job prospects include becoming a technician in a related field (such as market research) or assisting psychologists in mental health centers and correctional programs. After acquiring years of experience under the guidance of professional psychologists, many people make the decision to pursue graduate and doctoral studies in psychology.

While the doctoral degree is the standard for independent research or practice in psychology, the number of psychology students who pursue a terminal master's degree has increased sixfold since 1960 – master's degrees totaled at least 21,400 in 2008. A master's degree in psychology allows people to work as assistants under the supervision of doctoral-level psychologists. Master's degree holders with several years of business experience obtain jobs in consulting and marketing research, while others land jobs within the government, universities, or the private sector as researchers, data collectors, and analysts .

A doctorate's degree in psychology typically involves five to seven years of graduate study, which ends with a dissertation involving original research . The advanced degree opens many doors to opportunities involving research and teaching positions at universities, health care services, private industries, and with the government. Psychologists with a doctoral degree often choose to conduct their own research studies while accepting a career position in the meantime.

Individuals that obtain a higher level of psychology education and experience typically encounter a larger number of job offers and opportunities to conduct research over someone without an advanced degree, other credentials, and years of experience.

Ways to Gain Experience in Research Psychology

Students with an interest in pursuing the academia route of psychology benefit the most when they accumulate as much experience as possible. Those who start early gain a definite competitive edge.

"The most noticeable current trend is just how many undergraduates are getting involved in research," says Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. Ph.D, the Department Chair of the Department of Psychology at Monmouth University. "Not only are more students getting involved, but more are doing so at a high level [such as] presenting at research conferences."

The most important thing that Mitchell Metzger says he tells students about research is to get involved early. "We have many of our students helping out in the lab with research projects as early as their sophomore year," says Metzger, a professor of Psychology at Ashland University (Ohio) and department chair since 2007. "When a student gets involved early in their undergraduate career, they really have the opportunity to build a variety of experiences by the time they graduate."

He says that while the students may start out in 'lower level' research roles such as data collection and data entry, they are undergoing valuable preparation for diving more deeply into the research process.

The countless opportunities that a student can gain psychology research experience and knowledge are:

• Help Out a Professor – Dr. Lewandowski suggests getting started as early in your academic career as possible. "Even if you have not had a research class yet, if a professor is willing to have you help out, you will not only get a head start, but will learn a lot that will make taking the class easier," he says. "The more experience you can get the better."
• Find a Mentor – Some of the best ways to gain experience in psychology is learning from those already in the field. "The amount of work may be daunting at first, but just like anything else, you adjust over time and find new ways to manage," says Kongit Farrell, who is a life and relationship coach with a Master's degree in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University. "Just keep at it and work on finding a mentor to help."
• Attend or Present at a Psychology Conference – "We have a number of graduates with multiple conference presentations under their belts by the time they finish their bachelor's degree, which is a huge advantage for them as they apply to graduate schools," says Metzger. "Many graduate programs see undergraduate research experience as valuable, regardless of what the specific area of research might be that the student was involved in.  
• Write and Publish Articles and Papers – "It is becoming more necessary for undergraduates to have co-authored journal articles in order to get into Ph.D. programs after college," says Dr. Lewandowski.
• Become a Research Assistant – Obtaining a research assistant position is a valuable opportunity to gain experience, and forge professional connections that can help in the future. Universities, hospitals, and private organizations hire assistants to conduct research on psychology projects. Having previous experience working in labs or on academic research projects improves the chance of being accepted into advanced degree programs and research jobs after graduation.
• Join a Psychology Organization – There are psychology-related organizations and associations that cater to varying ethnicities, regions, nations, and fields of study. For example, the Association for Psychological Science has more than 20,000 members and is the largest general psychology organization that mainly concentrates on research.
• Read APA Magazines and Newsletter Articles – Reading APA magazine and newsletter articles about research tools and methods , as well as the Monitor on Psychology and gradPSYCH magazines keep students in tune with the latest in psychology research.
• Independent Research with Faculty Advisor – Taking advantage of independent research and study projects allows undergraduate students to work closely with professors who serve as advisors. The student and faculty usually share a mutual interest. These professors can also write strong letters of recommendation for future graduate study, which demonstrates a student's ability to work independently.

"A growing trend [in the field of research psychology] is the recognition of the value of undergraduate research for building critical thinking skills, analytical skills, and communication skills," says Lewandowski.

Graduate school programs aim to further strengthen these necessary qualities and skills of someone with an interest in pursuing a career in psychology research. This includes:

• Analytical skills help students perform psychological research by sharpening their ability to examine information and draw logical conclusions.
• Communication skills aid a psychologists' ability to listen to and speak with subjects.
• Observational skills help a psychologist study attitude and behavior by perfecting their ability to analyze the facial expressions, actions, interactions, and body positions of people.
• Patience allows researchers to deal with subjects who exhibit mental or behavioral disorders.
• People skills help researchers work well with their test subjects, interviewees, and other medical professionals.
• Problem-solving skills assist researchers in pinpointing treatments and solutions pertaining to mental and behavioral issues.

Before Applying to Graduate Schools for Psychology Research

Students with an interest in graduate-level psychology research tend to experience a more beneficial application process when they pinpoint a specific area of study before applying.

Conducting an ample amount of research also makes final school selections much easier to achieve, and helps iron out the details of future plans. It is important for students to apply to a program that accommodates their values, abilities and interests. Finding the right graduate program is one of the keys to succeeding in the psychology research field.

Dr. Lewandowski is a researcher who studies intimate relationships and the self. He says that this subject allows him to concentrate on topics that he is 'eternally curious about' regarding what makes some relationships successful while others fail, such as attraction, cheating, and break-ups.

"From my experience, students can learn the importance of staying true to your interests," says Lewandowski. "I love what I research, which has made it a lot easier to be successful.

Incorporating the primary interests of a student with the availability of specialty programs and personal criteria such as location, cost of tuition and time commitments, helps students narrow down their options for choosing the right psychology graduate school.

A good resource for researching psychology graduate programs of interest is the American Psychological Association, which publishes the Graduate Study in Psychology and Related Fields – a listing of  all graduate programs in North America by state and subject area . The Princeton Review also provides helpful information. Books on graduate programs are also available at the school library, career services office, and campus bookstores.

Some experts recommend applying to at least six graduate psychology schools, while others suggest applying to as many as 20 . However, application fees get expensive, so requesting applications only from the schools a student truly wishes to attend will help them stick to a budget. Therefore, spending quality time investigating available options not only makes the overall application process easier, but also saves money.

How to Apply to Graduate Schools for Psychology Research

Students who prepare early and get acquainted with the psychology graduate school application process face an easier road towards fulfilling their research career goals. Aside from filling out the proper forms, maintaining an acceptable GPA, and demonstrating research experience, there are four significant components relating to the typical application package – official undergraduate transcripts, Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores, a personal statement, and letters of recommendation.

Schools generally expect applicants to fulfill the following:

1. Submit Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and other test scores – Most psychology graduate schools require GRE scores – a computer-based test that students take well before application deadlines. The GRE includes electronic testing that rates a student's Verbal, Quantitative, Analytical Writing aptitude. Many graduate schools also request the results of the Psychology Subject Exam – a paper test that is held three times a year.

2. Maintain a strong undergraduate GPA – Advanced degree programs in psychology typically accept applicants who possess a median GPA of 3.7 with a GRE score more than 1100, and relevant research experience. For some master's programs in psychology, a GPA of 3.4 is fairly competitive. For doctoral programs, students fair well with a GPA of 3.5 or higher.

3. Furnish exemplary letters of recommendation – Professors often tell students to discuss recommendations well in advance with faculty members in a face-to-face manner. Faculty members that a student takes at least two courses and performs at a high level (preferably a combination of no less than 'A' and 'B' grades) make the best choices. Academic interaction outside of class with the professors is a plus.

4. Write a personal statement (or statement of purpose) – A student's statement is his or her chance to add a personal touch to the application process. It sets students apart from one another, and gives the opportunity to share specific interests in the field, strengths, skills, career goals, and aspirations. A student often shares the reason why they are applying to a specific program. The selection committee uses a personal statement to assess a student's writing ability, as well as determine who the best fit for their program is.

5. Prepare a vita – Students wishing to enter a graduate or doctoral program for research psychology write a vita, which is basically an academic resume. Typical features include professional/academic honors and awards, honor Society memberships, Dean's List recognition, research concentration, presentations at professional conferences or workshops, publications, and memberships in professional organizations.

6. Demonstrate relevant research or work experience – Having research and experience in psychology significantly boosts the value of an application. Work and volunteer activities in psychology also highlight a student's enthusiasm and commitment to the field.

Psychology Research Grants and Scholarships

There are numerous research grants and scholarship opportunities available for students looking to fund their pursuit of obtaining an advanced degree in psychology. A few options include:

• APAGS/Psi Chi Junior Scientist Fellowship – promotes psychological science and the needs of students entering a research-oriented graduate program.
• Basic Psychological Science Research Grant – supports graduate students conducting psychological science research studies.

Challenges of Becoming a Psychology Researcher

Graduate programs in psychology prepare students for the oftentimes rigorous schedule of juggling numbers and sorting endless information – skills a student needs to work on as an undergrad. But first, students must find his or her niche, and solidify their position within the field.

Lewandowski says that students may face the challenge of finding a professor who does research in the exact topic of their interest. "However, the good news is that any research experience is good research experience, and the exact topic is less important," he adds. "Even if you know you want to go on to study treatments for anorexia, your undergraduate research does not need to have the same focus."

Sometimes, the challenge is not finding a professor within the same niche to study under, but instead, locating people who are open to new theories and approaches within the field.

"I focus on applying biological concepts to social science," says Farrell, who studies topics such as why women and men make the choices they do in relationships. "It's a relatively new approach and because of this, sometimes people have not been receptive to my ideas."

However, Farrell says that over time, more people grew to realize that her work was correct, but she mentions that "being a thought leader in any profession can be daunting."

"You just have to do good work, have faith in your vision, stick to your guns, and keep moving forward," adds Farrell. She also says that developing a supportive group of friends, mentors, and loved ones makes a great deal of difference.

Becoming a psychologist that concentrates on research is often a time-consuming journey.

"One of the main challenges for our students is prioritizing their time to fit research into their busy lives," notes Metzger. "Once a student buys in to the idea that these experiences will be valuable to them, they'll need to prioritize their time to do these experiences as they are often completed outside the context of a class they are taking [for example]…they do research in their spare time."

Metzger says that some of the students at Ashland University may only have a few hours each week to devote to research, while others have considerably more time in the schedules for such activities. "Regardless of how much time they have to engage in the research process," adds Metzger. "Any exposure will be better than no exposure."

Farrell is also a reminder to students to remain steadfast in the field.

"Be prepared for long hours, and a lot of numerical and data analysis work," says Farrell. "On the flip side, this work could lead you to a very rewarding and financially lucrative career stretching from

entertainment, to business to health to politics; the world can be your oyster!"

Job Prospects for Psychology Researchers

Upon graduation, psychology researchers typically find jobs either out in the field, inside a classroom, or in a laboratory. The majority of lab research takes place in universities, government agencies (such as the National Institute of Health), and private research organizations. Some graduates may find employment in management or administration after serving many years as an active researcher.

Psychology researchers may work independently, join a team, or participate in collective research on a national or global level. In 2010, psychologists held about 174,000 jobs : working self-employed (about 34 percent), in educational services (29 percent), and in healthcare settings (20 percent). Some non-profit organizations and many colleges will hire people with a bachelor's degree in psychology to conduct research. A few government organizations and some private businesses may do the same.

The APA tells students to pool their resources and experiences as they look for a psychology research position , including internships, participating in service learning events, and even volunteering at a school. Eric Landrum, PhD, author of "Finding Jobs with a Psychology Bachelor's Degree," says that networking is critical. Staying in contact with professors and faculty is also an asset since graduates still require references and letters of recommendation when applying for psychology jobs.

However, it is the graduate with an advanced degree in psychology and solid experience under his or her belt that qualifies for more job opportunities. There are also many job positions available that incorporate other areas of interest, such as:

• Alcohol and Drug Research: Example studies of interest include the impact of alcohol and drug abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, long-term effects of a drug on the central nervous system, or a drug's impact on a pregnancy.
• Experimental Research: Researchers that enjoy conducting experiments in a lab often explore the cause and effect of human behavior, physiology, and psychology. They rely heavily upon test results, surveys, questionnaires, and observations.
• Medical School Research: Speaks best to graduates with an interest in medicine, academia, obtaining grants/fellowships, and lecturing.
• Military Research: Researchers may study post-traumatic stress disorder, the effects of war on soldiers during enlistment, depression and aggression within the armed forces, and drug use after retirement.
• Nutrition Research: Questionnaires, surveys, and interviews help researchers study the eating habits of males and females, and sometimes involve issues, such as bulimia, anorexia, excessive weight control and malnutrition.
• Social Research: Surveys, interviews, and observation helps with the field study of social issues, such as criminal activity, homelessness, and poverty.

Trends in Psychology Research

As the American population evolves, the demand for clinical and research psychologists increases. Research psychologists fill the duties of identifying the services and solutions that benefit an aging population who is living longer, and facing an upsurge in mental and physical obstacles.

Farrell says she is seeing a switch from compartmentalization to integration within the field. "…psychology is no longer just about your findings," she says. "…but finding out ways to apply your findings to other disciplines.

Psychology researchers play roles such as assisting in the development of programs for special groups , such as veterans with war trauma, individuals with autism, patients with mental disorders, and people with job stress.

The opportunities for people with advanced degrees in psychology are expanding in number, as there is a greater need to move towards illness prevention rather than simply making a diagnosis and treatment plan. The majority of today's issues within society involve behavior problems that include chronic health conditions or disease, drug addiction, poor personal relationships, disregard for the environment, and violence. Research psychologists play a greater role in contributing solutions to these problems by using thoughtful methods of data collection and analysis that helps develop effective intervention strategies.

The increasing diversity throughout America places research psychologists in higher demand to develop and enhance existing treatments and approaches to meet the growing needs of people representing different races and ethnicities.

Just as a constantly evolving society affects psychology research, advancements in technology also play a role in the current trends sweeping the field, such as:

• The Internet: The Internet changes the face of data collection and the exchange of information. The advantages, such as having a greater access to research, helps improve the science of psychology. Research psychologists use prominent online databases, such as PsychInfo and ERIC, to aid the literature review process.

Psychologists also use email alerts to receive updates regarding the leading publications in the field. Other benefits include the sharing of cross-cultural psychology ideas, the ability to conduct online experiments, and the creation of archived data sets for secondary analysis.

Online research also has its downfalls that can detract from the validity and effectiveness of studies, including the potential for obtaining and spreading misinformation. One of the reasons the American Psychological Association's online journal Prevention & Treatment is a success hinges upon maintaining a high standard of scholarship. Not all resources follow suit, which causes a detrimental effect on the outcome of studies and data analysis.

Researchers who use the Internet as a tool for data collection must seek out reputable methods and sources of information, such as specially designed websites, highly rated, well-organized databases, and efficient software.

• Advancements in Equipment and Software: Advancements in equipment and software play a significant part in the research process of psychologists that go beyond the distribution of research findings and using typical methods of data collection. Take the growth of Imaging and Computer Modeling equipment for example – researchers benefit from obtaining high resolution pictures of the brain to make determinations regarding certain cognitive processes.

Other examples of advanced technology include the MRI, thermal imaging, real-time tracking software, computer-assisted therapies, and upgraded electronic data collection tools, such as video recorders and tablet apps.

Psychologists generally keep up with the latest trends in research psychology by following current news, attending conferences, networking with colleagues, and continuing to learn more about their field. For example, psychological researchers can gain training and hands-on experience in a variety of areas by taking part in APA Advanced Training Institutes (ATIs) , which exposes participants to emerging technologies and the most current research methodologies.

To break into the research or academics field of psychology, students need to prepare for graduate and/or doctoral studies as early as possible. It's a long, rewarding journey involving a lot of hard work and patience. The American Psychological Association (APA) suggests that students with an interest in pursuing a career in psychology research need to "beef up" his or her resume, get published, and remain flexible in today's ever-fluctuating academic setting.

Research Psychology Programs

• Bachelor's Programs
• Master's Programs
• Doctoral Programs
• Online Psychology Degrees
• Psychology Degree Path

Licensing & Certification Information

• Psychologist Licensing by State
• Counselor Licensing by State
• Social Worker Licensing by State
• Therapist Licensing by State

Pay Your Deposit

Have you been admitted and need to lock in your decision? Click the link below to pay your deposit now!

Deposit Today

Exploring Research Methods in Psychology

Reviewed by Jacob Imm

Aug 11, 2023

Each day, more than 100,000 licensed psychologists in the United States work to unearth the mysteries of the human mind so that we may all better understand our behaviors and ourselves. A primary avenue to that understanding is psychological research.

Research allows psychologists the opportunity to ask questions about the innermost workings of the human psyche, interpret the responses they exhibit, and arrive at conclusions that enable them to improve people’s everyday lives. To do such important work efficiently and effectively, they rely on a range of research methods.

The research methods in psychology are commonly grouped into three primary classifications: correlational research, descriptive research, and experimental research. Each one is suited to a unique field of study, accounts for human complexities, and zeroes in on acute details of the brain’s inner workings. 

The Scientific Method in Psychology

Many of us learned about the scientific method—the process of developing, researching, and proving a hypothesis—early on in our education. And that’s because it is chiefly important to advancing scientific knowledge worldwide. 

Each of the three research methods in psychology is grounded in the scientific method. It allows psychology researchers to advance and improve existing notions of human psychology and build tools and strategies that help improve the lives of many. 

Psychologists rely on the standards of the scientific method to ensure: 

• Historical data and background research is collected before experimentation
• The initial research question is defined, testable, and measurable
• The hypothesis is grounded in data-backed, reasonable information 
• The experiment is designed to answer the specific question and hypothesis
• The final data can be organized into theories that help people and psychologists

Understanding Correlational Studies 

One of the research methods in psychology that is most commonly employed is the correlational method or correlational studies. This is a statistics-based, non-experimental method in which scientists seek to determine whether there is a relationship between two variables and the extent of the relationship, if it exists, without interfering with other variables. 

The correlational method leads to three possible outcomes :

• Positive correlation – The relationship between variables is considered positive when both variables move in the same direction at the same time. The variables may increase or decrease.
• Negative correlation – When the value of one variable increases as the other variable decreases, the correlation is considered negative.
• No correlation – An outcome of “no correlation” suggests that the study presented no observable relationship between the two variables. 

In many cases, the results of correlational studies are documented using what’s known as the correlation coefficient . This is a numerical value between -1.00 and +1.00 that indicates the strength of the correlation between variables. When there is no correlation between variables, the correlation coefficient is assigned a value of zero. 

Correlational research methods in psychology are often used as a baseline of understanding to gain further insight into human behavior. Many researchers start with broad correlational studies to gather information and draw connections. Then, they build upon those connections with more specific studies, as correlational studies alone do not prove causation in either direction. 

Types of Correlational Studies 

There are three distinct research methods that are often used in the service of correlational studies. 

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation involves passive observational research and documentation of the variables in their natural setting. Scientists exert no influence over the variables and don’t manipulate them in any way, which provides insight into how the variables act without intervention. 

However, there are factors that researchers must watch out for in this method, like: 

• Behavior modification by participants who are aware of being observed 
• Potential biases of the researchers involved 

Under the survey method, a random sample of participants is selected to fill out a poll, answer a questionnaire, or complete a test that reflects the subject of the study. 

Surveys are among the most common types of research methods in psychology, prized for their easy, quick, and relatively inexpensive accessibility and their ability to collect large amounts of data. Depending on the study, survey research may be conducted in person, over the phone, or online.

Regardless of the medium, however, the most effective surveys share the following characteristics: 

• A randomized group of participants 
• Clear, well-written questions
• Intuitive design and delivery   

Archival Research

When performing archival research, scientists look at a range of materials, including historical records, past studies, and case study reports related to their own research. In doing so, psychologists must understand how to interpret studies that may not adhere to the ethical standards of the present day. 

Often, psychologists must navigate studies that are incomplete or irrelevant based on modern information.

Understanding Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies are unique among research methods in psychology because, rather than focusing on questions of why and how, they tune into questions of who, what, and where.  

In other words, descriptive studies seek to describe certain human behaviors or psychological traits and patterns without drawing conclusions about their causes. 

Descriptive studies are often conducted without a hypothesis. Instead, like some correlation studies, the results of descriptive studies often lead researchers to form a hypothesis that inspires an additional study, such as an experimental study.

Types of Descriptive Studies 

Descriptive studies may take the form of surveys, observations, or case studies.  

In studies that rely on observations or surveys, the procedures are much the same as in correlational studies. For example, observational descriptive methods in psychology strive to observe participants in their natural setting without influencing any of the variables or introducing new variables. 

Likewise, survey research methods in descriptive research use a list of randomized respondents who are interviewed or asked to respond to a series of questions in writing. 

Case Studies 

In a case study, a researcher provides a description of a subject in a certain setting over a given period of time. The details of the description may be gleaned from observation, subject interviews, and the subject’s own reports.

Case studies also require a natural setting free from researcher interference. However, unlike surveys and observation, case studies are often centralized on single subject research–a single person, small groups of subjects, or singular events.

Consider these benefits and drawbacks of case studies: 

• Glean more detailed information – Case studies in descriptive research enable psychologists to present highly detailed information about very specific subjects.      
• May not apply to a larger, general population – That small sample size often makes it difficult for researchers to generalize too greatly about their findings, which can limit the applicability of the results to large groups of people. 

See related: The Benefits of Studying Psychology

Understanding Experimental Design Studies 

The last of the three main types of research methods in psychology is the experimental method. Unlike descriptive and correlational methods, the experimental method intentionally interferes with the test subjects, making adjustments to at least one variable to determine a casual relationship with another variable.

In general, experimental research methods in psychology are conducted according to the following procedure : 

• Step 1 – Researchers define the study’s key variables, known as the “dependent variable” (which isn’t manipulated) and the “independent variable” (which is manipulated). 
• Step 2 – Researchers hypothesize the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable (or variables). 
• Step 3 – Researchers manipulate the relevant variable and observe the results, collecting and documenting data. 

There are several planning stages that an experimental study goes through before it’s formally conducted. In addition to defining variables and forming a hypothesis, researchers must also devise a research protocol, including how they will manipulate the independent variable and which type of experimental design they’ll use. 

Types of Experimental Design Studies 

Within the experimental design, psychologists tend to employ three primary research methods at their disposal. Those include: 

• Independent measures – Also known as “between groups,” independent measures call for a different participant or set of participants for each variable condition.
• Repeated measures – Also known as “within groups,” this type of experimental design features participants who are exposed to each of the study’s variable conditions. 
• Counterbalanced – In counterbalanced designs, all participants experience each variable condition, but they experience them in different orders. This is to account for order effects, or the idea that the order in which variable conditions are experienced potentially impacts subject behavior. 

Hone Your Research Skills with Hands-On Psychology Education

If research methods in psychology turn your wheels and appeal to your innate curiosity, research psychology could be an excellent professional field for you. Every psychology researcher starts as a student in a degree program to acquaint them with the knowledge, skills, and research practice they need to break through to new understanding. 

For aspiring research psychologists, the best programs offer coursework in ethics in psychology, research design and experimentation, plus a range of experiences that take you beyond the classroom, like internships and co-ops. That’s the kind of real-world experience that shapes the formative research psychologists of the future. 

Jacob Imm is the associate director of communication in the North Central College Office of Institutional Communication. He has 13 years of collegiate communications experience and has worked with hundreds of college students. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and a master’s degree from Northern Illinois University.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Apa Dictionary of Psychology . American Psychological Association. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/correlational-research  

Mcleod, S. (2023, April 20). Correlation definitions, examples & interpretation . Simply Psychology. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/correlation.html  

Mcleod, S. (2023, March 7). Observation methods: Naturalistic, participant and controlled . Simply Psychology. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/observation.html  

Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and evaluating survey research . Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601897/  

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Apa Dictionary of Psychology . American Psychological Association. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/archival-research  

Mcleod, S. (2023, March 30). Case study research method in psychology . Simply Psychology. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/case-study.html

Moore, L. (2022, May 6). The 3 Descriptive Research Methods of Psychology . Psych Central. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://psychcentral.com/health/types-of-descriptive-research-methods  

Mcleod, S. (2023, March 7). Experimental design: Types, examples & methods . Simply Psychology. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/experimental-designs.html  

Simkus, J. (2023, March 8). What are the steps in the scientific method? Simply Psychology. Retrieved May 8, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/steps-of-the-scientific-method.html

More North Central News & Stories

Eyewitness Memory

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 15 July 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Rebecca M. Nichols 3  

82 Accesses

Eyewitness testimony plays a crucial role in criminal and legal proceedings, but a well-established body of research demonstrates that it is unreliable. The extensively studied misinformation effect shows how post-event information can distort original memories, leading to false recollections of event details. The text explores theories such as source monitoring and fuzzy trace theory to explain this phenomenon. It also discusses the impact of retrieval enhanced susceptibility and the potential for misinformation to overwrite original details. Factors influencing perpetrator misidentifications are also examined, including estimator variables (i.e., factors related to the eyewitness) and system variables (i.e., factors related to the criminal justice system and its proceedings). Despite the limitations of experimental methods, opportunities for future research abound, including those that build upon novel approaches to understanding the confidence-accuracy relationship and the influence of fake news on memory. The constraints of eyewitness memory necessitate improved practices in the legal system, greater education about eyewitness memory issues, and recognition of both the value and risks associated with eyewitness testimony.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Bergold A (2022) Optimal eyewitness lineups: a review and future directions. In: Advances in psychology and law, pp 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13733-4_3

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Berkowitz SR, Garrett BL, Fenn KM, Loftus EF (2022) Convicting with confidence? Why we should not over-rely on eyewitness confidence. Memory 30(1):10–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1849308

Article   Google Scholar  

Bornstein BH, Deffenbacher KA, Penrod SD, McGorty EK (2012) Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychol Crime Law 18(5):473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.508458

Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF (2005) The science of false memory. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA

Google Scholar  

Chan JCK, Thomas AK, Bulevich JB (2009) Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility: the reversed testing effect. Psychol Sci 20:66. https://journals.sagepub.com.remotexs.ntu.edu.sg/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x

Chan JCK, Manley KD, Lang K (2017) Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: a retrospective and a new investigation. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6(3):213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.003

Colloff MF, Wixted JT (2020) Why are lineups better than showups? A test of the filler siphoning and enhanced discriminability accounts. J Exp Psychol Appl 26:124–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000218

Colloff MF, Wade KA, Strange D (2016) Unfair lineups make witnesses more likely to confuse innocent and guilty suspects. Psychol Sci 27(9):1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616655789

Deffenbacher KA, Bornstein BH, Penrod SD, McGorty EK (2004) A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law Hum Behav 28(6):687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x

DNA Exonerations in the United States (n.d.) Innocence project. Retrieved 25 August 2022, from https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

Fawcett JM, Russell EJ, Peace KA, Christie J (2013) Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychol Crime Law 19(1):35–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325

Garrett BL, Liu A, Kafadar K, Yaffe J, Dodson CS (2020) Factoring the role of eyewitness evidence in the courtroom. J Empir Leg Stud 17(3):556–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12259

Greene CM, Nash RA, Murphy G (2021) Misremembering Brexit: partisan bias and individual predictors of false memories for fake news stories among Brexit voters. Memory 29(5):587–604

Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114(1):3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3

Loeffler CE, Hyatt J, Ridgeway G (2019) Measuring self-reported wrongful convictions among prisoners. J Quant Criminol 35(2):259–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9381-1

Loftus EF (2005) Planting misinformation in the human mind: a 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn Mem 12(4):361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705

Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ (1978) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol 4(1):19–31

Marr C, Sauerland M, Otgaar H, Quaedflieg CWEM, Hope L (2021) The effects of acute stress on eyewitness memory: an integrative review for eyewitness researchers. Memory 29(8):1091–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1955935

McCloskey M, Zaragoza M (1985) Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. J Exp Psychol Gen 114(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.1.1

McKinley GL, Peterson DJ (2022) Using objective measures to examine the effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification performance. Cogn Res Princ Implic 7(1):95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00442-1

Mickes L (2015) Receiver operating characteristic analysis and confidence–accuracy characteristic analysis in investigations of system variables and estimator variables that affect eyewitness memory. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 4(2):93–102

Mitchell KJ, Johnson MK (2000) Source monitoring: attributing mental experiences. In: The Oxford handbook of memory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 179–195

Munsterberg H (1908) On the witness stand: essays on psychology and crime. McClure Co., New York

Murphy G, Loftus EF, Grady RH, Levine LJ, Greene CM (2019) False memories for fake news during Ireland’s abortion referendum. Psychol Sci 30(10):1449–1459

National Research Council (2014) Identifying the culprit: assessing eyewitness identification. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

Nichols RM, Loftus EF (2019) Who is susceptible in three false memory tasks? Memory 27(7):962–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1611862

Steblay NK, Wells GL, Douglass AB (2014) The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: theoretical and policy implications. Psychol Public Policy Law 20:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000001

Wells GL, Kovera MB, Douglass AB, Brewer N, Meissner CA, Wixted JT (2020) Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav 44:3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359

Wixted JT, Wells GL (2017) The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: a new synthesis. Psychol Sci Public Interest 18(1):10–65

Young SG, Hugenberg K, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF (2012) Perception and motivation in face recognition: a critical review of theories of the cross-race effect. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 16(2):116–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418987

Zaragoza MS, Lane SM, Ackil JK, Chambers KL (1997) Confusing real and suggested memories: source monitoring and eyewitness suggestibility. In: Memory for everyday and emotional events. Routledge, New York, NY, USA

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Rebecca M. Nichols

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca M. Nichols .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Tech, Trondheim, Norway

Lucas M. Bietti

Institute of Culture and Memory Studies, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Martin Pogacar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nichols, R.M. (2023). Eyewitness Memory. In: Bietti, L.M., Pogacar, M. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Memory Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93789-8_36-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93789-8_36-1

Received : 13 December 2022

Accepted : 14 December 2022

Published : 15 July 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-93789-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-93789-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research