Summary research methods in Psychology
Beth Morling ISBN: 9780393536287 4th edition
Part I Introduction to scientific reasoning
Chapter 1 Psychology is a way of thinking
Scientists are empiricist, which means basing one’s conclusions on systematic observations.
1.1 Research producers, research consumers
Research producers dream about working as research scientists or professors. Research consumers
are interested in reading about research so they can apply it to their work, hobbies, relationships, or
personal growth. In practice, psychologist engage in both roles: when they plan their research and
create new knowledge, they study the work of others who have gone before them.
Why the consumer role is important
Becoming a consumer of information is essential; you will need to develop the ability to read about
research with curiosity and a critical eye. Whatever career you choose, you will need to know how to
interpret research data with a critical eye. Clinical psychologists, social workers and family therapists
read research to know which therapies are most effective. In fact, obtaining a license in these helping
professions requires knowing the research behind evidence-based treatments: treatments supported
by research.
The benefits of being a good consumer
By reading research, you´ll quickly learn that despite the intuitive appeal, a program sometimes
doesn´t work and/or might even cause worse outcomes. Being a skilled consumer of information can
also inform you about programs that do work. Being a critical consumer of data can help you and
your future employers decide to invest time in some programs but not others.
1.2 how scientist work
Psychological scientists are identified by what they do, what they value, and how they think.
- They act as empiricists in their investigations.
- They test theories through research and revise their theories based on the resulting data.
- They follow norms in the scientific community that prioritize objectivity and fairness.
- They take empirical approach to both applied research and basic research.
- They make their work public: submit their results to journals for review and respond to the
work of other scientists.
Scientists are empiricists
Empiricism (or empirical method/empirical research) involves using evidence from the senses
(hearing, sight, touch) or from instruments that assist the senses (thermometers, timers,
questionnaires, etc.) as the basis for conclusions. They aim to be systematic and rigorous and to
make their work independently verifiable by other observers.
Scientists test theories: the theory-data cycle
In the theory-data cycle, scientists collect data to test, change, or update their theories. First, you ask
a particular set of questions that reflect a theory. Next, you make specific predictions, which you test
by collecting data. The data tells you your initial prediction is wrong or right. You use that outcome to
change the idea about a theory.
The cupboard theory versus the contact comfort theory
,One theory, cupboard theory of mother-infant attachment, is that a mother is valuable to a baby
mammal because she is a source of food. Over time, the sight of the mother acquires a positive value
because she is the ‘cupboard’ from which food comes. An alternative theory is that babies are
attached to their mothers because of the comfort of their warm, fuzzy fur. To test the alternative
theories, the two influences were separated. Two monkey foster “mothers” were the only mother
the lab-reared monkeys had. One was made of bare wire mesh with a bottle of milk built in it,
offering food but not comfort. The other was covered with fuzzy terrycloth and was warmed by a
lightbulb inside, but had no milk (comfort, but no food). The evidence was in favor of the contact
comfort theory. The monkeys would cling to their furry, warm mother 12-18 hours a day. When
hungry, they’d climb to the other mother and go right back when finished eating.
Theory, hypotheses, and data
A theory is a set of statements that describes general principles about how
variables relate to one another. A theory leads to questions and
specific hypotheses about the answers. A hypothesis
(prediction) is stated in terms of the study design. It’s the
specific outcome the researcher will observe in a study if the
theory is accurate. One theory can lead to a large number of
hypotheses because a single study is not sufficient to
test the entire theory. Most researchers test theories
with a series of empirical studies, each designed to
test an individual hypothesis. Data are a set of
observations. Depending on whether the data is consistent
with hypotheses, the data may either support or challenge the
theory. Data that match the hypothesis strengthen the
confidence in the theory. When it doesn’t match, the results
indicate that the theory needs to be revised or the research design
needs to be improved. Ideally, hypotheses are preregistered: after the study is
designed but before collecting data, the researchers states publicly what the study’s outcome is
expected to be.
Studies don’t prove theories
The word prove is not used in science. Consider this set of observations:
- This raven is black
- That raven is black
- Every raven I have ever seen is black
Is it therefore justified in concluding that all ravens are black? No. We have not observed all possible
ravens, so it is possible that a nonblack raven exists. Instead scientists say that a study’s data
supports or are consistent with a theory. If a hypothesis is not supported, they might say the data are
inconsistent with the theory. In practice, scientist require a diverse and convincing set of
observations before they completely abandon viable theory. Scientists conduct multiple
investigations, replicating an original study. A replication means the study is conducted again to test
whether the result is consistent. Scientist therefore evaluate their theories based on the weight of
the evidence – the collection of studies, including replications, of the same theory.
Good theories are falsifiable
A theory should lead to hypotheses that, when tested, could fail to support the theory, or, in other
words, are falsifiable. Some pseudoscientific techniques have been based on theories that are not
falsifiable.
,Scientists work in a community
Scientists are members of a community and follow a set of (Merton’s) norms: shared expectations
about how they should act (see table). By being open to falsification and skeptically testing every
assumption, science can become self-correcting: it discovers its own mistaken theories and corrects
them.
Scientists tackle applied and basic problems
Applied research is done with a practical problem in mind and the researchers conduct their work in
a local, real-world context. E.g., if a school district’s new method of teaching language arts is working
better than the former one. The goal of basic research is to enhance the general body of knowledge.
E.g. wanting to understand the structure of the visual system, the capacity of human memory, the
motivations of a depressed person, etc. the knowledge based on basic research generate may be
applied to real-world issues later on. Translational research is the use of lessons from basic research
to develop and test applications to health acre, psychotherapy, or other forms of treatment and
intervention. It represents a dynamic bridge from basic research to applied science.
Scientists make their work public
When scientists want to tell the scientific world about the results of their research, they write a
paper and submit it to a scientific journal. The articles in scientific journals are peer-reviewed. The
journal editor sends the paper to 3-4 experts on the subject. The experts tell the editor about the
works virtues and flaws and the editor decides whether the paper deserves to be published. Peer
reviewers are kept anonymous, so even if they know the author professionally or personally, they
than feel free to give an honest assessment of the research. They comment on how important the
work is, how it fits with the existing body of knowledge, how competently the research was done,
and how convincing the results are. When the research is published, other scientists can cite an
article and do further work on the same subject. Publication helps make science self-correcting.
Scientists talk to the world: from journal to journalism
Journalism is a secondhand report about research, written by journalists or laypeople. A journalist
might become interested in a study through press release written by the scientist’s university or by
hearing scientists talk about their work at a conference. The journalist turns the research into a news
story by summarizing it for popular audience. However, in their effort to tell an engaging story,
journalists might overstate the research or get the details wrong.
, Chapter 2 sources of information: why research is best and how to find it
This chapter discusses 3 sources of evidence for people’s beliefs – experience, intuition and authority
– and compares them to a superior source of evidence: empirical research.
2.1 the research versus your experience
When we decide what to believe, our own experiences are powerful sources of information. Often,
too, we base our opinions on the experiences of friends and family. Why not trust your own
experiences, of that of someone you know and trust, as a source of information?
Experience has no comparison group
There are many reasons not to base beliefs solely on personal experience, for example, because we
have no comparison group. Research asks the critical question: compared to what? A comparison
group enables us to compare what would happen both with and without the thing we’re interested
in. When you rely on personal experience, you’re only observing one “patient”. Basing conclusions on
systematic data collection has the simple but tremendous advantage of providing a comparison
group.
Experience is confounded
Another problem with basing conclusions on personal experience is that even if a change has
occurred, we often can´t be sure what caused it: too much is going on at once. In real-world
situations, there are several possible explanations for an outcome. In research, these alternative
explanations are called confounds. Essentially, a confound occurs when you think one thing is caused
an outcome but in fact other things changed, too, son you are confused about what the cause really
was. In a research setting, scientists can use careful controls to be sure they are changing only one
factor at a time.
Research is better than experience
In a controlled study, researchers can set up conditions to include at least one comparison group.
The researcher has a privileged view: the view from the outside, including all possible comparison
groups. In contrast, when you are the one acting in the situation, yours is a few from the inside, and
you only see one possible condition. Researchers can also control for potential confounds.
Research results are probabilistic
Sometimes our personal stories contradict the research results. Personal experience is powerful, and
we often let a single experience distract us from the lessons of more rigorous research. When your
experience is an exception to what research finds, you may be tempted to conclude: the research
must be wrong. However, the results of behavioral research are probabilistic: its findings do not
explain all cases at all times.
2.2 the research versus your intuition
Another way we might reach a conclusion is intuition: using our hunches about what seems ‘natural’
or attempting to think about things ‘logically’. It can lead us to make less effective decisions.
Ways that intuition can be biased
Humans are not natural scientific thinkers. We might be aware of our potential to be biased, but we
may be too busy, or not motivated enough, to correct or control for these biases.
Being swayed by a good story
