Chapter 2: Psychological Research

2.1 Why is Research Important?

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex 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 scientific research the hallmark 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, which makes psychological research more
difficult to validate.
Use of Research Information
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?
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. 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.
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
Margaret Floy Washburn: the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology, with research
focused on animal behavior and cognition.
Mary Whiton Calkins: 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.
Francis Sumner: 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.”
Inez Beverly Prosser: first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology, with
research related to education in segregated versus integrated schools.
The Process of Scientific Research
The scientific method is circular: 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.
Deductive reasoning: ideas are tested in the real world
First hypothesis, then a following logical conclusion of that in theory, which can be tested in
the real world.
Inductive reasoning: real-world observations lead to new ideas.
Empirical observations lead to broad generalizations, that may or may not be true.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.

2.2 Approaches to Research

Studies that rely primarily on observation produce incredible amounts of information, but
the ability to apply this information to the larger population is somewhat limited because of
small sample sizes.
Survey research, on the other hand, allows researchers to easily collect data from relatively
large samples. While this allows for results to be generalized to the larger population more
easily, the information that can be collected on any given survey is somewhat limited and
subject to problems associated with any type of self-reported data.
All of the methods described thus far are correlational in nature. This means that
researchers can speak to important relationships that might exist between two or more
variables of interest. However, correlational data cannot be used to make claims about
cause-and-effect relationships. Correlational research can find a relationship between two
variables, but the only way a researcher can claim that the relationship between the
variables is cause and effect is to perform an experiment.
Clinical or Case Studies
In observational research, scientists are conducting a clinical or case study when they
focus on one person or just a few individuals. By focusing on a very small number of people,
they can gain a precious amount of insight into those cases. The richness of information that
is collected in clinical or case studies is unmatched by any other single research method.
This allows the researcher to have a very deep understanding of the individuals and the
particular phenomenon being studied.
As it turns out, the major benefit of this particular approach is also a weakness. As
mentioned earlier, this approach is often used when studying individuals who are interesting
to researchers because they have a rare characteristic. Therefore, the individuals who serve
as the focus of case studies are not like most other people. If scientists ultimately want to
explain all behavior, focusing attention on such a special group of people can make it difficult
to generalize any observations to the larger population as a whole. Generalizing refers to
the ability to apply the findings of a particular research project to larger segments of society.
Naturalistic Observation
However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are
being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide
their natural behavior?
Naturalistic observation is observing behavior in its natural setting, often just in the setting
where the person studied does not know he is being studied. This technique is often used on
animals, since they do not understand that they are being studied anyway.
The greatest benefit of naturalistic observation is the validity, or accuracy, of information
collected unobtrusively in a natural setting. Having individuals behave as they normally
would in a given situation means that we have a higher degree of ecological validity, or
realism, than we might achieve with other research approaches. Therefore, our ability to
generalize the findings of the research to real-world situations is enhanced.
The major downside of naturalistic observation is that they are often difficult to set up and
control. As a researcher you have no control of when (or if) you have behavior to observe. In
addition, this type of observational research often requires significant investments of time,
money, and a good dose of luck.
Another potential problem in observational research is observer bias. Generally, people
who act as observers are closely involved in the research project and may unconsciously
skew their observations to fit their research goals or expectations.
To protect against this type of bias, researchers should have clear criteria established for the
types of behaviors recorded and how those behaviors should be classified.
In addition, researchers often compare observations of the same event by multiple
observers, in order to test inter-rater reliability: a measure of reliability that assesses the
consistency of observations by different observers.
Surveys
Surveys are lists of questions to be answered by research participants, and can be
delivered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires, administered electronically, or conducted
verbally.
Surveys allow researchers to gather data from larger samples than may be afforded by other
research methods. A sample is a subset of individuals selected from a population, which is
the overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in. Researchers study the
sample and seek to generalize their findings to the population.
Mode: the most frequently occurring response
Median: lies at the middle of a given data set
Mean: arithmetic average of all data points
Strengths of surveys: collect information from a larger sample of people. A larger sample is
better able to reflect the actual diversity of the population, thus allowing better
generalizability.
Weaknesses of surveys: given the greater number of people involved, we are not able to
collect the same depth of information on each person that would be collected in a case
study.
People don't always give accurate responses. They may lie, misremember, or answer
questions in a way that they think makes them look good.
Archival Research
Some researchers gain access to large amounts of data without interacting with a single
research participant. Instead, they use existing records to answer various research
questions. This type of research approach is known as archival research. Archival research
relies on looking at past records or data sets to look for interesting patterns or relationships.
Distinctions with other research methods: no direct interaction with participants, so less
investment of time and money to collect data.
Also, researchers have no control over what information was originally collected.
There is also no guarantee of consistency between the records from one source to another,
which might make comparing and contrasting different data sets problematic.
Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Research
Longitudinal research is a research design in which data-gathering is administered
repeatedly over an extended period of time.
In cross-sectional research, a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at
the same time, for example different age groups.
While cross-sectional research requires a shorter-term investment, it is also limited by
differences that exist between the different generations (or cohorts) that have nothing to do
with age per se, but rather reflect the social and cultural experiences of different generations
of individuals make them different from one another.
Often longitudinal studies are employed when researching various diseases in an effort to
understand particular risk factors. For example, surveying a large number of people at the
age of 20 by questioning them about their lifestyle, then coming back in 40 years to see
which of them have developed cancer.
As with any research strategy, longitudinal research is not without limitations. For one, these
studies require an incredible time investment by the researcher and research participants.
Research participants must also be willing to continue their participation for an extended
period of time: some might change their lives or simply don’t want to continue their
participation.
As a result, the attrition rates, or reduction in the number of research participants due to
dropouts, in longitudinal studies are quite high and increases over the course of a project.
For this reason, researchers using this approach typically recruit many participants fully
expecting that a substantial number will drop out before the end.
2.3 Analyzing Findings
Correlational Research
Correlation means that there is a relationship between two or more variables, but this
relationship does not necessarily imply cause and effect. When two variables are correlated,
it simply means that as one variable changes, so does the other.
We can measure correlation by calculating a statistic known as a correlation coefficient. A
correlation coefficient is a number from -1 to +1 that indicates the strength and direction of
the relationship between variables. The closer the number is to 1 (be it negative or positive),
the more strongly related the variables are, and the more predictable changes in one
variable will be as the other variable changes. The closer the number is to zero, the weaker
the relationship, and the less predictable the relationships between the variables becomes.
For instance, a correlation coefficient of 0.9 indicates a far stronger relationship than a
correlation coefficient of 0.3. If the variables are not related to one another at all, the
correlation coefficient is 0.
A positive correlation means that the variables move in the same direction. Put another
way, it means that as one variable increases so does the other, and conversely, when one
variable decreases so does the other. A negative correlation means that the variables
move in opposite directions. If two variables are negatively correlated, a decrease in one
variable is associated with an increase in the other and vice versa.
Correlation does not indicate causation - While variables are sometimes correlated because
one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is
actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest.
Illusory Correlations
Illusory correlations, or false correlations, occur when people believe that relationships
exist between two things when no such relationship exists. One well-known illusory
correlation is the supposed effect that the moon’s phases have on human behavior.
We sometimes have a hunch about how something works and then look for evidence to
support that hunch, ignoring evidence that would tell us our hunch is false; this is known as
confirmation bias.
Causality: Conducting Experiments and Using the Data
Experimental hypothesis: In order to conduct an experiment, a researcher must have a
specific hypothesis to be tested. Hypotheses can be formulated either through direct
observation of the real world or after careful review of previous research.
To find out if real-world data supports our hypothesis, we have to conduct an experiment.
Experimental group: gets the experimental manipulation, the treatment or variable being
tested.
Control group: does not get anything special.
The experimental manipulation has to be the only difference between the two groups, to
that we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to experimental
manipulation rather than chance.
Operational definition: a precise description of our variables; it is important in allowing
others to understand exactly how and what a researcher measures in a particular
experiment.
Ideally, the people who score the tests are unaware of who was assigned to the
experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias
refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study.
To avoid this, you can do a single-blind study, meaning that one of the groups
(participants) are unaware as to which group they are in (experiment or control group) while
the researcher who developed the experiment knows which participants are in each group.
In a double-blind study, both the researchers and the participants are blind to group
assignments. By doing so, we can control for both experimenter and participant expectations
and avoid the placebo effect: expecting something to happen can actually make it happen.
Independent and dependent variables
An independent variable is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter. In a well-
designed experimental study, the independent variable is the only important difference
between the experimental and control groups.
A dependent variable is what the researcher measures to see how much effect the
independent variable had.
The independent variable influences change in the dependent variable.
What effect does the independent variable have on the dependent variable?
‘The dependent variable depends on the independent variable’.
Selecting and Assigning Experimental Participants
Participants are the subjects of psychological research, and as the name implies,
individuals who are involved in psychological research actively participate in the process.
A random sample is a subset of a larger population in which every member of the
population has an equal chance of being selected. Random samples are preferred because
if the sample is large enough we can be reasonably sure that the participating individuals are
representative of the larger population.
 the percentages of characteristics in the sample—sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic level, and
any other characteristics that might affect the results—are close to those percentages in the
larger population.
Now that we have a sample, the next step of the experimental process is to split the
participants into experimental and control groups through random assignment. With
random assignment, all participants have an equal chance of being assigned to either group.
Random assignment is critical for sound experimental design. With sufficiently large
samples, random assignment makes it unlikely that there are systematic differences
between the groups, so that there are no differences preexisting and causing any distortion
to the dependent variable.
Issues to consider
For instance, imagine that you want to know what effect sex (the independent variable) has
on spatial memory (the dependent variable). Although you can certainly look for differences
between males and females on a task that taps into spatial memory, you cannot directly
control a person’s sex. We categorize this type of research approach as quasi-
experimental and recognize that we cannot make cause-and-effect claims in these
circumstances.
Experimenters are also limited by ethical constraints. You can never do research where for
example one group experiences any harm and the other does not.
Interpreting Experimental Findings
Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical
analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups.
A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus
not meaningful).
Generally, psychologists consider differences to be statistically significant if there is less than
a five percent chance of observing them if the groups did not actually differ from one
another. Stated another way, psychologists want to limit the chances of making “false
positive” claims to five percent or less.
The greatest strength of experiments is the ability to assert that any significant differences in
the findings are caused by the independent variable. This occurs because random selection,
random assignment, and a design that limits the effects of both experimenter bias and
participant expectancy should create groups that are similar in composition and treatment.
Therefore, any difference between the groups is attributable to the independent variable, and
now we can finally make a causal statement.
Reporting Research
A peer-reviewed journal article is read by several other scientists (generally anonymously)
with expertise in the subject matter. These peer reviewers provide feedback—to both the
author and the journal editor—regarding the quality of the draft. Peer reviewers look for a
strong rationale for the research being described, a clear description of how the research
was conducted, and evidence that the research was conducted in an ethical manner. They
also look for flaws in the study's design, methods, and statistical analyses. They check that
the conclusions drawn by the authors seem reasonable given the observations made during
the research. Peer reviewers also comment on how valuable the research is in advancing
the discipline’s knowledge. This helps prevent unnecessary duplication of research findings
in the scientific literature and, to some extent, ensures that each research article provides
new information. Ultimately, the journal editor will compile all of the peer reviewer feedback
and determine whether the article will be published in its current state (a rare occurrence),
published with revisions, or not accepted for publication.
Peer review also ensures that the research is described clearly enough to allow other
scientists to replicate it, meaning they can repeat the experiment using different samples to
determine reliability. Sometimes replications involve additional measures that expand on the
original finding. In any case, each replication serves to provide more evidence to support the
original research findings.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result.
Inter-rater reliability: the degree to which two or more different observers agree on what
has been observed.
Internal consistency: the degree to which different items on a survey that measure the
same thing correlate with one another.
Test-retest reliability: the degree to which the outcomes of a particular measure remain
consistent over multiple administrations.
Validity refers to the extent to which a given instrument or tool accurately measures what it’s
supposed to measure, and once again, there are a number of ways in which validity can be
expressed.
Ecological validity: the degree to which research results generalize to real-world
applications
Construct validity: the degree to which a given variable actually captures or measures what
it is intended to measure
Face validity: the degree to which a given variable seems valid on the surface
While any valid measure is by necessity reliable, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Researchers strive to use instruments that are both highly reliable and valid.

2.4 Ethics
Ethics in research is an evolving field, and some practices that were accepted or tolerated in
the past would be considered unethical today. Researchers are expected to adhere to basic
ethical guidelines when conducting experiments that involve human participants. Any
experiment involving human participants must be approved by an IRB. Participation in
experiments is voluntary and requires informed consent of the participants. If any deception
is involved in the experiment, each participant must be fully debriefed upon the conclusion 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.
Debriefing must then be following deception: 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.
Animal research is also held to a high ethical standard. Researchers who use animals as
experimental subjects must design their projects so that pain and distress are minimized.
Animal research requires the approval of an IACUC, Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee, and all animal facilities are subject to regular inspections to ensure that animals
are being treated humanely.