Hello Psychology Scholars!
Welcome to our 2nd lecture for Chapter 2:
Psychological Research.
This chapter covers research (or scientific)
methods in psychology
In this video, we will focus on how psychologists
conduct research, more specifically, the scientific
method, which most of you are probably familiar
with.
We will discuss the steps of the scientific
method and descriptive research methods, specifically
case studies, observations, psychological
tests, and surveys.
Psychology is a science.
Because we are scientists, psychologists gain
accurate knowledge about behavior and mental
processes only by observing and measuring
various aspects of it.
This approach is called empiricism.
To be confident about the conclusions drawn
from their observations, psychologists conduct
empirical research using the scientific method.
Scientific method is a systematic procedure
of observing and measuring phenomena (observable
things) to answer questions about what happens,
when it happens, what causes it, and why.
There are three key aspects of the scientific
method.
First, the scientific method requires that
psychologists follow several carefully planned,
systematic steps.
Second, the processes that psychologists use
in the scientific method must be objective—that
is, free from bias.
Third, the procedures must be replicable or
reproducible.
This statement means that if other psychologists
repeat the same procedures with similar people,
they would expect the same results.
Only when the scientific method is followed
can we be confident that our empirical results
provide a true understanding of mental activity
and behavior.
Researchers use the scientific method to test
out predictions that come from theory, observation,
experience, or commonly held beliefs.
The scientific method usually begins with
a theory – which is defined as: well-developed
set of ideas that propose an explanation for
observed phenomena; or a set of ideas that
organizes and predicts behavior.
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, specific prediction
about how the world will behave if our idea
is correct, and it is often worded as an if-the
statement (for example, 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.
Generally speaking, the scientific method
is conceptualized in the following 6 steps
(these steps vary by discipline, textbook,
and so on):
Step 1: Ask a question based on observations
or experiences
Step 2: Form a hypothesis
Step 3: Design a study to test the hypothesis
Step 4: Conduct the study
Step 5: Analyze data and draw conclusions
Step 6: Report or present results
Step 1: Ask questions based on observations
or experiences – scientific inquiry begins
with questions we ask ourselves about perplexing,
confusing behaviors or experiences we observe.
Typically, we look for answers to our questions
by doing a Google search, which is not particularly
scientific.
If we are truly serious about finding the
answers to our questions, we conduct a literature
review of the scientific literature related
to our questions.
A literature review is a search, evaluation,
and summary of prior scientific research for
a given subject or topic.
The results of a literature review reveal
if and how other researchers have been testing
ideas similar to ours.
A literature review will lead to the next
step – forming a hypothesis.
Step 2: Form a hypothesis – based on the
literature review, a researcher formulates
a hypothesis – specific explanation or prediction
for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific
problem that can be tested through further
investigation; a specific, testable, and falsifiable
statement that tries to describe or explain
a given behavior.
Falsifiable means that the hypothesis can
be shown to be incorrect or that it can be
disproven.
To be testable, scientific hypotheses must
be specific predictions, and the variables
that we are studying must be clearly defined;
these clear definitions are provided by what
we call operational definitions – which
describe the actions or procedures that will
be used to measure or control a variable;
operational definitions establish precisely
what is meant by each variable in the context
of a study; they specify how the phenomena
in question are to be observed and measured.
For example: I want to study memory.
This is much too broad…I can operationally
define memory as the number of words recalled
from a list.
This is much more precise.
Another example: I want to study aggression
in children (again much too broad); however,
I can operationally define aggression as the
number of times one child hits or pushes another
child.
Notice that for each of these examples I can
count the words or behavior.
Step 3: Design study – researcher has to
figure out how to put the hypothesis to a
scientific test.
The research method chosen to a large degree
depends on the nature of the question under
study.
The various methods – case studies, surveys,
naturalistic observations, correlations; experiments
– each have advantages and disadvantages.
Once researchers have chosen a research method,
they must make a detailed plan for carrying
out their study.
They must also determine who their participants
will be, how many participants they will need,
and where they will get their participants.
Once a detailed plan is written, the researcher
must get their plan approved by the college
or university’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB).
The IRB is a collection of individuals who
review research studies to ensure that participants
are not harmed in any way; these individuals
make sure that all research being conducted
follows ethical standards and guidelines.
Step 4: Conduct study – Once approved by
IRB, researchers can begin collecting data.
Researchers use a variety of data collection
techniques.
Commonly used techniques include direct observations,
interviews, questionnaires, psychological
tests, physiological recordings, and examination
of archival records.
The data collection techniques depend on what
is being studied.
For example, questionnaires are well suited
for studying attitudes, psychological tests
for studying personality, and physiological
or biological recordings for studying the
biological bases of behavior.
Step 5: Analyze data and draw conclusions
– Once the data are collected, researchers
use statistical methods of analysis to determine
whether the gathered data support the hypothesis.
First, they summarize the raw data using descriptive
statistics.
Then, they use inferential statistics to determine
whether differences really exist.
Researchers, then, draw conclusions about
hypothesis based on the analysis or evidence
that the study produced.
Researchers, also, determine what issues need
additional investigation.
Remember, no single study gives us a definitive
answer about any psychological topic.
A study tells us only what happened in a particular
set of circumstances.
As a result, researchers never say they have
proved a theory.
However, we can feel more confident about
scientific results when the particular study
and its outcomes are repeated or replicated
by the same researcher or others.
Step 6: Report results – the final step
in any scientific endeavor is to report the
results and embark on further inquiry.
Researchers submit results to research journals
and present them at conferences to share them
with the scientific community.
Then they continue the process by refining
their theory, making further predictions,
and testing hypotheses.
Now that we’ve looked at the steps of the
scientific method, let’s discuss in more
detail Step 3: designing study, or determining
which research method to use.
One of the goals of science is description
(other goals include prediction and explanation).
Descriptive research methods are pretty much
what they sound like — they describe situations.
They do not make accurate predictions, and
they do not determine cause and effect.
Scientists conduct clinical or case studies
when they focus on one person or just a few
individuals.
Some scientists spend their entire careers
studying just 1–20 individuals.
Why would they do this?
When they focus their attention on a very
small number of people, they can gain a tremendous
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.
Unusual or rare cases shed light on situations
or problems that are unethical or impractical
to study in other ways.
As it turns out, the major advantage of this
particular approach is also a limitation.
As I 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.
Again, case studies provide enormous amounts
of information, but since the cases are so
specific, the potential to apply what’s
learned to the average person may be very
limited.
Observational studies are all about watching
people, and there are two types.
Naturalistic, also known as field observation,
is a study where a researcher observes the
subject in its natural environment.
This is basically what Jane Goodall did; she
observed chimpanzees in their natural environment
and drew conclusions from this.
If any of you are signed up for a Child Development
class here at Pierce, you will probably be
asked to conduct a naturalistic observation
of the children at our Child Development Center.
Jean Piaget also conducted naturalistic observations
when he developed his “stages of cognitive
development” theory.
Using this descriptive method makes the observations
more true to what happens in the chaotic,
natural world.
But, it also means you have less control over
what happens.
Another disadvantage is what we call “observer
bias,” which are errors in observations
due to an observer’s expectations.
Another problem is that observational studies
can produce artificial behavior.
For example, the presence of an observer might
change the behavior being observed, especially
if the participant(s) want to make a positive
impression.
The participants may act differently when
they believe they are being observed.
The other type of observational study is laboratory
observations, where a researcher observes
the participant in a laboratory setting.
This gives the researcher a little more control
over what happens so they don’t have to
fly out to some tiny island in the middle
of a war zone to observe something.
However, it does ruin some of the naturalness
that one might get from field observations.
An example of a laboratory observation in
psychology would be done to understand something
about children at a certain age, such as the
process of how a child learns to speak and
mimic sounds.
Psychological tests yield information on personality
traits, emotional states, skills, and abilities.
Psychological testing uses a combination of
techniques to arrive at some hypotheses about
a person and their behavior, personality,
and capabilities.
Psychological testing is nearly always performed
by a licensed psychologist.
Clinical psychologists are expertly trained
to perform and interpret psychological tests.
The main disadvantage is that it is difficult
to construct tests that are reliable and valid.
Often, psychologists develop surveys as a
way of gathering data.
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.
The advantages include the following: they
are easy to administer, cost-efficient, and
a relatively fast way to collect information
from a large group of participants.
The disadvantages include the following: survey
responses may be inaccurate or untrue; if
sample is non-representative, it may be impossible
to generalize from the results.
All descriptive research methods are great
ways to generate hypotheses or to explore
questions about behavior.
Descriptive research methods cannot be used
to show causal relationships (cause and effect).
In our next video, we will discuss correlational
and experimental research methods.
