Posted: February 27th, 2023

Chapter 12 Review

Chapter Review Guidelines

Chapter review assignments help ensure that you understand chapter contents.

Your Chapter Reviews will pass through an originality check called Turn It In. This function will verify that you have used your own words. You should create your own examples – do NOT use examples from the book.

Link to textbook: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/part/descriptive-statistics/

PSYC 005: Research Methods

Review Sheet: Chapter 12 – Descriptive Statistics

Answer the following items based on the content of

chapter 12, “Descriptive Statistics”

from your textbook.

1. The
standard deviation is a common measure of variability and a statistic that is often reported in research literature. Using your own words based on your understanding of the reading, what is a standard deviation and why is it important to help understand averages?

2. In the section about percentile ranks and

z scores
, your book describes the importance of z scores. What is a z score? How is it calculated? Why is it important for helping to understand the true meaning of a raw score?

3. Using APA formatting, how would you present the following descriptive statistics in writing? Use complete sentences.

Number of Senior Citizens

Average Age

Amount of dispersion or variation in age

128

3.4

Number of Study Participants Completing the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

Average Depression Score (BDI)

Amount of dispersion or variation in Depression Score (BDI)

5.8

4. For the following dataset 11, 8, 9, 12, 9, 10, 12, 13, 11, 13, 12, 6, 10, 17, 13, 11, 12, 12, 14, 14 do the following:

· create a frequency table,

· transform the frequency table into a histogram,

· compute the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range, and

· identify the shape of the dataset.

Research Methods in Psychology

4th edition

RAJIV S. JHANGIANI; I-CHANT A. CHIANG; CARRIE CUTTLER;
AND DANA C. LEIGHTON

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

SURREY, B.C

Research Methods in Psychology by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

This adaptation constitutes the fourth edition of this textbook, and builds upon the second Canadian edition by Rajiv S.
Jhangiani (Kwantlen Polytechnic University) and I-Chant A. Chiang (Quest University Canada), the second American
edition by Dana C. Leighton (Texas A&M University-Texarkana), and the third American edition by Carrie Cuttler
(Washington State University) and feedback from several peer reviewers coordinated by the Rebus Community. This
edition is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Cover

https://osf.io/2j3pt/

Cover

Transforming education through open

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Contents

Acknowledgements ix

About this Book xi

About the Authors of the Current Edition xvi

Preface xviii

Chapter I. The Science of Psychology

1. Methods of Knowing 3

2. Understanding Science 6

3. Goals of Science 10

4. Science and Common Sense 12

5. Experimental and Clinical Psychologists 15

6. Key Takeaways and Exercises 19

Chapter II. Overview of the Scientific Method

7. A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology 25

8. Finding a Research Topic 28

9. Generating Good Research Questions 36

10. Developing a Hypothesis 40

11. Designing a Research Study 45

12. Analyzing the Data 49

13. Drawing Conclusions and Reporting the Results 52

14. Key Takeaways and Exercise 54

Chapter III. Research Ethics

15. Moral Foundations of Ethical Research 59

16. From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes 65

17. Putting Ethics Into Practice 74

18. Key Takeaways and Exercises 79

Chapter IV. Psychological Measurement

19. Understanding Psychological Measurement 83

20. Reliability and Validity of Measurement 92

21. Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement 99

22. Key Takeaways and Exercises 105

Chapter V. Experimental Research

23. Experiment Basics 109

24. Experimental Design 117

25. Experimentation and Validity 125

26. Practical Considerations 130

27. Key Takeaways and Exercises 138

Chapter VI. Non-Experimental Research

28. Overview of Non-Experimental Research 143

29. Correlational Research 148

30. Complex Correlation 157

31. Qualitative Research 163

32. Observational Research 169

33. Key Takeaways and Exercises 179

Chapter VII. Survey Research

34. Overview of Survey Research 185

35. Constructing Surveys 188

36. Conducting Surveys 198

37. Key Takeaways and Exercises 204

Chapter VIII. Quasi-Experimental Research

38. One-Group Designs 209

39. Non-Equivalent Groups Designs 215

40. Key Takeaways and Exercises 219

Chapter IX. Factorial Designs

41. Setting Up a Factorial Experiment 223

42. Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment 229

43. Key Takeaways and Exercises 238

Chapter X. Single-Subject Research

44. Overview of Single-Subject Research 241

45. Single-Subject Research Designs 244

46. The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate” 254

47. Key Takeaways and Exercises 259

Chapter XI. Presenting Your Research

48. American Psychological Association (APA) Style 263

49. Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style 272

50. Other Presentation Formats 287

51. Key Takeaways and Exercises 293

Chapter XII. Descriptive Statistics

52. Describing Single Variables 297

53. Describing Statistical Relationships 309

54. Expressing Your Results 321

55. Conducting Your Analyses 332

56. Key Takeaways and Exercises 337

Chapter XIII. Inferential Statistics

57. Understanding Null Hypothesis Testing 343

58. Some Basic Null Hypothesis Tests 350

59. Additional Considerations 366

60. From the “Replicability Crisis” to Open Science Practices 374

61. Key Takeaways and Exercises 382

Glossary 385

References 417

Acknowledgements

This textbook represents a labor of love and a deep commitment to students. Each of us had previously
worked on adapting, updating, and refining successive editions of this textbook since its initial publication.
In coming together to produce this fourth edition collaboratively, we were able to build on our own expertise
and classroom experience as well as thoughtful feedback from several peer reviewers.

We would like to thank the Rebus Community, especially Zoe Wake Hyde and Apurva Ashok, for guiding
and supporting us through the process of peer review and for building an intellectually supportive and
encouraging community of authors and open educators.

We are immensely grateful to our peer reviewers Judy Grissett (Georgia Southwestern State University),
Amy Nusbaum (Washington State University), and one additional anonymous reviewer, who volunteered
their time and energy to provide valuable suggestions and feedback that improved the quality and
consistency of the 4th edition of this book.

Finally, we are grateful to Lana Radomsky for her assistance with formatting and compiling the glossary and
references.

Rajiv, Carrie, and Dana (May 2019)

Acknowledgements | ix

Rajiv S. Jhangiani, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton

x | Acknowledgements

About this Book

This textbook is an adaptation of one written by [unnamed original author] and adapted by The Saylor
Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License without
attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensee. The original text is available
here: http://www.saylor.org/site/textbooks/

The first Canadian edition (published in 2013) was authored by Rajiv S. Jhangiani (Kwantlen Polytechnic
University) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
Revisions included the addition of a table of contents, changes to Chapter 3 (Research Ethics) to include
a contemporary example of an ethical breach and to reflect Canadian ethical guidelines and privacy laws,
additional information regarding online data collection in Chapter 9 (Survey Research), corrections of errors
in the text and formulae, spelling changes from US to Canadian conventions, the addition of a cover page,
and other necessary formatting adjustments.

The second Canadian edition (published in 2015) was co-authored by Rajiv S. Jhangiani (Kwantlen
Polytechnic University) and I-Chant A. Chiang (Quest University Canada) and licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Revisions included:
(throughout) language revision, spelling & formatting, additional video links and website links, interactive
visualizations, figures, tables, and examples; (Chapter 1) the Many Labs Replication Project; (Chapter
2) double-blind peer review, contemporary literature databases, how to read academic papers; (Chapter 3)
Canadian ethics; (Chapter 4) laws, effects, theory; (Chapter 5) fuller description of the MMPI, removal of IAT,
validity descriptions; (Chapter 6) validity & realism descriptions, Latin Square design; (Chapter 7) Mixed-
design studies, qualitative-quantitative debate; (Chapter 8) 2 × 2 factorial exercise; (Chapter 9) Canadian
Election Studies, order and open-ended questions; (Chapter 13) p-curve and BASP announcement about
banning p-values; “replicability crisis” in psychology; (Glossary) added key terms.

The second U.S. edition (published in 2017) was authored by Dana C. Leighton (Southern Arkansas
University) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International License. Revisions included reversion of spelling from Canadian English to U.S. English and the
addition of a cover photo: “Great Wave off Kanagawa” after Katsushika Hokusai (葛飾北斎) is public domain.

The third U.S. edition (published in 2017) was authored by Carrie Cuttler (Washington State University)
and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Revisions included general reorganization, language revision, spelling, formatting, additional video links, and
examples throughout. More specifically, the overall model section was moved from Chapter 1 to Chapter
2, new sections were added to Chapter 1 on methods of knowing and goals of science, and a link on the
replication crisis in psychology was added to Chapter 1. Chapter 2 was also reorganized by moving the
section on reviewing the research literature to earlier in the chapter and taking sections from Chapter 4 (on
theories and hypotheses), moving them to Chapter 2, and cutting the remainder of Chapter 4. Sections of
Chapter 2 on correlation were also moved to Chapter 6. New sections on characteristics of good research
questions, an overview of experimental vs. non-experimental research, a description of field vs. lab studies,
and making conclusions were also added to Chapter 2. Chapter 3 was expanded by adding a definition

About this Book | xi

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

http://www.saylor.org/site/textbooks/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5576388

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

of anonymity, elaborating on the Belmont Report (the principles of respect for persons and beneficence
were added), and adding a link to a clip dispelling the myth that vaccines cause autism. Sections from
Chapter 4 (on defining theories and hypotheses) were moved to Chapter 2 and the remainder of the
previous Chapter 4 (on phenomenon, theories, and hypotheses) was cut. Chapter 5 was reorganized by
moving the sections on four types of validity, manipulation checks, and placebo effects to later in the
chapter. Descriptions of single factor two-level designs, single factor multi-level designs, matched-groups
designs, order effects, and random counterbalancing were added to Chapter 5 and the concept of statistical
validity was expanded upon. Chapter 6 was also reorganized by moving sections describing correlation
coefficients from Chapters 2 and 12 to Chapter 6. The section of the book on complex correlation was also
moved to Chapter 6 and the section on quasi-experiments was moved from Chapter 6 to its own chapter
(Chapter 8). The categories of non-experimental research described in Chapter 6 were change to cross-
sectional, correlational, and observational research. Chapter 6 was further expanded to describe cross-
sectional studies, partial correlation, simple regression, the use of regression to make predictions, case
studies, participant observation, disguised and undisguised observation, and structured observation. The
terms independent variable and dependent variable as used in the context of regression were changed
to predictor variable and outcome/criterion variable respectively. A distinction between proportionate
stratified sampling and disproportionate stratified sampling was added to Chapter 7. The section on quasi-
experimental designs was moved to its own chapter (Chapter 8) and was elaborated upon to include
instrumentation and testing as threats to internal validity of one-group pretest-posttest designs, and to
include sections describing the one-group posttest only design, pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups
design, interrupted time-series with nonequivalent groups design, pretest-posttest design with switching
replication, and switching replication with treatment removal designs. The section of Chapter 9 on factorial
designs was split into two sections and the remainder of the chapter was moved or cut. Further, examples
of everyday interactions were added and a description of simple effects was added to Chapter 9. The section
on case studies that appeared in Chapter 10 was edited and moved to Chapter 6. Further, labels were added
to multiple-baseline across behaviours, settings, and participants designs, and a concluding paragraph on
converging evidence was added to Chapter 10. Only minor edits were made to the remaining chapters
(Chapters 11, 12, and 13).

This fourth edition (published in 2019) was co-authored by Rajiv S. Jhangiani (Kwantlen Polytechnic
University), Carrie Cuttler (Washington State University), and Dana C. Leighton (Texas A&M
University—Texarkana) and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
4.0 International License. Revisions throughout the current edition include changing the chapter and
section numbering system to better accommodate adaptions that remove or reorder chapters; continued
reversion from the Canadian edition; general grammatical edits; replacement of “he/she” to “they” and “his/
her” to “their”; removal or update of dead links; embedded videos that were not embedded; moved key
takeaways and exercises from the end of each chapter section to the end of each chapter; a new cover
design. In addition, the following revisions were made to specific chapters:

• Chapter 1:

◦ Updated list of empirically supported therapies.
• Chapter 2:

◦ Added description of follow-up research by Drews, Pasupathi, and Strayer (2004) demonstrating

xii | About this Book

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

that cell phone conversations while driving carry a greater risk than conversations with a
passenger

◦ Added the term meta-analysis along with a definition of this term
◦ Replaced terms men and women with males and females
◦ Updated the description of the number of records returned with different search terms to a

broader description of the relative number of records (that will not change as more articles are
added to PsychINFO)

◦ Replaced the term “operationally define” variables with a more general statement about measuring
variables since the term operational definition is not formally defined until later in the text

◦ Added a citation for Zajonc’s (1965) research
◦ Added a brief description of factors (i.e., small sample size, stringent alpha level) that increase the

likelihood of a Type II error.
• Chapter 3:

◦ Removed titles of tables in references to tables
◦ Added statement that many people, including children, have died as a result of people avoiding the

MMR vaccine
◦ Added a statement about self-plagiarizing being unethical and provided an example of submitting

the same assignment in multiple classes
◦ Explained the respect for persons principle
◦ Revised the levels of IRB review to match terminology used in federal regulations
◦ Footnotes for references were made actual footnotes in Pressbooks

• Chapter 4:

◦ Removed potentially offensive or stigmatizing examples
◦ Clarified definition of levels of measurement
◦ Added citations for the various scales described
◦ Added further description of why IQ is measured on an interval scale
◦ Added descriptions of the indicators of central tendency that are appropriate to compute and

report for each of the scales of measure (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio)
◦ Added a paragraph on operationally defining the construct that reviews the process of transferring

a conceptual definition to something that can be directly observed and measured
◦ Added brief description of PsycTESTS and link to these tests
◦ Removed the statement that family and friends can serve as good pilot subjects

• Chapter 5:

◦ Clarified the distinction between independent and dependent variables
◦ Moved up the discussion of a control condition
◦ Briefly discussed research ethics within the description of the study by Guéguen & de Gail (2003)
◦ More clearly defined a power analysis and emphasized the importance of conducting one
◦ Referenced confounds within the discussion of internal validity
◦ Noted that within-subjects experiments require fewer participants
◦ Removed duplicate reference
◦ Added citations
◦ Updated language

About this Book | xiii

• Chapter 6:

◦ Clarified when non-experimental approaches are appropriate
◦ Added information about Milgram’s non-experimental study of obedience to authority
◦ Added a discussion of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-sequential studies
◦ Revised organization of non-experimental approaches
◦ Removed description of experimenter-selected independent variable
◦ Specified types of variables that may be measured in correlational research
◦ Added an example of a correlational study that uses categorical variables
◦ Added a factor analysis table
◦ Listed more examples of nonstatistical data analysis techniques
◦ Added a table to summarize some differences between quantitative and qualitative research
◦ Described some group dynamics and personality characteristics that might influence participation

in focus groups
◦ Discussed Festinger’s research on cognitive dissonance that used disguised participant

observation
◦ Described the Hawthorne effect
◦ Added an example of a study that used structured observation within a laboratory environment

• Chapter 7:

◦ Clarified language concerning data collection methods vs. research designs
◦ Mentioned randomizing the order of presentation of questions as another way of reducing

response order effects
◦ Explained reverse coding
◦ Described additional types of non-probability sampling
◦ Reiterated the importance of conducting a power analysis
◦ Added common online data collection sites

• Chapter 8:

◦ Discussed how the inclusion of a control group rules out threats to internal validity within a one-
group design study

• Chapter 9:

◦ Clarified discussion of non-experimental factorial designs.
• Chapter 10: No substantive changes
• Chapter 11:

◦ Added regional psychology association conferences to list of conferences
◦ Condensed and clarified discussion of final manuscripts
◦ Updated discussion of open sharing of results to acknowledge some journals that require open

data
◦ Added explanation of person-first language

• Chapter 12:

◦ Corrected erroneous APA style recommendations and added references to specific Publication
Manual sections

◦ Standardized the use of the terms “figure” and “chart” to better correspond with APA style

xiv | About this Book

◦ Minor changes to discussion of poster formatting
◦ Moved list of conferences to end of discussion to not break up the material

• Chapter 13:

◦ Defined p-hacking and clarified discussion of p-hacking
◦ Made definition of p-value more technically correct

About this Book | xv

About the Authors of the Current Edition

Rajiv S. Jhangiani

Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani is the Associate Vice Provost, Open Education at Kwantlen
Polytechnic University in British Columbia. He is an internationally known
advocate for open education whose research and practice focuses on open
educational resources, student-centered pedagogies, and the scholarship of
teaching and learning. Rajiv is a co-founder of the Open Pedagogy Notebook, an
Ambassador for the Center for Open Science, and serves on the BC Open
Education Advisory Committee. He formerly served as an Open Education
Advisor and Senior Open Education Research & Advocacy Fellow with BCcampus,

an OER Research Fellow with the Open Education Group, a Faculty Workshop Facilitator with the Open
Textbook Network, and a Faculty Fellow with the BC Open Textbook Project. A co-author of three open
textbooks in Psychology, his most recent book is Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing
Education and Science (2017). You can find him online at @thatpsychprof or thatpsychprof.com

Carrie Cuttler

Dr. Carrie Cuttler received her Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of British
Columbia. She has been teaching research methods and statistics for over a
decade. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology
at Washington State University, where she primarily studies the acute and
chronic effects of cannabis on cognition, mental health, and physical health. Dr.
Cuttler was also an OER Research Fellow with the Center for Open Education and
she conducts research on open educational resources. She has over 50
publications including the following two published books: A Student Guide for

SPSS (1st and 2nd edition) and Research Methods in Psychology: Student Lab Guide. Finally, she edited another
OER entitled Essentials of Abnormal Psychology. In her spare time, she likes to travel, hike, bike, run, and
watch movies with her husband and son. You can find her online at @carriecuttler or carriecuttler.com

xvi | About the Authors of the Current Edition

http://www.kpu.ca/

http://openpedagogy.org/

https://cos.io/

Home

https://research.cehd.umn.edu/otn/

Home

https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/10.5334/bbc/

Tweets by thatpsychprof

http://thatpsychprof.com/

Carrie Cuttler

https://he.kendallhunt.com/product/student-guide-spss

https://he.kendallhunt.com/product/research-methods-psychology-student-lab-guide

Cover

https://twitter.com/CarrieCuttler?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

http://carriecuttler.com/

Dana C. Leighton

Dr. Dana C. Leighton is Assistant Professor of Psychology in the College of Arts,
Science, and Education at Texas A&M University—Texarkana. He earned his Ph.D.
from the University of Arkansas, and has 15 years experience teaching across the
psychology curriculum at community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research
universities. Dr. Leighton’s social psychology research lab studies intergroup
relations, and routinely includes undergraduate students as researchers. He is
also Chair of the university’s Institutional Review Board. Recently he has been
researching and writing about the use of open science research practices by

undergraduate researchers to increase diversity, justice, and sustainability in psychological science. He has
published on his teaching methods in eBooks from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology, presented
his methods at regional and national conferences, and received grants to develop new teaching methods.
His teaching interests are in undergraduate research, writing skills, and online student engagement. For
more about Dr. Leighton see http://www.danaleighton.net and http://danaleighton.edublogs.org

About the Authors of the Current Edition | xvii

http://tamut.edu/Academics/Colleges-and-Departments/CASE/index.php

http://tamut.edu/dana-leighton/research/pjpl/index.html

http://tamut.edu/irb

https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/index.php

http://www.danaleighton.net/

http://danaleighton.edublogs.org/

Preface

Psychology, like most other sciences, has its own set of tools to investigate the important research questions
of its field. Unlike other sciences that are older and more mature, psychology is a relatively new field and,
like an adolescent, is learning and changing rapidly. Psychology researchers are learning and changing along
with the emerging science. This textbook introduces students to the fundamental principles of what it is
like to think like a psychology researcher in the contemporary world of psychology research.

Historically, psychology developed practices and methods based on the established physical sciences. Unlike
physical sciences, psychology had to grapple with the inherent variation among its subjects: people. To
better account for this, we developed some practices and statistical methods that we (naïvely) considered to
be foolproof. Over time we established a foundation of research findings that we considered solid.

In recent years, psychology’s conversation has shifted to an introspective one, looking inward and re-
examining the knowledge that we considered foundational. We began to find that some of that unshakable
foundation was not as strong as we thought; some of the bedrock findings in psychology were being
questioned and failed to be upheld in fuller scrutiny. As many introspective conversations do, this one
caused a crisis of faith.

Psychologists are now questioning if we really know what we thought we knew or if we simply got lucky. We
are struggling to understand how what we choose to publish and not publish, what we choose to report and
not report, and how we train our students as researchers is having an effect on what we call “knowledge”
in psychology. We are beginning to question whether that knowledge represents real behaviour and mental
processes in human beings, or simply represents the effects of our choice of methods. This has started a
firestorm among psychology researchers, but it is one that needs to play out. For a book aimed at novice
psychology undergraduates, it is tempting to gloss over these issues and proclaim that our “knowledge” is
“truth.” That would be a disservice to our students though, who need to be critical questioners of research.
Instead of shying away from this controversy, this textbook invites the reader to step right into the middle
of it.

With every step of the way, the research process in psychology is fraught with decisions, trade-offs, and
uncertainty. We decide to study one variable and not another; we balance the costs of research against
its benefits; we are uncertain whether our results will replicate. Every step is a decision that takes us in a
different direction and closer to or further from the truth. Research is not an easy route to traverse, but
we hope this textbook will be a hiking map that can at least inspire the direction students can take, and
provide some absolute routes to begin traveling.

As we wrote at the beginning of this preface, psychology is a young science. Like any adolescent, psychology
is grappling with its identity as a science, learning to use better tools, understanding the importance of
transparency, and is having more open conversations to improve its understanding of human behaviour. We
will grow up and mature together. It is an exciting time to be part of that growth as psychology becomes a
more mature science.

xviii | Preface

CHAPTER I

THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY

Many people believe that women tend to talk more than men—with some even suggesting that this
difference has a biological basis. One widely cited estimate is that women speak 20,000 words per day on
average and men speak only 7,000. This claim seems plausible, but is it true? A group of psychologists led
by Matthias Mehl decided to find out. They checked to see if anyone had actually tried to count the daily
number of words spoken by women and men. No one had. So these researchers conducted a study in which
female and male college students (369 in all) wore audio recorders while they went about their lives. The
result? The women spoke an average of 16,215 words per day and the men spoke an average of 15,669—an
extremely small difference that could easily be explained by chance. In an article in the journal Science, these
researchers summed up their findings as follows: “We therefore conclude, on the basis of available empirical
evidence, that the widespread and highly publicized stereotype about female talkativeness is unfounded”
(Mehl, Vazire, Ramirez-Esparza, Slatcher, & Pennebaker, 2007, p. 82)1.

Psychology is usually defined as the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes, and this
example illustrates the features that make it scientific. In this chapter, we look closely at these features,
review the goals of psychology, and address several basic questions that students often have about it. Who
conducts scientific research in psychology? Why? Does scientific psychology tell us anything that common
sense does not? Why should I bother to learn the scientific approach—especially if I want to be a clinical
psychologist and not a researcher? These are extremely good questions, and answering them now will
provide a solid foundation for learning the rest of the material in your course.

Notes

1. Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative
than men? Science, 317, 82.

The Science of Psychology | 1

1. Methods of Knowing

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the 5 methods of acquiring knowledge
2. Understand the benefits and problems with each.

Take a minute to ponder some of what you know and how you acquired that knowledge. Perhaps you know
that you should make your bed in the morning because your mother or father told you this is what you
should do, perhaps you know that swans are white because all of the swans you have seen are white, or
perhaps you know that your friend is lying to you because she is acting strange and won’t look you in the
eye. But should we trust knowledge from these sources? The methods of acquiring knowledge can be broken
down into five categories each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Intuition

The first method of knowing is intuition. When we use our intuition, we are relying on our guts, our
emotions, and/or our instincts to guide us. Rather than examining facts or using rational thought, intuition
involves believing what feels true. The problem with relying on intuition is that our intuitions can be wrong
because they are driven by cognitive and motivational biases rather than logical reasoning or scientific
evidence. While the strange behavior of your friend may lead you to think s/he is lying to you it may just be
that s/he is holding in a bit of gas or is preoccupied with some other issue that is irrelevant to you. However,
weighing alternatives and thinking of all the different possibilities can be paralyzing for some people and
sometimes decisions based on intuition are actually superior to those based on analysis (people interested
in this idea should read Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink)1.

Authority

Perhaps one of the most common methods of acquiring knowledge is through authority. This method
involves accepting new ideas because some authority figure states that they are true. These authorities
include parents, the media, doctors, Priests and other religious authorities, the government, and professors.
While in an ideal world we should be able to trust authority figures, history has taught us otherwise
and many instances of atrocities against humanity are a consequence of people unquestioningly following

Methods of Knowing | 3

authority (e.g., Salem Witch Trials, Nazi War Crimes). On a more benign level, while your parents may
have told you that you should make your bed in the morning, making your bed provides the warm damp
environment in which mites thrive. Keeping the sheets open provides a less hospitable environment for
mites. These examples illustrate that the problem with using authority to obtain knowledge is that they may
be wrong, they may just be using their intuition to arrive at their conclusions, and they may have their own
reasons to mislead you. Nevertheless, much of the information we acquire is through authority because
we don’t have time to question and independently research every piece of knowledge we learn through
authority. But we can learn to evaluate the credentials of authority figures, to evaluate the methods they
used to arrive at their conclusions, and evaluate whether they have any reasons to mislead us.

Rationalism

Rationalism involves using logic and reasoning to acquire new knowledge. Using this method premises are
stated and logical rules are followed to arrive at sound conclusions. For instance, if I am given the premise
that all swans are white and the premise that this is a swan then I can come to the rational conclusion that
this swan is white without actually seeing the swan. The problem with this method is that if the premises
are wrong or there is an error in logic then the conclusion will not be valid. For instance, the premise that
all swans are white is incorrect; there are black swans in Australia. Also, unless formally trained in the rules
of logic it is easy to make an error. Nevertheless, if the premises are correct and logical rules are followed
appropriately then this is sound means of acquiring knowledge.

Empiricism

Empiricism involves acquiring knowledge through observation and experience. Once again many of you
may have believed that all swans are white because you have only ever seen white swans. For centuries
people believed the world is flat because it appears to be flat. These examples and the many visual
illusions that trick our senses illustrate the problems with relying on empiricism alone to derive knowledge.
We are limited in what we can experience and observe and our senses can deceive us. Moreover, our
prior experiences can alter the way we perceive events. Nevertheless, empiricism is at the heart of the
scientific method. Science relies on observations. But not just any observations, science relies on structured
observations which is known as systematic empiricism.

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a process of systematically collecting and evaluating evidence to test ideas and
answer questions. While scientists may use intuition, authority, rationalism, and empiricism to generate
new ideas they don’t stop there. Scientists go a step further by using systematic empiricism to make careful

4 | Methods of Knowing

observations under various controlled conditions in order to test their ideas and they use rationalism to
arrive at valid conclusions. While the scientific method is the most likely of all of the methods to produce
valid knowledge, like all methods of acquiring knowledge it also has its drawbacks. One major problem is
that it is not always feasible to use the scientific method; this method can require considerable time and
resources. Another problem with the scientific method is that it cannot be used to answer all questions. As
described in the following section, the scientific method can only be used to address empirical questions.
This book and your research methods course are designed to provide you with an in-depth examination of
how psychologists use the scientific method to advance our understanding of human behavior and the mind.

Notes

1. Gladwell, M. E. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. (9th ed.). New York: Little, Brown & Co.

Methods of Knowing | 5

2. Understanding Science

Learning Objectives

1. Define science.
2. Describe the three fundamental features of science.
3. Explain why psychology is a science.
4. Define pseudoscience and give some examples.

What Is Science?

Some people are surprised to learn that psychology is a science. They generally agree that astronomy,
biology, and chemistry are sciences but wonder what psychology has in common with these other fields.
Before answering this question, however, it is worth reflecting on what astronomy, biology, and chemistry
have in common with each other. It is clearly not their subject matter. Astronomers study celestial bodies,
biologists study living organisms, and chemists study matter and its properties. It is also not the equipment
and techniques that they use. Few biologists would know what to do with a radio telescope, for example,
and few chemists would know how to track a moose population in the wild. For these and other reasons,
philosophers and scientists who have thought deeply about this question have concluded that what the
sciences have in common is a general approach to understanding the natural world. Psychology is a science
because it takes this same general approach to understanding one aspect of the natural world: human
behavior.

Features of Science

The general scientific approach has three fundamental features (Stanovich, 2010)1. The first
is systematic empiricism. Empiricism refers to learning based on observation, and scientists learn about
the natural world systematically, by carefully planning, making, recording, and analyzing observations of
it. As we will see, logical reasoning and even creativity play important roles in science too, but scientists
are unique in their insistence on checking their ideas about the way the world is against their systematic
observations. Notice, for example, that Mehl and his colleagues did not trust other people’s stereotypes
or even their own informal observations. Instead, they systematically recorded, counted, and compared
the number of words spoken by a large sample of women and men. Furthermore, when their systematic
observations turned out to conflict with people’s stereotypes, they trusted their systematic observations.

6 | Understanding Science

The second feature of the scientific approach—which follows in a straightforward way from the first—is
that it is concerned with empirical questions. These are questions about the way the world actually is and,
therefore, can be answered by systematically observing it. The question of whether women talk more than
men is empirical in this way. Either women really do talk more than men or they do not, and this can be
determined by systematically observing how much women and men actually talk. Having said this, there
are many interesting and important questions that are not empirically testable and that science is not in
a position to answer. Among these are questions about values—whether things are good or bad, just or
unjust, or beautiful or ugly, and how the world ought to be. So although the question of whether a stereotype
is accurate or inaccurate is an empirically testable one that science can answer, the question—or, rather,
the value judgment—of whether it is wrong for people to hold inaccurate stereotypes is not. Similarly, the
question of whether criminal behavior has a genetic basis is an empirical question, but the question of what
actions ought to be considered illegal is not. It is especially important for researchers in psychology to be
mindful of this distinction.

The third feature of science is that it creates public knowledge. After asking their empirical questions,
making their systematic observations, and drawing their conclusions, scientists publish their work. This
usually means writing an article for publication in a professional journal, in which they put their research
question in the context of previous research, describe in detail the methods they used to answer their
question, and clearly present their results and conclusions. Increasingly, scientists are opting to publish
their work in open access journals, in which the articles are freely available to all – scientists and
nonscientists alike. This important choice allows publicly-funded research to create knowledge that is truly
public.

Publication is an essential feature of science for two reasons. One is that science is a social process—a large-
scale collaboration among many researchers distributed across both time and space. Our current scientific
knowledge of most topics is based on many different studies conducted by many different researchers who
have shared their work publicly over many years. The second is that publication allows science to be self-
correcting. Individual scientists understand that, despite their best efforts, their methods can be flawed
and their conclusions incorrect. Publication allows others in the scientific community to detect and correct
these errors so that, over time, scientific knowledge increasingly reflects the way the world actually is.

A good example of the self-correcting nature of science is the “Many Labs Replication Project” – a large
and coordinated effort by prominent psychological scientists around the world to attempt to replicate
findings from 13 classic and contemporary studies (Klein et al., 2013)2. One of the findings selected by these
researchers for replication was the fascinating effect, first reported by Simone Schnall and her colleagues
at the University of Plymouth, that washing one’s hands leads people to view moral transgressions—ranging
from keeping money inside a found wallet to using a kitten for sexual arousal—as less wrong (Schnall,
Benton, & Harvey, 2008)3. If reliable, this effect might help explain why so many religious traditions associate
physical cleanliness with moral purity. However, despite using the same materials and nearly identical
procedures with a much larger sample, the “Many Labs” researchers were unable to replicate the original
finding (Johnson, Cheung, & Donnellan, 2013)4, suggesting that the original finding may have stemmed from
the relatively small sample size (which can lead to unreliable results) used in the original study. To be clear,
at this stage we are still unable to definitively conclude that the handwashing effect does not exist; however,

Understanding Science | 7

https://osf.io/wx7ck/

the effort that has gone into testing its reliability certainly demonstrates the collaborative and cautious
nature of scientific progress.

For more on the replication crisis in psychology see: http://nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-
crisis-in-psychology

Science Versus Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience refers to activities and beliefs that are claimed to be scientific by their proponents—and
may appear to be scientific at first glance—but are not. Consider the theory of biorhythms (not to be
confused with sleep cycles or circadian rhythms that do have a scientific basis). The idea is that people’s
physical, intellectual, and emotional abilities run in cycles that begin when they are born and continue until
they die. Allegedly, the physical cycle has a period of 23 days, the intellectual cycle a period of 33 days,
and the emotional cycle a period of 28 days. So, for example, if you had the option of when to schedule
an exam, you would want to schedule it for a time when your intellectual cycle will be at a high point. The
theory of biorhythms has been around for more than 100 years, and you can find numerous popular books
and websites about biorhythms, often containing impressive and scientific-sounding terms like sinusoidal
wave and bioelectricity. The problem with biorhythms, however, is that scientific evidence indicates they do
not exist (Hines, 1998)5.

A set of beliefs or activities can be said to be pseudoscientific if (a) its adherents claim or imply that it is
scientific but (b) it lacks one or more of the three features of science. For instance, it might lack systematic
empiricism. Either there is no relevant scientific research or, as in the case of biorhythms, there is relevant
scientific research but it is ignored. It might also lack public knowledge. People who promote the beliefs or
activities might claim to have conducted scientific research but never publish that research in a way that
allows others to evaluate it.

A set of beliefs and activities might also be pseudoscientific because it does not address empirical questions.
The philosopher Karl Popper was especially concerned with this idea (Popper, 2002)6. He argued more
specifically that any scientific claim must be expressed in such a way that there are observations that
would—if they were made—count as evidence against the claim. In other words, scientific claims must
be falsifiable. The claim that women talk more than men is falsifiable because systematic observations could
reveal either that they do talk more than men or that they do not. As an example of an unfalsifiable claim,
consider that many people who believe in extrasensory perception (ESP) and other psychic powers claim
that such powers can disappear when they are observed too closely. This makes it so that no possible
observation would count as evidence against ESP. If a careful test of a self-proclaimed psychic showed that
she predicted the future at better-than-chance levels, this would be consistent with the claim that she
had psychic powers. But if she failed to predict the future at better-than-chance levels, this would also be
consistent with the claim because her powers can supposedly disappear when they are observed too closely.

Why should we concern ourselves with pseudoscience? There are at least three reasons. One is that learning
about pseudoscience helps bring the fundamental features of science—and their importance—into sharper
focus. A second is that biorhythms, psychic powers, astrology, and many other pseudoscientific beliefs

8 | Understanding Science

http://nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology

are widely held and are promoted on the Internet, on television, and in books and magazines. Far from
being harmless, the promotion of these beliefs often results in great personal toll as, for example, believers
in pseudoscience opt for “treatments” such as homeopathy for serious medical conditions instead of
empirically-supported treatments. Learning what makes them pseudoscientific can help us to identify and
evaluate such beliefs and practices when we encounter them. A third reason is that many pseudosciences
purport to explain some aspect of human behavior and mental processes, including biorhythms, astrology,
graphology (handwriting analysis), and magnet therapy for pain control. It is important for students of
psychology to distinguish their own field clearly from this “pseudo psychology.”

The Skeptic’s Dictionary

An excellent source for information on pseudoscience is The Skeptic’s Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com).
Among the pseudoscientific beliefs and practices you can learn about are the following:

• Cryptozoology. The study of “hidden” creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and the chupacabra.
• Pseudoscientific psychotherapies. Past-life regression, rebirthing therapy, and bioscream therapy,

among others.
• Homeopathy. The treatment of medical conditions using natural substances that have been diluted

sometimes to the point of no longer being present.
• Pyramidology. Odd theories about the origin and function of the Egyptian pyramids (e.g., that they were

built by extraterrestrials) and the idea that pyramids, in general, have healing and other special powers.

Another excellent online resource is Neurobonkers (http://neurobonkers.com), which regularly posts articles
that investigate claims that pertain specifically to psychological science.

Notes

1. Stanovich, K. E. (2010). How to think straight about psychology (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, S., Bernstein, M. J., . . . Nosek, B. A. (2013). Investigating

variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142-152. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/
a000178

3. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral
judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219-1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x

4. Johnson, D. J., Cheung, F., & Donnellan, M. B. (2013). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? A direct replication
of Schnall, Benton, and Harvey (2008). Social Psychology, 45(3), 209-215. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000186

5. Hines, T. M. (1998). Comprehensive review of biorhythm theory. Psychological Reports, 83, 19–64.
6. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.

Understanding Science | 9

http://www.skepdic.com/

http://neurobonkers.com/

3. Goals of Science

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the three goals of science and give an example for each.
2. Distinguish between basic research and applied research.

The Broader Purposes of Scientific Research in Psychology

People have always been curious about the natural world, including themselves and their behavior (in fact,
this is probably why you are studying psychology in the first place). Science grew out of this natural curiosity
and has become the best way to achieve detailed and accurate knowledge. Keep in mind that most of the
phenomena and theories that fill psychology textbooks are the products of scientific research. In a typical
introductory psychology textbook, for example, one can learn about specific cortical areas for language and
perception, principles of classical and operant conditioning, biases in reasoning and judgment, and people’s
surprising tendency to obey those in positions of authority. And scientific research continues because what
we know right now only scratches the surface of what we can know.

The Three Goals of Science

The first and most basic goal of science is to describe. This goal is achieved by making careful observations.
As an example, perhaps I am interested in better understanding the medical conditions that medical
marijuana patients use marijuana to treat. In this case, I could try to access records at several large medical
marijuana licensing centers to see which conditions people are getting licensed to use medical marijuana. Or
I could survey a large sample of medical marijuana patients and ask them to report which medical conditions
they use marijuana to treat or manage. Indeed, research involving surveys of medical marijuana patients has
been conducted and has found that the primary symptom medical marijuana patients use marijuana to treat
is pain, followed by anxiety and depression (Sexton, Cuttler, Finnell, & Mischley, 2016).1.

The second goal of science is to predict. Once we have observed with some regularity that two behaviors
or events are systematically related to one another we can use that information to predict whether an
event or behavior will occur in a certain situation. Once I know that most medical marijuana patients use
marijuana to treat pain I can use that information to predict that an individual who uses medical marijuana
likely experiences pain. Of course, my predictions will not be 100% accurate but if the relationship between
medical marijuana use and pain is strong then my predictions will have greater than chance accuracy.

10 | Goals of Science

The third and ultimate goal of science is to explain. This goal involves determining the causes of behavior.
For example, researchers might try to understand the mechanisms through which marijuana reduces pain.
Does marijuana reduce inflammation which in turn reduces pain? Or does marijuana simply reduce the
distress associated with pain rather than reducing pain itself? As you can see these questions tap at the
underlying mechanisms and causal relationships.

Basic versus Applied Research

Scientific research is often classified as being either basic or applied. Basic research in psychology is
conducted primarily for the sake of achieving a more detailed and accurate understanding of human
behavior, without necessarily trying to address any particular practical problem. The research of Mehl and
his colleagues falls into this category. Applied research is conducted primarily to address some practical
problem. Research on the effects of cell phone use on driving, for example, was prompted by safety concerns
and has led to the enactment of laws to limit this practice. Although the distinction between basic and
applied research is convenient, it is not always clear-cut. For example, basic research on sex differences in
talkativeness could eventually have an effect on how marriage therapy is practiced, and applied research
on the effect of cell phone use on driving could produce new insights into basic processes of perception,
attention, and action.

Notes

1. Sexton, M., Cuttler, C., Finnell, J., & Mischley, L (2016). A cross-sectional survey of medical cannabis users: Patterns of
use and perceived efficacy. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1, 131-138. doi: 10.1089/can.2016.0007.

Goals of Science | 11

4. Science and Common Sense

Learning Objectives

1. Explain the limitations of common sense when it comes to achieving a detailed and accurate
understanding of human behavior.

2. Give several examples of common sense or folk psychology that are incorrect.
3. Define skepticism and its role in scientific psychology.

Can We Rely on Common Sense?

Some people wonder whether the scientific approach to psychology is necessary. Can we not reach the
same conclusions based on common sense or intuition? Certainly we all have intuitive beliefs about people’s
behavior, thoughts, and feelings—and these beliefs are collectively referred to as folk psychology. Although
much of our folk psychology is probably reasonably accurate, it is clear that much of it is not. For example,
most people believe that anger can be relieved by “letting it out”—perhaps by punching something or
screaming loudly. Scientific research, however, has shown that this approach tends to leave people feeling
more angry, not less (Bushman, 2002)1. Likewise, most people believe that no one would confess to a crime
that they had not committed unless perhaps that person was being physically tortured. But again, extensive
empirical research has shown that false confessions are surprisingly common and occur for a variety of
reasons (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004)2.

Some Great Myths

In 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues discuss several widely
held commonsense beliefs about human behavior that scientific research has shown to be incorrect (Lilienfeld,
Lynn, Ruscio, & Beyerstein, 2010)3. Here is a short list:

• “People use only 10% of their brain power.”
• “Most people experience a midlife crisis in their 40’s or 50’s.”
• “Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles.”
• “Low self-esteem is a major cause of psychological problems.”

12 | Science and Common Sense

• “Psychiatric admissions and crimes increase during full moons.”

How Could We Be So Wrong?

How can so many of our intuitive beliefs about human behavior be so wrong? Notice that this is an empirical
question, and it just so happens that psychologists have conducted scientific research on it and identified
many contributing factors (Gilovich, 1991)4. One is that forming detailed and accurate beliefs requires
powers of observation, memory, and analysis to an extent that we do not naturally possess. It would be
nearly impossible to count the number of words spoken by the women and men we happen to encounter,
estimate the number of words they spoke per day, average these numbers for both groups, and compare
them—all in our heads. This is why we tend to rely on mental shortcuts (what psychologists refer to as
heuristics) in forming and maintaining our beliefs. For example, if a belief is widely shared—especially if it
is endorsed by “experts”—and it makes intuitive sense, we tend to assume it is true. This is compounded
by the fact that we then tend to focus on cases that confirm our intuitive beliefs and not on cases that
dis-confirm them. This is called confirmation bias. For example, once we begin to believe that women are
more talkative than men, we tend to notice and remember talkative women and silent men but ignore or
forget silent women and talkative men. We also hold incorrect beliefs in part because it would be nice if
they were true. For example, many people believe that calorie-reducing diets are an effective long-term
treatment for obesity, yet a thorough review of the scientific evidence has shown that they are not (Mann et
al., 2007)5. People may continue to believe in the effectiveness of dieting in part because it gives them hope
for losing weight if they are obese or makes them feel good about their own “self-control” if they are not.

Scientists—especially psychologists—understand that they are just as susceptible as anyone else to intuitive
but incorrect beliefs. This is why they cultivate an attitude of skepticism. Being skeptical does not mean
being cynical or distrustful, nor does it mean questioning every belief or claim one comes across (which
would be impossible anyway). Instead, it means pausing to consider alternatives and to search for
evidence—especially systematically collected empirical evidence—when there is enough at stake to justify
doing so. For example, imagine that you read a magazine article that claims that giving children a weekly
allowance is a good way to help them develop financial responsibility. This is an interesting and potentially
important claim (especially if you have children of your own). Taking an attitude of skepticism, however,
would mean pausing to ask whether it might be instead that receiving an allowance merely teaches children
to spend money—perhaps even to be more materialistic. Taking an attitude of skepticism would also mean
asking what evidence supports the original claim. Is the author a scientific researcher? Is any scientific
evidence cited? If the issue was important enough, it might also mean turning to the research literature to
see if anyone else had studied it.

Because there is often not enough evidence to fully evaluate a belief or claim, scientists also cultivate a
tolerance for uncertainty. They accept that there are many things that they simply do not know. For
example, it turns out that there is no scientific evidence that receiving an allowance causes children to be

Science and Common Sense | 13

more financially responsible, nor is there any scientific evidence that it causes them to be materialistic.
Although this kind of uncertainty can be problematic from a practical perspective—for example, making
it difficult to decide what to do when our children ask for an allowance—it is exciting from a scientific
perspective. If we do not know the answer to an interesting and empirically testable question, science, and
perhaps even you as a researcher, may be able to provide the answer.

Notes

1. Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and
aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724–731.

2. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confession evidence: A review of the literature and issues.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.

3. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

4. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York, NY: Free Press.
5. Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A., Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007). Medicare’s search for effective

obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist, 62, 220–233.

14 | Science and Common Sense

5. Experimental and Clinical Psychologists

Learning Objectives

1. Define the clinical practice of psychology and distinguish it from experimental psychology.
2. Explain how science is relevant to clinical practice.
3. Define the concept of an empirically supported treatment and give some examples.

Who Conducts Scientific Research in Psychology?

Experimental Psychologists

Scientific research in psychology is generally conducted by people with doctoral degrees (usually
the doctor of philosophy [Ph.D.]) and master’s degrees in psychology and related fields, often supported by
research assistants with bachelor’s degrees or other relevant training. Some of them work for government
agencies (e.g., doing research on the impact of public policies), national associations (e.g., the American
Psychological Association), non-profit organizations (e.g., National Alliance on Mental Illness), or in the
private sector (e.g., in product marketing and development; organizational behavior). However, the majority
of them are college and university faculty, who often collaborate with their graduate and undergraduate
students. Although some researchers are trained and licensed as clinicians for mental health
work—especially those who conduct research in clinical psychology—the majority are not. Instead, they
have expertise in one or more of the many other subfields of psychology: behavioral neuroscience, cognitive
psychology, developmental psychology, personality psychology, social psychology, and so on. Doctoral-level
researchers might be employed to conduct research full-time or, like many college and university faculty
members, to conduct research in addition to teaching classes and serving their institution and community
in other ways.

Of course, people also conduct research in psychology because they enjoy the intellectual and technical
challenges involved and the satisfaction of contributing to scientific knowledge of human behavior. You
might find that you enjoy the process too. If so, your college or university might offer opportunities to
get involved in ongoing research as either a research assistant or a participant. Of course, you might find
that you do not enjoy the process of conducting scientific research in psychology. But at least you will
have a better understanding of where scientific knowledge in psychology comes from, an appreciation of
its strengths and limitations, and an awareness of how it can be applied to solve practical problems in
psychology and everyday life.

Experimental and Clinical Psychologists | 15

Scientific Psychology Blogs

A fun and easy way to follow current scientific research in psychology is to read any of the many excellent
blogs devoted to summarizing and commenting on new findings. Among them are the following:

Research Digest, http://digest.bps.org.uk/
Talk Psych, http://www.talkpsych.com/
Brain Blogger, http://brainblogger.com/
Mind Hacks, http://mindhacks.com/
PsyBlog, http://www.spring.org.uk

You can also browse to http://www.researchblogging.org, select psychology as your topic, and read entries
from a wide variety of blogs.

Clinical Psychologists

Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. But it is also the application of scientific
research to “help people, organizations, and communities function better” (American Psychological
Association, 2011)1. By far the most common and widely known application is the
clinical practice of psychology—the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders and related
problems. Let us use the term clinical practice broadly to refer to the activities of clinical and counseling
psychologists, school psychologists, marriage and family therapists, licensed clinical social workers, and
others who work with people individually or in small groups to identify and help address their psychological
problems. It is important to consider the relationship between scientific research and clinical practice
because many students are especially interested in clinical practice, perhaps even as a career.

The main point is that psychological disorders and other behavioral problems are part of the natural
world. This means that questions about their nature, causes, and consequences are empirically testable and
therefore subject to scientific study. As with other questions about human behavior, we cannot rely on our
intuition or common sense for detailed and accurate answers. Consider, for example, that dozens of popular
books and thousands of websites claim that adult children of alcoholics have a distinct personality profile,
including low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, and difficulties with intimacy. Although this sounds
plausible, scientific research has demonstrated that adult children of alcoholics are no more likely to have
these problems than anybody else (Lilienfeld et al., 2010)2. Similarly, questions about whether a particular
psychotherapy is effective are empirically testable questions that can be answered by scientific research. If a
new psychotherapy is an effective treatment for depression, then systematic observation should reveal that
depressed people who receive this psychotherapy improve more than a similar group of depressed people

16 | Experimental and Clinical Psychologists

http://digest.bps.org.uk/

http://www.talkpsych.com/

http://brainblogger.com/

http://mindhacks.com/

http://www.researchblogging.org/

who do not receive this psychotherapy (or who receive some alternative treatment). Treatments that have
been shown to work in this way are called empirically supported treatments.

Empirically Supported Treatments

An empirically supported treatment is one that has been studied scientifically and shown to result in greater
improvement than no treatment, a placebo, or some alternative treatment. These include many forms of
psychotherapy, which can be as effective as standard drug therapies. Among the forms of psychotherapy with
strong empirical support are the following:

• Acceptance and committment therapy (ACT). for depression, mixed anxiety disorders, psychosis, chronic
pain, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

• Behavioral couples therapy. For alcohol use disorders.
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). For many disorders including eating disorders, depression, anxiety

disorders, etc.
• Exposure therapy. For post-traumatic stress disorder and phobias.
• Exposure therapy with response prevention. For obsessive-compulsive disorder.
• Family-based treatment. For eating disorders.

For a more complete list, see the following website, which is maintained by Division 12 of the American
Psychological Association, the Society for Clinical Psychology: http://www.div12.org/psychological-treatments

Many in the clinical psychology community have argued that their field has not paid enough attention to
scientific research—for example, by failing to use empirically supported treatments—and have suggested
a variety of changes in the way clinicians are trained and treatments are evaluated and put into practice.
Others believe that these claims are exaggerated and the suggested changes are unnecessary (Norcross,
Beutler, & Levant, 2005)3. On both sides of the debate, however, there is agreement that a scientific
approach to clinical psychology is essential if the goal is to diagnose and treat psychological problems based
on detailed and accurate knowledge about those problems and the most effective treatments for them. So
not only is it important for scientific research in clinical psychology to continue, but it is also important for
clinicians who never conduct a scientific study themselves to be scientifically literate so that they can read
and evaluate new research and make treatment decisions based on the best available evidence.

Notes

1. American Psychological Association. (2011). About APA. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about

Experimental and Clinical Psychologists | 17

Research-Supported Psychological Treatments

2. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

3. Norcross, J. C., Beutler, L. E., & Levant, R. F. (Eds.). (2005). Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and
dialogue on the fundamental questions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

18 | Experimental and Clinical Psychologists

6. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Knowledge is acquired in many ways including intuition, authority, rationalism, empiricism, and the
scientific method

• Science is a general way of understanding the natural world. Its three fundamental features are
systematic empiricism, empirical questions, and public knowledge.

• Psychology is a science because it takes the scientific approach to understanding human behavior.
• Pseudoscience refers to beliefs and activities that are claimed to be scientific but lack one or more of the

three features of science. It is important to distinguish the scientific approach to understanding human
behavior from the many pseudoscientific approaches.

• Psychologists conduct research in order to describe basic phenomenon, to make predictions about
future behaviors, and to explain the causes of behavior.

• Basic research is conducted to learn about human behavior for its own sake, and applied research is
conducted to solve some practical problem. Both are valuable, and the distinction between the two is not
always clear-cut.

• People’s intuitions about human behavior, also known as folk psychology, often turn out to be wrong. This
is one primary reason that psychology relies on science rather than common sense.

• Researchers in psychology cultivate certain critical-thinking attitudes. One is skepticism. They search for
evidence and consider alternatives before accepting a claim about human behavior as true. Another is
tolerance for uncertainty. They withhold judgment about whether a claim is true or not when there is
insufficient evidence to decide.

• Scientific research in psychology is conducted mainly by people with doctoral degrees in psychology and
related fields, most of whom are college and university faculty members. They do so for professional and
for personal reasons, as well as to contribute to scientific knowledge about human behavior. Most
psychologists are experimental psychologists and they conduct research.

• The clinical practice of psychology—the diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems—is one
important application of the scientific discipline of psychology.

• Scientific research is relevant to clinical practice because it provides detailed and accurate knowledge
about psychological problems and establishes whether treatments are effective.

Exercises

• Practice: Consider three things you know and determine how you acquired that knowledge (authority,
intuition, rationalism, empiricism, the scientific method).

• Practice: Try to generate different research questions to describe, predict, and explain a phenomenon
that interests you.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 19

• Practice: Based on your own experience or on things you have already learned about psychology, list
three basic research questions and three applied research questions of interest to you.

• Practice: List three empirical questions about human behavior. List three nonempirical questions about
human behavior.

• Practice: For each of the following intuitive beliefs about human behavior, list three reasons that it might
be true and three reasons that it might not be true:

◦ You cannot truly love another person unless you love yourself.
◦ People who receive “crisis counseling” immediately after experiencing a traumatic event are better

able to cope with that trauma in the long term.
◦ Studying is most effective when it is always done in the same location.

• Watch the following video, in which psychologist Scott Lilienfeld talks about confirmation bias, tunnel
vision, and using evidence to evaluate the world around us:

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them

online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=250#oembed-2

◦ Reading in print? Go to https://youtu.be/gKVe0-pWjA0 or scan this QR code with your phone:

• Discussion: Consider the following psychological claim. “People’s choice of spouse is strongly influenced
by their perception of their own parents. Some choose a spouse who is similar in some way to one of
their parents. Others choose a spouse who is different from one of their parents.” Is this claim falsifiable?
Why or why not?

• Discussion: People sometimes suggest that psychology cannot be a science because either (a) human
behavior cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy or (b) much of its subject matter (e.g., thoughts and
feelings) cannot be observed directly. Do you agree or disagree with each of these ideas? Why?

• Watch the following video by PHD Comics for an overview of open access publishing and why it matters:

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view

them online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=250#oembed-1

◦ Reading in print? Go to https://youtu.be/L5rVH1KGBCY or scan this QR code with your phone:

20 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

• Discussion: Some clinicians argue that what they do is an “art form” based on intuition and personal
experience and therefore cannot be evaluated scientifically. Write a paragraph about how satisfied you
would be with such a clinician and why from each of three perspectives:

◦ a potential client of the clinician
◦ a judge who must decide whether to allow the clinician to testify as an expert witness in a child

abuse case
◦ an insurance company representative who must decide whether to reimburse the clinician for their

services

• Practice: Create a short list of questions that a client could ask a clinician to determine whether they pay
sufficient attention to scientific research.

Video Attributions

• ESC 2017 – Scott Lilienfeld: “Tunnel Vision: Confirmation Bias” © ESC European Skeptics Congress is
licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

• “Open Access Explained!” by Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD Comics). CC BY (Attribution)

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 21

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMN67ywo4O9T_5nXxyT2Ag

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUL-pmhmDcZDwsA4cX2HO5w

https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

CHAPTER II

OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Here is the abstract of a 2014 article in the journal Psychological Science.

Taking notes on laptops rather than in longhand is increasingly common. Many researchers have
suggested that laptop note taking is less effective than longhand note taking for learning. Prior
studies have primarily focused on students’ capacity for multitasking and distraction when using
laptops. The present research suggests that even when laptops are used solely to take notes, they
may still be impairing learning because their use results in shallower processing. In three studies,
we found that students who took notes on laptops performed worse on conceptual questions than
students who took notes longhand. We show that whereas taking more notes can be beneficial,
laptop note takers’ tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and
reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning. (Mueler & Oppenheimer, 2014, p. 1159)1

In this abstract, the researcher has identified a research question—about the effect of taking notes on a
laptop on learning—and identified why it is worthy of investigation—because the practice is ubiquitous
and may be harmful to learning. In this chapter, we give you a broad overview of the various stages of
the research process. These include finding a topic of investigation, reviewing the literature, refining your
research question and generating a hypothesis, designing and conducting a study, analyzing the data,
coming to conclusions, and reporting the results.

Notes

1. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over
laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.

Overview of the Scientific Method | 23

7. A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology

Learning Objectives

1. Review a general model of scientific research in psychology.

Figure 2.1 presents a simple model of scientific research in psychology. The researchers formulate a research
question, conduct an empirical study designed to answer the question, analyze the resulting data, draw
conclusions about the answer to the question, and publishes the results so that they become part of the
research literature (i.e., all the published research in that field). Because the research literature is one of the
primary sources of new research questions, this process can be thought of as a cycle. New research leads to
new questions, which lead to new research, and so on. Figure 2.1 also indicates that research questions can
originate outside of this cycle either with informal observations or with practical problems that need to be
solved. But even in these cases, the researcher would start by checking the research literature to see if the
question had already been answered and to refine it based on what previous research had already found.

Figure 2.1 A Simple Model of Scientific Research in Psychology

A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology | 25

Reading in print? Scan this QR code
to view the video on your mobile
device. Or go to youtu.be/
XToWVxS_9lA

The research by Mehl and his colleagues is described nicely by this model. Their research question—whether
women are more talkative than men—was suggested to them both by people’s stereotypes and by claims
published in the research literature about the relative talkativeness of women and men. When they checked
the research literature, however, they found that this question had not been adequately addressed in
scientific studies. They then conducted a careful empirical study, analyzed the results (finding very little
difference between women and men), formed their conclusions, and published their work so that it became
part of the research literature. The publication of their article is not the end of the story, however,
because their work suggests many new questions (about the reliability of the result, about potential cultural
differences, etc.) that will likely be taken up by them and by other researchers inspired by their work.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here:

A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology

As another example, consider that as cell phones became more
widespread during the 1990s, people began to wonder whether, and to
what extent, cell phone use had a negative effect on driving. Many
psychologists decided to tackle this question scientifically (e.g., Collet,
Guillot, & Petit, 2010)1. It was clear from previously published research
that engaging in a simple verbal task impairs performance on a
perceptual or motor task carried out at the same time, but no one had
studied the effect specifically of cell phone use on driving. Under
carefully controlled conditions, these researchers compared people’s
driving performance while using a cell phone with their performance
while not using a cell phone, both in the lab and on the road. They found
that people’s ability to detect road hazards, reaction time, and maintain
control of the vehicle were all impaired by cell phone use. Each new study
was published and became part of the growing research literature on this
topic. For instance, other research teams subsequently demonstrated that cell phone conversations carry a
greater risk than conversations with a passenger who is aware of driving conditions, which often become a
point of conversation (e.g., Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2004)2.

Video Attributions

• “Understanding driver distraction” by American Psychological Association. Standard YouTube Licence.

26 | A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yk0FVuAQctI6yjRlqc1Eg

Notes

1. Collet, C., Guillot, A., & Petit, C. (2010). Phoning while driving I: A review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioral
and physiological studies. Ergonomics, 53, 589–601.

2. Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2004). Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48, 2210–2212.

A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology | 27

8. Finding a Research Topic

Learning Objectives

1. Learn some common sources of research ideas.
2. Define the research literature in psychology and give examples of sources that are part of the research

literature and sources that are not.
3. Describe and use several methods for finding previous research on a particular research idea or question.

Good research must begin with a good research question. Yet coming up with good research questions is
something that novice researchers often find difficult and stressful. One reason is that this is a creative
process that can appear mysterious—even magical—with experienced researchers seeming to pull
interesting research questions out of thin air. However, psychological research on creativity has shown
that it is neither as mysterious nor as magical as it appears. It is largely the product of ordinary thinking
strategies and persistence (Weisberg, 1993)1. This section covers some fairly simple strategies for finding
general research ideas, turning those ideas into empirically testable research questions, and finally
evaluating those questions in terms of how interesting they are and how feasible they would be to answer.

Finding Inspiration

Research questions often begin as more general research ideas—usually focusing on some behavior or
psychological characteristic: talkativeness, learning, depression, bungee jumping, and so on. Before looking
at how to turn such ideas into empirically testable research questions, it is worth looking at where such
ideas come from in the first place. Three of the most common sources of inspiration are informal
observations, practical problems, and previous research.

Informal observations include direct observations of our own and others’ behavior as well as secondhand
observations from non-scientific sources such as newspapers, books, blogs, and so on. For example, you
might notice that you always seem to be in the slowest moving line at the grocery store. Could it be
that most people think the same thing? Or you might read in a local newspaper about people donating
money and food to a local family whose house has burned down and begin to wonder about who makes
such donations and why. Some of the most famous research in psychology has been inspired by informal
observations. Stanley Milgram’s famous research on obedience to authority, for example, was inspired in
part by journalistic reports of the trials of accused Nazi war criminals—many of whom claimed that they

28 | Finding a Research Topic

were only obeying orders. This led him to wonder about the extent to which ordinary people will commit
immoral acts simply because they are ordered to do so by an authority figure (Milgram, 1963)2.

Practical problems can also inspire research ideas, leading directly to applied research in such domains as
law, health, education, and sports. Does taking lecture notes by hand improve students’ exam performance?
How effective is psychotherapy for depression compared to drug therapy? To what extent do cell phones
impair people’s driving ability? How can we teach children to read more efficiently? What is the best mental
preparation for running a marathon?

Probably the most common inspiration for new research ideas, however, is previous research. Recall that
science is a kind of large-scale collaboration in which many different researchers read and evaluate each
other’s work and conduct new studies to build on it. Of course, experienced researchers are familiar with
previous research in their area of expertise and probably have a long list of ideas. This suggests that
novice researchers can find inspiration by consulting with a more experienced researcher (e.g., students can
consult a faculty member). But they can also find inspiration by picking up a copy of almost any professional
journal and reading the titles and abstracts. In one typical issue of Psychological Science, for example, you
can find articles on the perception of shapes, anti-Semitism, police lineups, the meaning of death, second-
language learning, people who seek negative emotional experiences, and many other topics. If you can
narrow your interests down to a particular topic (e.g., memory) or domain (e.g., health care), you can also
look through more specific journals, such as Memory & Cognition or Health Psychology.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here:

Finding a Research Topic

Finding a Research Topic | 29

Reading in print? Scan this QR code
to view the video on your mobile
device. Or go to https://youtu.be/
nXNztCLYgxc

Reviewing the Research Literature

Once again, one of the most common sources of inspiration is previous
research. Therefore, it is important to review the literature early in the
research process. The research literature in any field is all the published
research in that field. Reviewing the research literature means finding,
reading, and summarizing the published research relevant to your topic
of interest. In addition to helping you discover new research questions,
reviewing the literature early in the research process can help you in
several other ways.

• It can tell you if a research question has already been answered.
• It can help you evaluate the interestingness of a research question.
• It can give you ideas for how to conduct your own study.
• It can tell you how your study fits into the research literature.

The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating
to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the
research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and
encyclopedia entries, websites, and similar sources that are intended mainly for the general public. These
are considered unreliable because they are not reviewed by other researchers and are often based on
little more than common sense or personal experience. Wikipedia contains much valuable information, but
because its authors are anonymous and may not have any formal training or expertise in that subject area,
and its content continually changes it is unsuitable as a basis of sound scientific research. For our purposes,
it helps to define the research literature as consisting almost entirely of two types of sources: articles in
professional journals, and scholarly books in psychology and related fields.

Professional Journals

Professional journals are periodicals that publish original research articles. There are thousands of
professional journals that publish research in psychology and related fields. They are usually published
monthly or quarterly in individual issues, each of which contains several articles. The issues are organized
into volumes, which usually consist of all the issues for a calendar year. Some journals are published in hard
copy only, others in both hard copy and electronic form, and still others in electronic form only.

Most articles in professional journals are one of two basic types: empirical research reports and review
articles. Empirical research reports describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.
They introduce a research question, explain why it is interesting, review previous research, describe their
method and results, and draw their conclusions. Review articles summarize previously published research
on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results. When a review article is devoted

30 | Finding a Research Topic

primarily to presenting a new theory, it is often referred to as a theoretical article. When a review article
provides a statistical summary of all of the previous results it is referred to as a meta-analysis.

Figure 2.2 Small Sample of the Thousands of Professional Journals That
Publish Research in Psychology and Related Fields

Most professional journals in psychology undergo a process of double-blind peer review. Researchers
who want to publish their work in the journal submit a manuscript to the editor—who is generally an
established researcher too—who in turn sends it to two or three experts on the topic. Each reviewer reads
the manuscript, writes a critical but constructive review, and sends the review back to the editor along
with recommendations about whether the manuscript should be published or not. The editor then decides
whether to accept the article for publication, ask the authors to make changes and resubmit it for further
consideration, or reject it outright. In any case, the editor forwards the reviewers’ written comments to
the researchers so that they can revise their manuscript accordingly. This entire process is double-blind,
as the reviewers do not know the identity of the researcher(s) and vice versa. Double-blind peer review is
helpful because it ensures that the work meets basic standards of the field before it can enter the research
literature. However, in order to increase transparency and accountability, some newer open access journals

Finding a Research Topic | 31

(e.g., Frontiers in Psychology) utilize an open peer review process wherein the identities of the reviewers
(which remain concealed during the peer review process) are published alongside the journal article.

Scholarly Books

Scholarly books are books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and
practitioners. A monograph is written by a single author or a small group of authors and usually, gives a
coherent presentation of a topic much like an extended review article. Edited volumes have an editor or a
small group of editors who recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same
topic. Although edited volumes can also give a coherent presentation of the topic, it is not unusual for each
chapter to take a different perspective or even for the authors of different chapters to openly disagree with
each other. In general, scholarly books undergo a peer review process similar to that used by professional
journals.

Literature Search Strategies

Using PsycINFO and Other Databases

The primary method used to search the research literature involves using one or more electronic databases.
These include Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ProQuest for all academic disciplines, ERIC for
education, and PubMed for medicine and related fields. The most important for our purposes, however,
is PsycINFO, which is produced by the American Psychological Association (APA). PsycINFO is so
comprehensive—covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100
years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology. Like
most such databases, PsycINFO is usually available through your university library.

PsycINFO consists of individual records for each article, book chapter, or book in the database. Each record
includes basic publication information, an abstract or summary of the work (like the one presented at the
start of this chapter), and a list of other works cited by that work. A computer interface allows entering
one or more search terms and returns any records that contain those search terms. (These interfaces are
provided by different vendors and therefore can look somewhat different depending on the library you
use.) Each record also contains lists of keywords that describe the content of the work and also a list of
index terms. The index terms are especially helpful because they are standardized. Research on differences
between females and males, for example, is always indexed under “Human Sex Differences.” Research on
note-taking is always indexed under the term “Learning Strategies.” If you do not know the appropriate
index terms, PsycINFO includes a thesaurus that can help you find them.

Given that there are nearly four million records in PsycINFO, you may have to try a variety of search terms
in different combinations and at different levels of specificity before you find what you are looking for.

32 | Finding a Research Topic

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology

QR code that links to
PsycINFO video

Reading in print? Scan this
QR code to view the video
on your mobile device. Or
go to https://youtu.be/
fhhctbaVXvk

Imagine, for example, that you are interested in the question of whether males and females differ in terms
of their ability to recall experiences from when they were very young. If you were to enter the search term
“memory,” it would return far too many records to look through individually. This is where the thesaurus
helps. Entering “memory” into the thesaurus provides several more specific index terms—one of which is
“early memories.” While searching for “early memories” among the index terms still returns too many to
look through individually—combining it with “human sex differences” as a second search term returns fewer
articles, many of which are highly relevant to the topic.

Depending on the vendor that provides the interface to PsycINFO, you may be able to save, print, or e-
mail the relevant PsycINFO records. The records might even contain links to full-text copies of the works
themselves. (PsycARTICLES is a database that provides full-text access to articles in all journals published by
the APA.) If not, and you want a copy of the work, you will have to find out if your library carries the journal
or has the book and the hard copy on the library shelves. Be sure to ask a librarian if you need help.

https://youtu.be/fhhctbaVXvk

Using Other Search Techniques

In addition to entering search terms into PsycINFO and other databases, there are several other techniques
you can use to search the research literature. First, if you have one good article or book chapter on your
topic—a recent review article is best—you can look through the reference list of that article for other
relevant articles, books, and book chapters. In fact, you should do this with any relevant article or book
chapter you find. You can also start with a classic article or book chapter on your topic, find its record in
PsycINFO (by entering the author’s name or article’s title as a search term), and link from there to a list
of other works in PsycINFO that cite that classic article. This works because other researchers working
on your topic are likely to be aware of the classic article and cite it in their own work. You can also do a
general Internet search using search terms related to your topic or the name of a researcher who conducts
research on your topic. This might lead you directly to works that are part of the research literature (e.g.,
articles in open-access journals or posted on researchers’ own websites). The search engine Google Scholar
is especially useful for this purpose. A general Internet search might also lead you to websites that are not
part of the research literature but might provide references to works that are. Finally, you can talk to people
(e.g., your instructor or other faculty members in psychology) who know something about your topic and
can suggest relevant articles and book chapters.

Finding a Research Topic | 33

https://youtu.be/fhhctbaVXvk

Reading in print? Scan this QR code
to view the video on your mobile
device. Or go to https://youtu.be/
t1ZwgDeX2eQ

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here:

Finding a Research Topic

What to Search For

When you do a literature review, you need to be selective. Not every
article, book chapter, and book that relates to your research idea or
question will be worth obtaining, reading, and integrating into your
review. Instead, you want to focus on sources that help you do four basic
things: (a) refine your research question, (b) identify appropriate research
methods, (c) place your research in the context of previous research, and
(d) write an effective research report. Several basic principles can help
you find the most useful sources.

First, it is best to focus on recent research, keeping in mind that what
counts as recent depends on the topic. For newer topics that are actively
being studied, “recent” might mean published in the past year or two. For
older topics that are receiving less attention right now, “recent” might
mean within the past 10 years. You will get a feel for what counts as recent
for your topic when you start your literature search. A good general rule, however, is to start with sources
published in the past five years. The main exception to this rule would be classic articles that turn up in the
reference list of nearly every other source. If other researchers think that this work is important, even
though it is old, then, by all means, you should include it in your review.

Second, you should look for review articles on your topic because they will provide a useful overview of
it—often discussing important definitions, results, theories, trends, and controversies—giving you a good
sense of where your own research fits into the literature. You should also look for empirical research
reports addressing your question or similar questions, which can give you ideas about how to measure
your variables and collect your data. As a general rule, it is good to use methods that others have already
used successfully unless you have good reasons not to. Finally, you should look for sources that provide
information that can help you argue for the interestingness of your research question. For a study on
the effects of cell phone use on driving ability, for example, you might look for information about how
widespread cell phone use is, how frequent and costly motor vehicle crashes are, and so on.

How many sources are enough for your literature review? This is a difficult question because it depends
on how extensively your topic has been studied and also on your own goals. One study found that across a
variety of professional journals in psychology, the average number of sources cited per article was about 50
(Adair & Vohra, 2003)3. This gives a rough idea of what professional researchers consider to be adequate. As
a student, you might be assigned a much lower minimum number of references to include, but the principles
for selecting the most useful ones remain the same.

34 | Finding a Research Topic

Video Attributions

• “How to Develop a Good Research Topic” by KStateLibraries. CC BY (Attribution)
• “Sample PsycINFO Search on EBSCOhost” by APA Publishing Training. Standard YouTube Licence.
• “Using Google Scholar (CLIP)” by clipinfolit. CC BY (Attribution)

Notes

1. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: Freeman.
2. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
3. Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to

a crisis. American Psychologist, 58, 15–23.

Finding a Research Topic | 35

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1DHiXZGsfiRuqhMFV6uQ9g

https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhhctbaVXvk&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9b0Wnst3ouuQC3pIVi-dGg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK0v3jccXtJ-vmdIiz4fKQw

https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

9. Generating Good Research Questions

Learning Objectives

1. Describe some techniques for turning research ideas into empirical research questions and use those
techniques to generate questions.

2. Explain what makes a research question interesting and evaluate research questions in terms of their
interestingness.

Generating Empirically Testable Research Questions

Once you have a research idea, you need to use it to generate one or more empirically testable research
questions, that is, questions expressed in terms of a single variable or relationship between variables. One
way to do this is to look closely at the discussion section in a recent research article on the topic. This is
the last major section of the article, in which the researchers summarize their results, interpret them in the
context of past research, and suggest directions for future research. These suggestions often take the form
of specific research questions, which you can then try to answer with additional research. This can be a
good strategy because it is likely that the suggested questions have already been identified as interesting
and important by experienced researchers.

But you may also want to generate your own research questions. How can you do this? First, if you
have a particular behavior or psychological characteristic in mind, you can simply conceptualize it as a
variable and ask how frequent or intense it is. How many words on average do people speak per day? How
accurate are our memories of traumatic events? What percentage of people have sought professional help
for depression? If the question has never been studied scientifically—which is something that you will learn
when you conduct your literature review—then it might be interesting and worth pursuing.

If scientific research has already answered the question of how frequent or intense the behavior or
characteristic is, then you should consider turning it into a question about a relationship between that
behavior or characteristic and some other variable. One way to do this is to ask yourself the following series
of more general questions and write down all the answers you can think of.

• What are some possible causes of the behavior or characteristic?
• What are some possible effects of the behavior or characteristic?
• What types of people might exhibit more or less of the behavior or characteristic?
• What types of situations might elicit more or less of the behavior or characteristic?

36 | Generating Good Research Questions

In general, each answer you write down can be conceptualized as a second variable, suggesting a question
about a relationship. If you were interested in talkativeness, for example, it might occur to you that a
possible cause of this psychological characteristic is family size. Is there a relationship between family size
and talkativeness? Or it might occur to you that people seem to be more talkative in same-sex groups than
mixed-sex groups. Is there a difference in the average level of talkativeness of people in same-sex groups
and people in mixed-sex groups? This approach should allow you to generate many different empirically
testable questions about almost any behavior or psychological characteristic.

If through this process you generate a question that has never been studied scientifically—which again is
something that you will learn in your literature review—then it might be interesting and worth pursuing. But
what if you find that it has been studied scientifically? Although novice researchers often want to give up
and move on to a new question at this point, this is not necessarily a good strategy. For one thing, the fact
that the question has been studied scientifically and the research published suggests that it is of interest
to the scientific community. For another, the question can almost certainly be refined so that its answer
will still contribute something new to the research literature. Again, asking yourself a series of more general
questions about the relationship is a good strategy.

• Are there other ways to define and measure the variables?
• Are there types of people for whom the relationship might be stronger or weaker?
• Are there situations in which the relationship might be stronger or weaker—including situations with

practical importance?

For example, research has shown that women and men speak about the same number of words per
day—but this was when talkativeness was measured in terms of the number of words spoken per day among
university students in the United States and Mexico. We can still ask whether other ways of measuring
talkativeness—perhaps the number of different people spoken to each day—produce the same result. Or we
can ask whether studying elderly people or people from other cultures produces the same result. Again, this
approach should help you generate many different research questions about almost any relationship.

Evaluating Research Questions

Researchers usually generate many more research questions than they ever attempt to answer. This means
they must have some way of evaluating the research questions they generate so that they can choose
which ones to pursue. In this section, we consider two criteria for evaluating research questions: the
interestingness of the question and the feasibility of answering it.

Interestingness

How often do people tie their shoes? Do people feel pain when you punch them in the jaw? Are women
more likely to wear makeup than men? Do people prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Although it would

Generating Good Research Questions | 37

be a fairly simple matter to design a study and collect data to answer these questions, you probably would
not want to because they are not interesting. We are not talking here about whether a research question
is interesting to us personally but whether it is interesting to people more generally and, especially, to the
scientific community. But what makes a research question interesting in this sense? Here we look at three
factors that affect the interestingness of a research question: the answer is in doubt, the answer fills a gap
in the research literature, and the answer has important practical implications.

First, a research question is interesting to the extent that its answer is in doubt. Obviously, questions that
have been answered by scientific research are no longer interesting as the subject of new empirical research.
But the fact that a question has not been answered by scientific research does not necessarily make it
interesting. There has to be some reasonable chance that the answer to the question will be something that
we did not already know. But how can you assess this before actually collecting data? One approach is to try
to think of reasons to expect different answers to the question—especially ones that seem to conflict with
common sense. If you can think of reasons to expect at least two different answers, then the question might
be interesting. If you can think of reasons to expect only one answer, then it probably is not. The question
of whether women are more talkative than men is interesting because there are reasons to expect both
answers. The existence of the stereotype itself suggests the answer could be yes, but the fact that women’s
and men’s verbal abilities are fairly similar suggests the answer could be no. The question of whether people
feel pain when you punch them in the jaw is not interesting because there is absolutely no reason to think
that the answer could be anything other than a resounding yes.

A second important factor to consider when deciding if a research question is interesting is whether
answering it will fill a gap in the research literature. Again, this means in part that the question has not
already been answered by scientific research. But it also means that the question is in some sense a natural
one for people who are familiar with the research literature. For example, the question of whether taking
lecture notes by hand can help improve students’ exam performance would be likely to occur to anyone who
was familiar with research on note taking and the ineffectiveness of shallow processing on learning.

A final factor to consider when deciding whether a research question is interesting is whether its answer has
important practical implications. Again, the question of whether taking notes by hand improves learning has
important implications for education, including classroom policies concerning technology use. The question
of whether cell phone use impairs driving is interesting because it is relevant to the personal safety of
everyone who travels by car and to the debate over whether cell phone use should be restricted by law.

Feasibility

A second important criterion for evaluating research questions is the feasibility of successfully answering
them. There are many factors that affect feasibility, including time, money, equipment and materials,
technical knowledge and skill, and access to research participants. Clearly, researchers need to take these
factors into account so that they do not waste time and effort pursuing research that they cannot complete
successfully.

Looking through a sample of professional journals in psychology will reveal many studies that are

38 | Generating Good Research Questions

complicated and difficult to carry out. These include longitudinal designs in which participants are tracked
over many years, neuroimaging studies in which participants’ brain activity is measured while they carry
out various mental tasks, and complex non-experimental studies involving several variables and complicated
statistical analyses. Keep in mind, though, that such research tends to be carried out by teams of highly
trained researchers whose work is often supported in part by government and private grants. Also, keep
in mind that research does not have to be complicated or difficult to produce interesting and important
results. Looking through a sample of professional journals will also reveal studies that are relatively simple
and easy to carry out—perhaps involving a convenience sample of university students and a paper-and-
pencil task.

A final point here is that it is generally good practice to use methods that have already been used
successfully by other researchers. For example, if you want to manipulate people’s moods to make some of
them happy, it would be a good idea to use one of the many approaches that have been used successfully
by other researchers (e.g., paying them a compliment). This is good not only for the sake of feasibility—the
approach is “tried and true”—but also because it provides greater continuity with previous research. This
makes it easier to compare your results with those of other researchers and to understand the implications
of their research for yours, and vice versa.

Generating Good Research Questions | 39

10. Developing a Hypothesis

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
2. Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to

further inform theories.
3. Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a
hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although
theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena
they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not
been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition
(1965)1. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of
physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly
practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively
unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this
theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and
social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and
“dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more
than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an
explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested,
well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The
theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity
of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the
evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions
as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin
of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that
infect the body.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed
if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are

40 | Developing a Hypothesis

often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering
existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest.
Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on
a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a
theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if
our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations
before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relationship. “If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches
should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches
are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as
questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?”
Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question
using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that
question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves
health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting
one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes
people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if
the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective
because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive
hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly
observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that
people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example,
Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about
themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991)2. Both theories held that such judgments
are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base
their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their
judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked
people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which
is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-
of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more
assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants
who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was
easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be
confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be
more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the
number-of-examples theory.

Developing a Hypothesis | 41

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-
deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by
scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain
or interpret them or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new
phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis.
The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory
in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because
the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to
test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure 2.3 shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific
research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically
motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

Figure 2.3 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of
Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically
motivated research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a
somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive
theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal,
which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social
facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that
organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if

42 | Developing a Hypothesis

his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple
laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test
this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, &
Herman, 1969)3. The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or
through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light
was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear
plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more
quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal
more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and
provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc &
Sales, 1966]4 in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways
that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by
conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the
results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing
theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis
from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This
format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the
resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and
possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of
human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you
break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable
and falsifiable. We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall
Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis
if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more
than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical
reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a
more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to
inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research
findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the
hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than

Developing a Hypothesis | 43

a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that
relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to
suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does
not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem
backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the
scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Notes

1. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274
2. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as

information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.
3. Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the

cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 83–92.
4. Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 2, 160-168.

44 | Developing a Hypothesis

11. Designing a Research Study

Learning Objectives

1. Define the concept of a variable, distinguish quantitative from categorical variables, and give examples of
variables that might be of interest to psychologists.

2. Explain the difference between a population and a sample.
3. Distinguish between experimental and non-experimental research.
4. Distinguish between lab studies, field studies, and field experiments.

Identifying and Defining the Variables and Population

Variables and Operational Definitions

Part of generating a hypothesis involves identifying the variables that you want to study and operationally
defining those variables so that they can be measured. Research questions in psychology are about variables.
A variable is a quantity or quality that varies across people or situations. For example, the height of the
students enrolled in a university course is a variable because it varies from student to student. The chosen
major of the students is also a variable as long as not everyone in the class has declared the same major.
Almost everything in our world varies and as such thinking of examples of constants (things that don’t vary)
is far more difficult. A rare example of a constant is the speed of light. Variables can be either quantitative
or categorical. A quantitative variable is a quantity, such as height, that is typically measured by assigning a
number to each individual. Other examples of quantitative variables include people’s level of talkativeness,
how depressed they are, and the number of siblings they have. A categorical variable is a quality, such as
chosen major, and is typically measured by assigning a category label to each individual (e.g., Psychology,
English, Nursing, etc.). Other examples include people’s nationality, their occupation, and whether they are
receiving psychotherapy.

After the researcher generates their hypothesis and selects the variables they want to manipulate and
measure, the researcher needs to find ways to actually measure the variables of interest. This requires
an operational definition—a definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. Most
variables that researchers are interested in studying cannot be directly observed or measured and this
poses a problem because empiricism (observation) is at the heart of the scientific method. Operationally
defining a variable involves taking an abstract construct like depression that cannot be directly observed
and transforming it into something that can be directly observed and measured. Most variables can be

Designing a Research Study | 45

operationally defined in many different ways. For example, depression can be operationally defined as
people’s scores on a paper-and-pencil depression scale such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the number
of depressive symptoms they are experiencing, or whether they have been diagnosed with major depressive
disorder. Researchers are wise to choose an operational definition that has been used extensively in the
research literature.

Sampling and Measurement

In addition to identifying which variables to manipulate and measure, and operationally defining those
variables, researchers need to identify the population of interest. Researchers in psychology are usually
interested in drawing conclusions about some very large group of people. This is called the population.
It could be all American teenagers, children with autism, professional athletes, or even just human
beings—depending on the interests and goals of the researcher. But they usually study only a small subset
or sample of the population. For example, a researcher might measure the talkativeness of a few hundred
university students with the intention of drawing conclusions about the talkativeness of men and women in
general. It is important, therefore, for researchers to use a representative sample—one that is similar to the
population in important respects.

One method of obtaining a sample is simple random sampling, in which every member of the population
has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. For example, a pollster could start with a list of all the
registered voters in a city (the population), randomly select 100 of them from the list (the sample), and ask
those 100 whom they intend to vote for. Unfortunately, random sampling is difficult or impossible in most
psychological research because the populations are less clearly defined than the registered voters in a city.
How could a researcher give all American teenagers or all children with autism an equal chance of being
selected for a sample? The most common alternative to random sampling is convenience sampling, in which
the sample consists of individuals who happen to be nearby and willing to participate (such as introductory
psychology students). Of course, the obvious problem with convenience sampling is that the sample might
not be representative of the population and therefore it may be less appropriate to generalize the results
from the sample to that population.

Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Research

The next step a researcher must take is to decide which type of approach they will use to collect the data.
As you will learn in your research methods course there are many different approaches to research that can
be divided in many different ways. One of the most fundamental distinctions is between experimental and
non-experimental research.

46 | Designing a Research Study

Experimental Research

Researchers who want to test hypotheses about causal relationships between variables (i.e., their goal is
to explain) need to use an experimental method. This is because the experimental method is the only
method that allows us to determine causal relationships. Using the experimental approach, researchers first
manipulate one or more variables while attempting to control extraneous variables, and then they measure
how the manipulated variables affect participants’ responses.

The terms independent variable and dependent variable are used in the context of experimental research.
The independent variable is the variable the experimenter manipulates (it is the presumed cause) and the
dependent variable is the variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).

Extraneous variables are any variable other than the dependent variable. Confounds are a specific type of
extraneous variable that systematically varies along with the variables under investigation and therefore
provides an alternative explanation for the results. When researchers design an experiment they need
to ensure that they control for confounds; they need to ensure that extraneous variables don’t become
confounding variables because in order to make a causal conclusion they need to make sure alternative
explanations for the results have been ruled out.

As an example, if we manipulate the lighting in the room and examine the effects of that manipulation on
workers’ productivity, then the lighting conditions (bright lights vs. dim lights) would be considered the
independent variable and the workers’ productivity would be considered the dependent variable. If the
bright lights are noisy then that noise would be a confound since the noise would be present whenever the
lights are bright and the noise would be absent when the lights are dim. If noise is varying systematically
with light then we wouldn’t know if a difference in worker productivity across the two lighting conditions
is due to noise or light. So confounds are bad, they disrupt our ability to make causal conclusions about the
nature of the relationship between variables. However, if there is noise in the room both when the lights are
on and when the lights are off then noise is merely an extraneous variable (it is a variable other than the
independent or dependent variable) and we don’t worry much about extraneous variables. This is because
unless a variable varies systematically with the manipulated independent variable it cannot be a competing
explanation for the results.

Non-Experimental Research

Researchers who are simply interested in describing characteristics of people, describing relationships
between variables, and using those relationships to make predictions can use non-experimental research.
Using the non-experimental approach, the researcher simply measures variables as they naturally occur, but
they do not manipulate them. For instance, if I just measured the number of traffic fatalities in America last
year that involved the use of a cell phone but I did not actually manipulate cell phone use then this would
be categorized as non-experimental research. Alternatively, if I stood at a busy intersection and recorded
drivers’ genders and whether or not they were using a cell phone when they passed through the intersection
to see whether men or women are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, then this would be non-

Designing a Research Study | 47

experimental research. It is important to point out that non-experimental does not mean nonscientific.
Non-experimental research is scientific in nature. It can be used to fulfill two of the three goals of science (to
describe and to predict). However, unlike with experimental research, we cannot make causal conclusions
using this method; we cannot say that one variable causes another variable using this method.

Laboratory vs. Field Research

The next major distinction between research methods is between laboratory and field studies. A laboratory
study is a study that is conducted in the laboratory environment. In contrast, a field study is a study that is
conducted in the real-world, in a natural environment.

Laboratory experiments typically have high internal validity. Internal validity refers to the degree to which
we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables. When we conduct an experimental study
in a laboratory environment we have very high internal validity because we manipulate one variable while
controlling all other outside extraneous variables. When we manipulate an independent variable and
observe an effect on a dependent variable and we control for everything else so that the only difference
between our experimental groups or conditions is the one manipulated variable then we can be quite
confident that it is the independent variable that is causing the change in the dependent variable. In
contrast, because field studies are conducted in the real-world, the experimenter typically has less control
over the environment and potential extraneous variables, and this decreases internal validity, making it less
appropriate to arrive at causal conclusions.

But there is typically a trade-off between internal and external validity. External validity simply refers
to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real-
world environment. When internal validity is high, external validity tends to be low; and when internal
validity is low, external validity tends to be high. So laboratory studies are typically low in external validity,
while field studies are typically high in external validity. Since field studies are conducted in the real-world
environment it is far more appropriate to generalize the findings to that real-world environment than when
the research is conducted in the more artificial sterile laboratory.

Finally, there are field studies which are non-experimental in nature because nothing is manipulated. But
there are also field experiments where an independent variable is manipulated in a natural setting and
extraneous variables are controlled. Depending on their overall quality and the level of control of extraneous
variables, such field experiments can have high external and high internal validity.

48 | Designing a Research Study

12. Analyzing the Data

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between descriptive and inferential statistics
2. Identify the different kinds of descriptive statistics researchers use to summarize their data
3. Describe the purpose of inferential statistics.
4. Distinguish between Type I and Type II errors.

Once the study is complete and the observations have been made and recorded the researchers need
to analyze the data and draw their conclusions. Typically, data are analyzed using both descriptive and
inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics are used to summarize the data and inferential statistics are used
to generalize the results from the sample to the population. In turn, inferential statistics are used to make
conclusions about whether or not a theory has been supported, refuted, or requires modification.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are used to organize or summarize a set of data. Examples include percentages,
measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), measures of dispersion (range, standard deviation,
variance), and correlation coefficients.

Measures of central tendency are used to describe the typical, average and center of a distribution of
scores. The mode is the most frequently occurring score in a distribution. The median is the midpoint of a
distribution of scores. The mean is the average of a distribution of scores.

Measures of dispersion are also considered descriptive statistics. They are used to describe the degree of
spread in a set of scores. So are all of the scores similar and clustered around the mean or is there a lot
of variability in the scores? The range is a measure of dispersion that measures the distance between the
highest and lowest scores in a distribution. The standard deviation is a more sophisticated measure of
dispersion that measures the average distance of scores from the mean. The variance is just the standard
deviation squared. So it also measures the distance of scores from the mean but in a different unit of
measure.

Typically means and standard deviations are computed for experimental research studies in which an
independent variable was manipulated to produce two or more groups and a dependent variable was

Analyzing the Data | 49

measured quantitatively. The means from each experimental group or condition are calculated separately
and are compared to see if they differ.

For non-experimental research, simple percentages may be computed to describe the percentage of people
who engaged in some behavior or held some belief. But more commonly non-experimental research involves
computing the correlation between two variables. A correlation coefficient describes the strength and
direction of the relationship between two variables. The values of a correlation coefficient can range from
−1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship).
A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. Positive correlation coefficients
indicate that as the values of one variable increase, so do the values of the other variable. A good example
of a positive correlation is the correlation between height and weight, because as height increases weight
also tends to increase. Negative correlation coefficients indicate that as the value of one variable increase,
the values of the other variable decrease. An example of a negative correlation is the correlation between
stressful life events and happiness; because as stress increases, happiness is likely to decrease.

Inferential Statistics

As you learned in the section of this chapter on sampling, typically researchers sample from a population
but ultimately they want to be able to generalize their results from the sample to a broader population.
Researchers typically want to infer what the population is like based on the sample they studied. Inferential
statistics are used for that purpose. Inferential statistics allow researchers to draw conclusions about
a population based on data from a sample. Inferential statistics are crucial because the effects (i.e., the
differences in the means or the correlation coefficient) that researchers find in a study may be due simply
to random chance variability or they may be due to a real effect (i.e., they may reflect a real relationship
between variables or a real effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable).

Researchers use inferential statistics to determine whether their effects are statistically significant. A
statistically significant effect is one that is unlikely due to random chance and therefore likely represents
a real effect in the population. More specifically results that have less than a 5% chance of being due to
random error are typically considered statistically significant. When an effect is statistically significant it is
appropriate to generalize the results from the sample to the population. In contrast, if inferential statistics
reveal that there is more than a 5% chance that an effect could be due to chance error alone then the
researcher must conclude that their result is not statistically significant.

It is important to keep in mind that statistics are probabilistic in nature. They allow researchers to determine
whether the chances are low that their results are due to random error, but they don’t provide any absolute
certainty. Hopefully, when we conclude that an effect is statistically significant it is a real effect that
we would find if we tested the entire population. And hopefully when we conclude that an effect is not
statistically significant there really is no effect and if we tested the entire population we would find no effect.
And that 5% threshold is set at 5% to ensure that there is a high probability that we make a correct decision
and that our determination of statistical significance is an accurate reflection of reality.

But mistakes can always be made. Specifically, two kinds of mistakes can be made. First, researchers can

50 | Analyzing the Data

make a Type I error, which is a false positive. It is when a researcher concludes that their results are
statistically significant (so they say there is an effect in the population) when in reality there is no real effect
in the population and the results are just due to chance (they are a fluke). When the threshold is set to
5%, which is the convention, then the researcher has a 5% chance or less of making a Type I error. You
might wonder why researchers don’t set it even lower to reduce the chances of making a Type I error. The
reason is when the chances of making a Type I error are reduced, the chances of making a Type II error
are increased. A Type II error is a missed opportunity. It is when a researcher concludes that their results
are not statistically significant when in reality there is a real effect in the population and they just missed
detecting it. Once again, these Type II errors are more likely to occur when the threshold is set too low (e.g.,
set at 1% instead of 5%) and/or when the sample was too small.

Analyzing the Data | 51

13. Drawing Conclusions and Reporting the
Results

Learning Objectives

1. Identify the conclusions researchers can make based on the outcome of their studies.
2. Describe why scientists avoid the term “scientific proof.”
3. Explain the different ways that scientists share their findings.

Drawing Conclusions

Since statistics are probabilistic in nature and findings can reflect type I or type II errors, we cannot use
the results of a single study to conclude with certainty that a theory is true. Rather theories are supported,
refuted, or modified based on the results of research.

If the results are statistically significant and consistent with the hypothesis and the theory that was used
to generate the hypothesis, then researchers can conclude that the theory is supported. Not only did the
theory make an accurate prediction, but there is now a new phenomenon that the theory accounts for. If a
hypothesis is disconfirmed in a systematic empirical study, then the theory has been weakened. It made an
inaccurate prediction, and there is now a new phenomenon that it does not account for.

Although this seems straightforward, there are some complications. First, confirming a hypothesis can
strengthen a theory but it can never prove a theory. In fact, scientists tend to avoid the word “prove” when
talking and writing about theories. One reason for this avoidance is that the result may reflect a type I
error. Another reason for this avoidance is that there may be other plausible theories that imply the same
hypothesis, which means that confirming the hypothesis strengthens all those theories equally. A third
reason is that it is always possible that another test of the hypothesis or a test of a new hypothesis derived
from the theory will be disconfirmed. This difficulty is a version of the famous philosophical “problem of
induction.” One cannot definitively prove a general principle (e.g., “All swans are white.”) just by observing
confirming cases (e.g., white swans)—no matter how many. It is always possible that a disconfirming case
(e.g., a black swan) will eventually come along. For these reasons, scientists tend to think of theories—even
highly successful ones—as subject to revision based on new and unexpected observations.

A second complication has to do with what it means when a hypothesis is disconfirmed. According to the
strictest version of the hypothetico-deductive method, disconfirming a hypothesis disproves the theory it
was derived from. In formal logic, the premises “if A then B” and “not B” necessarily lead to the conclusion

52 | Drawing Conclusions and Reporting the Results

“not A.” If A is the theory and B is the hypothesis (“if A then B”), then disconfirming the hypothesis (“not B”)
must mean that the theory is incorrect (“not A”). In practice, however, scientists do not give up on their
theories so easily. One reason is that one disconfirmed hypothesis could be a missed opportunity (the result
of a type II error) or it could be the result of a faulty research design. Perhaps the researcher did not
successfully manipulate the independent variable or measure the dependent variable.

A disconfirmed hypothesis could also mean that some unstated but relatively minor assumption of the
theory was not met. For example, if Zajonc had failed to find social facilitation in cockroaches, he could
have concluded that drive theory is still correct but it applies only to animals with sufficiently complex
nervous systems. That is, the evidence from a study can be used to modify a theory. This practice does not
mean that researchers are free to ignore disconfirmations of their theories. If they cannot improve their
research designs or modify their theories to account for repeated disconfirmations, then they eventually
must abandon their theories and replace them with ones that are more successful.

The bottom line here is that because statistics are probabilistic in nature and because all research studies
have flaws there is no such thing as scientific proof, there is only scientific evidence.

Reporting the Results

The final step in the research process involves reporting the results. As described in the section on
Reviewing the Research Literature in this chapter, results are typically reported in peer-reviewed journal
articles and at conferences.

The most prestigious way to report one’s findings is by writing a manuscript and having it published in
a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Manuscripts published in psychology journals typically must adhere to
the writing style of the American Psychological Association (APA style). You will likely be learning the major
elements of this writing style in this course.

Another way to report findings is by writing a book chapter that is published in an edited book. Preferably
the editor of the book puts the chapter through peer review but this is not always the case and some
scientists are invited by editors to write book chapters.

A fun way to disseminate findings is to give a presentation at a conference. This can either be done as an oral
presentation or a poster presentation. Oral presentations involve getting up in front of an audience of fellow
scientists and giving a talk that might last anywhere from 10 minutes to 1 hour (depending on the conference)
and then fielding questions from the audience. Alternatively, poster presentations involve summarizing the
study on a large poster that provides a brief overview of the purpose, methods, results, and discussion. The
presenter stands by their poster for an hour or two and discusses it with people who pass by. Presenting
one’s work at a conference is a great way to get feedback from one’s peers before attempting to undergo the
more rigorous peer-review process involved in publishing a journal article.

Drawing Conclusions and Reporting the Results | 53

14. Key Takeaways and Exercise

Key Takeaways

• Research in psychology can be described by a simple cyclical model. A research question based on the
research literature leads to an empirical study, the results of which are published and become part of the
research literature.

• The research literature in psychology is all the published research in psychology, consisting primarily of
articles in professional journals and scholarly books.

• Early in the research process, it is important to conduct a review of the research literature on your topic
to refine your research question, identify appropriate research methods, place your question in the
context of other research, and prepare to write an effective research report.

• There are several strategies for finding previous research on your topic. Among the best is using
PsycINFO, a computer database that catalogs millions of articles, books, and book chapters in psychology
and related fields.

• Research questions expressed in terms of variables and relationships between variables can be suggested
by other researchers or generated by asking a series of more general questions about the behavior or
psychological characteristic of interest.

• It is important to evaluate how interesting a research question is before designing a study and collecting
data to answer it. Factors that affect interestingness are the extent to which the answer is in doubt,
whether it fills a gap in the research literature, and whether it has important practical implications.

• It is also important to evaluate how feasible a research question will be to answer. Factors that affect
feasibility include time, money, technical knowledge and skill, and access to special equipment and
research participants.

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a
prediction about the outcome of a particular study.

• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to

explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories,
test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.

• Variables vary across people or situations and may be quantitative (e.g., age) or categorical (e.g., course
subject).

• A sample is a small subset of a larger population that is selected to participate in the research study.
There are many different ways of sampling participants including convenience sampling and simple
random sampling.

• Experimental research involves manipulating an independent variable to observe the effects on a
measured dependent variable while non-experimental research involves measuring variables as they
naturally occur (i.e., without manipulating anything).

• Research can be conducted in the field or the lab. Laboratory experiments tend to have high internal
validity (allowing us to make strong causal conclusions), while field studies often have more external
validity (allowing us to generalize to the real world).

• The mean, median, and mode are measures of central tendency used to describe the typical, average, or

54 | Key Takeaways and Exercise

center scores in a distribution. The range, standard deviation, and variance are measures of how
dispersed or spread apart the scores are. Measures of central tendency and dispersion are important
descriptive statistics.

• Inferential statistics allow researchers to determine whether their findings are statistically significant,
that is, whether they are unlikely to be due to chance alone and therefore are likely to represent a real
effect in the population.

• Since statistics are probabilistic in nature we never know if our conclusions are correct. We can make
type I errors (concluding an effect is real when it is not) or type II errors (concluding there is no effect
when there actually is a real effect in the population).

• Theories can be supported by not proved. Similarly, disconfirming a hypothesis does not necessarily
mean that theory has been disproved.

• The final step of the research process involves reporting results at scientific conferences, in journal
articles, and/or in books.

Exercises

• Practice: Find a description of an empirical study in a professional journal or in one of the scientific
psychology blogs. Then write a brief description of the research in terms of the cyclical model presented
here. One or two sentences for each part of the cycle should suffice.

• Watch the following TED Ed video, in which David H. Schwartz provides an introduction to two types of
empirical studies along with some methods that scientists use to increase the reliability of their results:

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view

them online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=271#oembed-1

◦ Reading in print? Go to https://youtu.be/GUpd2HJHUt8 or scan this QR code with your phone:

• Practice: Use the techniques discussed in this section to find 10 journal articles and book chapters on one
of the following research ideas: memory for smells, aggressive driving, the causes of narcissistic
personality disorder, the functions of the intraparietal sulcus, or prejudice against the physically
handicapped.

• Watch the following video clip produced by UBCiSchool about how to read an academic paper (without

Key Takeaways and Exercise | 55

losing your mind):

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view

them online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=271#oembed-2

◦ Reading in print? Go to https://youtu.be/SKxm2HF_-k0 or scan this QR code with your phone:

• Practice: Generate three research ideas based on each of the following: informal observations, practical
problems, and topics discussed in recent issues of professional journals.

• Practice: Generate an empirical research question about each of the following behaviors or psychological
characteristics: long-distance running, getting tattooed, social anxiety, bullying, and memory for early
childhood events.

• Practice: Evaluate each of the research questions you generated in Exercise 2 in terms of its
interestingness based on the criteria discussed in this section.

• Practice: Find an issue of a journal that publishes short empirical research reports (e.g., Psychological
Science, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin). Pick three studies,
and rate each one in terms of how feasible it would be for you to replicate it with the resources available
to you right now. Use the following rating scale: (1) You could replicate it essentially as reported. (2) You
could replicate it with some simplifications. (3) You could not replicate it. Explain each rating.

• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and
highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.

• Practice: Using the research article you found in a professional journal identify whether the study was
experimental or non-experimental. If it was experimental identify the independent and dependent
variables.

• Practice: Using the research article you found in a professional journal identify which descriptive
statistics were reported.

• Practice: Describe why theories can be supported but not proved.

Media Attributions

• “Not all scientific studies are created equal – David H. Schwartz” by TED-Ed. Standard YouTube
Licence.

• “How to Read an Academic Paper” by UBCiSchool. CC BY (Attribution)

56 | Key Takeaways and Exercise

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsooa4yRKGN_zEE8iknghZA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiUfs5oYhVm-REouZOKZklg

https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

Reading in print?
Scan this QR code
to view the video
on your mobile
device. Or go to
youtu.be/
o65l1YAVaYc

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH ETHICS

In 1998 a medical journal called The Lancet published an article of interest to many psychologists. The
researchers claimed to have shown a statistical relationship between receiving the combined measles,
mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism—suggesting furthermore that the
vaccine might even cause autism. One result of this report was that many parents decided not to have their
children vaccinated, which of course put them at higher risk for measles, mumps, and rubella. However,
follow-up studies by other researchers consistently failed to find a statistical relationship between the MMR
vaccine and autism—and it is widely accepted now in the scientific community that there is no relationship.
In addition, several more serious problems with the original research were uncovered. Among them were
that the lead researcher stood to gain financially from his conclusions because he had patented a competing
measles vaccine. He had also used biased methods to select and test his research participants and had used
unapproved and medically unnecessary procedures on them. In 2010 The Lancet retracted the article, and
the lead researcher’s right to practice medicine was revoked (Burns, 2010).1

In this chapter we explore the ethics of scientific research in psychology. We begin with a general
framework for thinking about the ethics of scientific research in psychology. Then we look at some specific
ethical codes for biomedical and behavioral researchers —focusing on the Ethics Code of the American
Psychological Association. Finally, we consider some practical tips for conducting ethical research in
psychology.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view

them online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=46#oembed-1

Media Attributions

Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism: Healthcare Triage #12 by Healthcare Triage licensed under
a Standard YouTube Licence.

Notes

1. Burns, J. F. (2010, May 24). British medical council bars doctor who linked vaccine to autism. The New York Times.
Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/health/policy/25autism.html

Research Ethics | 57

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCabaQPYxxKepWUsEVQMT4Kw

15. Moral Foundations of Ethical Research

Learning Objectives

1. Describe a simple framework for thinking about ethical issues in psychological research.
2. Give examples of several ethical issues that arise in psychological research—including ones that affect

research participants, the scientific community, and society more generally.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with morality—what it means to behave morally and
how people can achieve that goal. It can also refer to a set of principles and practices that provide moral
guidance in a particular field. There is an ethics of business, medicine, teaching, and of course, scientific
research. As the opening example illustrates, many kinds of ethical issues can arise in scientific research,
especially when it involves human participants. For this reason, it is useful to begin with a general framework
for thinking through these issues.

A Framework for Thinking About Research Ethics

Table 3.1 presents a framework for thinking through the ethical issues involved in psychological research.
The rows of Table 3.1 represent four general moral principles that apply to scientific research: weighing risks
against benefits, acting responsibly and with integrity, seeking justice, and respecting people’s rights and
dignity. (These principles are adapted from those in the American Psychological Association [APA] Ethics
Code.) The columns of Table 3.1 represent three groups of people that are affected by scientific research:
the research participants, the scientific community, and society more generally. The idea is that a thorough
consideration of the ethics of any research project must take into account how each of the four moral
principles applies to each of the three groups of people.

Table 3.1 A Framework for Thinking About Ethical Issues in Scientific Research

Moral Foundations of Ethical Research | 59

Who is affected?

Moral principle Research participants Scientific community Society

Weighing risks against benefits

Acting responsibly and with
integrity

Seeking justice

Respecting people’s rights and
dignity

Moral Principles

Let us look more closely at each of the moral principles and how they can be applied to each of the three
groups.

Weighing Risks Against Benefits

Scientific research in psychology can be ethical only if its risks are outweighed by its benefits. Among
the risks to research participants are that a treatment might fail to help or even be harmful, a procedure
might result in physical or psychological harm, and their right to privacy might be violated. Among the
potential benefits are receiving a helpful treatment, learning about psychology, experiencing the satisfaction
of contributing to scientific knowledge, and receiving money or course credit for participating. Scientific
research can have risks and benefits to the scientific community and to society too (Rosenthal, 1994).1 A risk
to science is that if a research question is uninteresting or a study is poorly designed, then the time, money,
and effort spent on that research could have been spent on more productive research. A risk to society is
that research results could be misunderstood or misapplied with harmful consequences. The research that
mistakenly linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism resulted in both of these kinds
of harm. Of course, the benefits of scientific research to science and society are that it advances scientific
knowledge and can contribute to the welfare of society.

It is not necessarily easy to weigh the risks of research against its benefits because the risks and benefits
may not be directly comparable. For example, it is common for the risks of a study to be primarily to
the research participants but the benefits primarily for science or society. Consider, for example, Stanley
Milgram’s original study on obedience to authority (Milgram, 1963).2 The participants were told that they
were taking part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning and were instructed to give electric
shocks to another participant each time that participant responded incorrectly on a learning task. With
each incorrect response, the shock became stronger—eventually causing the other participant (who was
in the next room) to protest, complain about his heart, scream in pain, and finally fall silent and stop
responding. If the first participant hesitated or expressed concern, the researcher said that he must
continue. In reality, the other participant was a confederate of the researcher—a helper who pretended to

60 | Moral Foundations of Ethical Research

be a real participant—and the protests, complaints, and screams that the real participant heard were an
audio recording that was activated when he flipped the switch to administer the “shocks.” The surprising
result of this study was that most of the real participants continued to administer the shocks right through
the confederate’s protests, complaints, and screams. Although this is considered one of the most important
results in psychology—with implications for understanding events like the Holocaust or the mistreatment of
prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib—it came at the cost of producing severe psychological stress in the
research participants.

Was It Worth It?

Much of the debate over the ethics of Milgram’s obedience study concerns the question of whether the
resulting scientific knowledge was worth the harm caused to the research participants. To get a better
sense of the harm, consider Milgram’s (1963) own description of it.

In a large number of cases, the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely seen in
sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their
lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh.…Fourteen of the 40 subjects showed definite
signs of nervous laughter and smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-
blown uncontrollable seizures [of laughter] were observed for three subjects. On one occasion we
observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment (p.
375).

Milgram also noted that another observer reported that within 20 minutes one participant “was reduced to
a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching the point of nervous collapse” (p. 377)

To Milgram’s credit, he went to great lengths to debrief his participants—including returning their mental
states to normal—and to show that most of them thought the research was valuable and they were glad to
have participated.

Acting Responsibly and With Integrity

Researchers must act responsibly and with integrity. This means carrying out their research in a thorough
and competent manner, meeting their professional obligations, and being truthful. Acting with integrity is
important because it promotes trust, which is an essential element of all effective human relationships.
Participants must be able to trust that researchers are being honest with them (e.g., about what the study
involves), will keep their promises (e.g., to maintain confidentiality), and will carry out their research in ways
that maximize benefits and minimize risk. An important issue here is the use of deception. Some research
questions (such as Milgram’s) are difficult or impossible to answer without deceiving research participants.
Thus acting with integrity can conflict with doing research that advances scientific knowledge and benefits
society. We will consider how psychologists generally deal with this conflict shortly.

Moral Foundations of Ethical Research | 61

The scientific community and society must also be able to trust that researchers have conducted their
research thoroughly and competently and that they have reported on it honestly. Again, the example at
the beginning of the chapter illustrates what can happen when this trust is violated. In this case, other
researchers wasted resources on unnecessary follow-up research and people avoided the MMR vaccine,
putting their children at increased risk of measles, mumps, and rubella. Indeed, many people, including
children have died as a result of parents’ misinformed decisions not to vaccinate their children.

Seeking Justice

Researchers must conduct their research in a just manner. They should treat their participants fairly, for
example, by giving them adequate compensation for their participation and making sure that benefits and
risks are distributed across all participants. For example, in a study of a new and potentially beneficial
psychotherapy, some participants might receive the psychotherapy while others serve as a control group
that receives no treatment. If the psychotherapy turns out to be effective, it would be fair to offer it to
participants in the control group when the study ends.

At a broader societal level, members of some groups have historically faced more than their fair share of the
risks of scientific research, including people who are institutionalized, are disabled, or belong to racial or
ethnic minorities. A particularly tragic example is the Tuskegee syphilis study conducted by the US Public
Health Service from 1932 to 1972 (Reverby, 2009).3 The participants in this study were poor African American
men in the vicinity of Tuskegee, Alabama, who were told that they were being treated for “bad blood.”
Although they were given some free medical care, they were not treated for their syphilis. Instead, they were
observed to see how the disease developed in untreated patients. Even after the use of penicillin became
the standard treatment for syphilis in the 1940s, these men continued to be denied treatment without being
given an opportunity to leave the study. The study was eventually discontinued only after details were made
known to the general public by journalists and activists. It is now widely recognized that researchers need
to consider issues of justice and fairness at the societal level.

“They Were Betrayed”

In 1997—65 years after the Tuskegee Syphilis Study began and 25 years after it ended—President Bill Clinton
formally apologized on behalf of the US government to those who were affected. Here is an excerpt from
the apology:

So today America does remember the hundreds of men used in research without their knowledge and
consent. We remember them and their family members. Men who were poor and African American, without

62 | Moral Foundations of Ethical Research

resources and with few alternatives, they believed they had found hope when they were offered free
medical care by the United States Public Health Service. They were betrayed.

Read the full text of the apology at http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/clintonp.htm.

Respecting People’s Rights and Dignity

Researchers must respect people’s rights and dignity as human beings. One element of this is respecting
their autonomy—their right to make their own choices and take their own actions free from coercion. Of
fundamental importance here is the concept of informed consent. This means that researchers obtain and
document people’s agreement to participate in a study after having informed them of everything that might
reasonably be expected to affect their decision. Consider the participants in the Tuskegee study. Although
they agreed to participate in the study, they were not told that they had syphilis but would be denied
treatment for it. Had they been told this basic fact about the study, it seems likely that they would not have
agreed to participate. Likewise, had participants in Milgram’s study been told that they might be “reduced
to a twitching, stuttering wreck,” it seems likely that many of them would not have agreed to participate. In
neither of these studies did participants give true informed consent.

Another element of respecting people’s rights and dignity is respecting their privacy—their right to decide
what information about them is shared with others. This means that researchers must
maintain confidentiality, which is essentially an agreement not to disclose participants’ personal
information without their consent or some appropriate legal authorization. Even more ideally participants
can maintain anonymity, which is when their name and other personally identifiable information is not
collected at all.

Unavoidable Ethical Conflict

It may already be clear that ethical conflict in psychological research is unavoidable. Because there is little,
if any, psychological research that is completely risk-free, there will almost always be a conflict between
risks and benefits. Research that is beneficial to one group (e.g., the scientific community) can be harmful to
another (e.g., the research participants), creating especially difficult tradeoffs. We have also seen that being
completely truthful with research participants can make it difficult or impossible to conduct scientifically
valid studies on important questions.

Of course, many ethical conflicts are fairly easy to resolve. Nearly everyone would agree that deceiving
research participants and then subjecting them to physical harm would not be justified by filling a small
gap in the research literature. But many ethical conflicts are not easy to resolve, and competent and well-
meaning researchers can disagree about how to resolve them. Consider, for example, an actual study on

Moral Foundations of Ethical Research | 63

http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/clintonp.htm

“personal space” conducted in a public men’s room (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter, 1976).4 The researchers
secretly observed their participants to see whether it took them longer to begin urinating when there was
another man (a confederate of the researchers) at a nearby urinal. While some critics found this to be an
unjustified assault on human dignity (Koocher, 1977),5 the researchers had carefully considered the ethical
conflicts, resolved them as best they could, and concluded that the benefits of the research outweighed
the risks (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter, 1977).6 For example, they had interviewed some preliminary
participants and found that none of them was bothered by the fact that they had been observed.

The point here is that although it may not be possible to eliminate ethical conflict completely, it is possible
to deal with it in responsible and constructive ways. In general, this means thoroughly and carefully thinking
through the ethical issues that are raised, minimizing the risks, and weighing the risks against the benefits. It
also means being able to explain one’s ethical decisions to others, seeking feedback on them, and ultimately
taking responsibility for them.

Notes

1. Rosenthal, R. M. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological
research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–133.

2. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
3. Reverby, S. M. (2009). Examining Tuskegee: The infamous syphilis study and its legacy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.
4. Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S., & Matter, C. F. (1976). Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence

for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 541–546.
5. Koocher, G. P. (1977). Bathroom behavior and human dignity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 120–121.
6. Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S., & Matter, C. F. (1977). What to do and what to report: A reply to Koocher. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 122–125.

64 | Moral Foundations of Ethical Research

16. From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the history of ethics codes for scientific research with human participants.
2. Summarize the American Psychological Association Ethics Code—especially as it relates to informed

consent, deception, debriefing, research with nonhuman animals, and scholarly integrity.

The general moral principles of weighing risks against benefits, acting with integrity, seeking justice, and
respecting people’s rights and dignity provide a useful starting point for thinking about the ethics of
psychological research because essentially everyone agrees on them. As we have seen, however, even people
who agree on these general principles can disagree about specific ethical issues that arise in the course of
conducting research. This is why there also exist more detailed and enforceable ethics codes that provide
guidance on important issues that arise frequently. In this section, we begin with a brief historical overview
of such ethics codes and then look closely at the one that is most relevant to psychological research—that
of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Historical Overview

One of the earliest ethics codes was the Nuremberg Code—a set of 10 principles written in 1947 in
conjunction with the trials of Nazi physicians accused of shockingly cruel research on concentration camp
prisoners during World War II. It provided a standard against which to compare the behavior of the men
on trial—many of whom were eventually convicted and either imprisoned or sentenced to death. The
Nuremberg Code was particularly clear about the importance of carefully weighing risks against benefits
and the need for informed consent. The Declaration of Helsinki is a similar ethics code that was created
by the World Medical Council in 1964. Among the standards that it added to the Nuremberg Code was
that research with human participants should be based on a written protocol—a detailed description of
the research—that is reviewed by an independent committee. The Declaration of Helsinki has been revised
several times, most recently in 2004.

In the United States, concerns about the Tuskegee study and others led to the publication in 1978 of a
set of federal guidelines called the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report explicitly recognized the principle
of seeking justice, including the importance of conducting research in a way that distributes risks and
benefits fairly across different groups at the societal level. It also recognized the importance of respect for
persons, which acknowledges individuals’ autonomy and protection for those with diminished autonomy

From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes | 65

(e.g., prisoners, children), and translates to the need for informed consent. Finally, it recognized the principle
of beneficence, which underscores the importance of maximizing the benefits of research while minimizing
harms to participants and society. The Belmont Report became the basis of a set of laws—the
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects—that apply to research conducted, supported, or
regulated by the federal government. An extremely important part of these regulations is that universities,
hospitals, and other institutions that receive support from the federal government must establish
an institutional review board (IRB)—a committee that is responsible for reviewing research protocols for
potential ethical problems. An IRB must consist of at least five people with varying backgrounds, including
members of different professions, scientists and nonscientists, men and women, and at least one person not
otherwise affiliated with the institution. The IRB helps to make sure that the risks of the proposed research
are minimized, the benefits outweigh the risks, the research is carried out in a fair manner, and the informed
consent procedure is adequate.

The federal regulations also distinguish research that poses three levels of risk. Exempt research is the
lowest level or risk and includes research on the effectiveness of normal educational activities, the use
of standard psychological measures and surveys of a nonsensitive nature that are administered in a way
that maintains confidentiality, and research using existing data from public sources. It is called exempt
because once approved, it is exempt from regular, continuous review. Expedited research poses a somewhat
higher risk than exempt, but still exposes participants to risks that are no greater than minimal risk (those
encountered by healthy people in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations).
Expedited review is done by by one member of the IRB or by a separate committee under the authority of
the IRB that can only approve minimal risk research (many departments of psychology have such separate
committees). Finally, research that does not qualify for exempt or expedited review is greater than minimal
risk research must be reviewed by the full board of IRB members.

Ethics Codes

The link that follows the list—from the Office of Human Subjects Research at the National Institutes of
Health—allows you to read the ethics codes discussed in this section in their entirety. They are all highly
recommended and, with the exception of the Federal Policy, short and easy to read.

• The Nuremberg Code
• The Declaration of Helsinki
• The Belmont Report
• Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/ethical-codes-and-research-standards/index.html

66 | From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/ethical-codes-and-research-standards/index.html

APA Ethics Code

The APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (also known as the APA Ethics Code) was
first published in 1953 and has been revised several times since then, most recently in 2010. It includes
about 150 specific ethical standards that psychologists and their students are expected to follow. Much of
the APA Ethics Code concerns the clinical practice of psychology—advertising one’s services, setting and
collecting fees, having personal relationships with clients, and so on. For our purposes, the most relevant
part is Standard 8: Research and Publication. Although Standard 8 is reproduced here in its entirety, we
will consider some of its most important aspects—informed consent, deception, debriefing, the use of
nonhuman animal subjects, and scholarly integrity—in more detail.

APA Ethics Code Standard 8: Research and Publication

8.01 Institutional Approval

When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their research
proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the research in accordance
with the approved research protocol.

8.02 Informed Consent to Research

3. When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists
inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their
right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the
foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be
expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse
effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for
participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants’
rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive
answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research;
8.05, Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research.)

4. Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify
to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the
services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the means by which
assignment to treatment and control groups will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an
individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun;
and (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether
reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a,
Informed Consent to Research.)

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research

From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes | 67

Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images
for data collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it
is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or
harm, or (2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained
during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in Research.)

8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants

1. When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as
participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse
consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

2. When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the
prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

8.05 Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research

Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be
assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or
classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires,
naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place
participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or
reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization
effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants’ employability,
and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional
regulations.

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation

1. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other
inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.

2. When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists clarify
the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 6.05,
Barter With Clients/Patients.)

8.07 Deception in Research

1. Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of
deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific, educational, or
applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

2. Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to
cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

3. Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an
experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation,
but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their
data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing.)

8.08 Debriefing

1. Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about

68 | From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes

the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any
misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.

2. If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take
reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

3. When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take
reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

1. Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state,
and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

2. Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals
supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration
of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

3. Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using animals have received
instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used,
to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

4. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of
animal subjects.

5. Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative
procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied
value.

6. Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to
avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.

7. When it is appropriate that an animal’s life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an
effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

8.10 Reporting Research Results

5. Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive
Statements.)

6. If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to
correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

8.11 Plagiarism

Psychologists do not present portions of another’s work or data as their own, even if the other work or data
source is cited occasionally.

8.12 Publication Credit

8. Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have
actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b,
Publication Credit.)

9. Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or
professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere
possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit.
Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged

From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes | 69

appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.
10. Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-

authored article that is substantially based on the student’s doctoral dissertation. Faculty advisors
discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and
publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit.)

8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data

Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not
preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification

1. After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their
conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims
through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the
confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary
data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals
or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.

2. Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through
reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists obtain prior
written agreement for all other uses of the data.

8.15 Reviewers

Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal
review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted
it.

Source: You can read the full APA Ethics Code at http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.

Informed Consent

Standards 8.02 to 8.05 are about informed consent. Again, informed consent means obtaining and
documenting people’s agreement to participate in a study, having informed them of everything that might
reasonably be expected to affect their decision. This includes details of the procedure, the risks and benefits
of the research, the fact that they have the right to decline to participate or to withdraw from the study,
the consequences of doing so, and any legal limits to confidentiality. For example, some states require
researchers who learn of child abuse or other crimes to report this information to authorities.

Although the process of obtaining informed consent often involves having participants read and sign
a consent form, it is important to understand that this is not all it is. Although having participants read
and sign a consent form might be enough when they are competent adults with the necessary ability and
motivation, many participants do not actually read consent forms or read them but do not understand them.

70 | From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

For example, participants often mistake consent forms for legal documents and mistakenly believe that by
signing them they give up their right to sue the researcher (Mann, 1994).1 Even with competent adults,
therefore, it is good practice to tell participants about the risks and benefits, demonstrate the procedure,
ask them if they have questions, and remind them of their right to withdraw at any time—in addition to
having them read and sign a consent form.

Note also that there are situations in which informed consent is not necessary. These include situations in
which the research is not expected to cause any harm and the procedure is straightforward or the study is
conducted in the context of people’s ordinary activities. For example, if you wanted to sit outside a public
building and observe whether people hold the door open for people behind them, you would not need to
obtain their informed consent. Similarly, if a college instructor wanted to compare two legitimate teaching
methods across two sections of his research methods course, he would not need to obtain informed consent
from his students.

Deception

Deception of participants in psychological research can take a variety of forms: misinforming participants
about the purpose of a study, using confederates, using phony equipment like Milgram’s shock generator,
and presenting participants with false feedback about their performance (e.g., telling them they did poorly
on a test when they actually did well). Deception also includes not informing participants of the full design
or true purpose of the research even if they are not actively misinformed (Sieber, Iannuzzo, & Rodriguez,
1995).2 For example, a study on incidental learning—learning without conscious effort—might involve having
participants read through a list of words in preparation for a “memory test” later. Although participants are
likely to assume that the memory test will require them to recall the words, it might instead require them to
recall the contents of the room or the appearance of the research assistant.

Some researchers have argued that deception of research participants is rarely if ever ethically justified.
Among their arguments are that it prevents participants from giving truly informed consent, fails to respect
their dignity as human beings, has the potential to upset them, makes them distrustful and therefore less
honest in their responding, and damages the reputation of researchers in the field (Baumrind, 1985).3

Note, however, that the APA Ethics Code takes a more moderate approach—allowing deception when the
benefits of the study outweigh the risks, participants cannot reasonably be expected to be harmed, the
research question cannot be answered without the use of deception, and participants are informed about
the deception as soon as possible. This approach acknowledges that not all forms of deception are equally
bad. Compare, for example, Milgram’s study in which he deceived his participants in several significant ways
that resulted in their experiencing severe psychological stress with an incidental learning study in which a
“memory test” turns out to be slightly different from what participants were expecting. It also acknowledges
that some scientifically and socially important research questions can be difficult or impossible to answer
without deceiving participants. Knowing that a study concerns the extent to which they obey authority, act
aggressively toward a peer, or help a stranger is likely to change the way people behave so that the results
no longer generalize to the real world.

From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes | 71

Debriefing

Standard 8.08 is about debriefing. This is the process of informing research participants as soon as possible
of the purpose of the study, revealing any deception, and correcting any other misconceptions they might
have as a result of participating. Debriefing also involves minimizing harm that might have occurred. For
example, an experiment on the effects of being in a sad mood on memory might involve inducing a sad mood
in participants by having them think sad thoughts, watch a sad video, and/or listen to sad music. Debriefing
would be the time to return participants’ moods to normal by having them think happy thoughts, watch a
happy video, or listen to happy music.

Nonhuman Animal Subjects

Standard 8.09 is about the humane treatment and care of nonhuman animal subjects. Although most
contemporary research in psychology does not involve nonhuman animal subjects, a significant minority of
it does—especially in the study of learning and conditioning, behavioral neuroscience, and the development
of drug and surgical therapies for psychological disorders.

The use of nonhuman animal subjects in psychological research is similar to the use of deception in that
there are those who argue that it is rarely, if ever, ethically acceptable (Bowd & Shapiro, 1993).4 Clearly,
nonhuman animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Yet they can be subjected to numerous
procedures that are likely to cause them suffering. They can be confined, deprived of food and water,
subjected to pain, operated on, and ultimately euthanized. (Of course, they can also be observed benignly
in natural or zoo-like settings.) Others point out that psychological research on nonhuman animals has
resulted in many important benefits to humans, including the development of behavioral therapies for many
disorders, more effective pain control methods, and antipsychotic drugs (Miller, 1985).5 It has also resulted
in benefits to nonhuman animals, including alternatives to shooting and poisoning as means of controlling
them.

As with deception, the APA acknowledges that the benefits of research on nonhuman animals can outweigh
the costs, in which case it is ethically acceptable. However, researchers must use alternative methods when
they can. When they cannot, they must acquire and care for their subjects humanely and minimize the
harm to them. For more information on the APA’s position on nonhuman animal subjects, see the website
of the APA’s Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/
index.aspx).

Scholarly Integrity

Standards 8.10 to 8.15 are about scholarly integrity. These include the obvious points that researchers
must not fabricate data or plagiarize. Plagiarism means using others’ words or ideas without proper

72 | From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes

http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/index.aspx

acknowledgment. Proper acknowledgment generally means indicating direct quotations with quotation
marks and providing a citation to the source of any quotation or idea used. Self-plagiarism is also considered
unethical and refers to publishing the same material more than once. In other words, researchers should
not borrow prior phrasing from their other published works, just as students should not submit the same
work to more than one class.

The remaining standards make some less obvious but equally important points. Researchers should not
publish the same data a second time as though it were new, they should share their data with other
researchers, and as peer reviewers, they should keep the unpublished research they review confidential.
Note that the authors’ names on published research—and the order in which those names appear—should
reflect the importance of each person’s contribution to the research. It would be unethical, for example, to
include as an author someone who had made only minor contributions to the research (e.g., analyzing some
of the data) or for a faculty member to make himself or herself the first author on research that was largely
conducted by a student.

Notes

1. Mann, T. (1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand
their legal rights? Psychological Science, 5, 140–143.

2. Sieber, J. E., Iannuzzo, R., & Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23
years? Ethics & Behavior, 5, 67–85.

3. Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174.
4. Bowd, A. D., & Shapiro, K. J. (1993). The case against animal laboratory research in psychology. Journal of Social Issues,

49, 133–142.
5. Miller, N. E. (1985). The value of behavioral research on animals. American Psychologist, 40, 423–440.

From Moral Principles to Ethics Codes | 73

17. Putting Ethics Into Practice

Learning Objectives

1. Describe several strategies for identifying and minimizing risks and deception in psychological research.
2. Create thorough informed consent and debriefing procedures, including a consent form.

In this section, we look at some practical advice for conducting ethical research in psychology. Again, it is
important to remember that ethical issues arise well before you begin to collect data and continue to arise
through publication and beyond.

Know and Accept Your Ethical Responsibilities

As the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code notes in its introduction, “Lack of awareness or
misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.” This is why
the very first thing that you must do as a new researcher is to know and accept your ethical responsibilities.
At a minimum, this means reading and understanding the relevant sections of the APA Ethics Code,
distinguishing minimal risk from at-risk research, and knowing the specific policies and procedures of your
institution—including how to prepare and submit a research protocol for institutional review board (IRB)
review. If you are conducting research as a course requirement, there may be specific course standards,
policies, and procedures. If any standard, policy, or procedure is unclear—or you are unsure what to do
about an ethical issue that arises—you must seek clarification. You can do this by reviewing the relevant
ethics codes, reading about how similar issues have been resolved by others, or consulting with more
experienced researchers, your IRB, or your course instructor. Ultimately, you as the researcher must take
responsibility for the ethics of the research you conduct.

Identify and Minimize Risks

As you design your study, you must identify and minimize risks to participants. Start by listing all the risks,
including risks of physical and psychological harm and violations of confidentiality. Remember that it is
easy for researchers to see risks as less serious than participants do or even to overlook them completely.
For example, one student researcher wanted to test people’s sensitivity to violent images by showing them
gruesome photographs of crime and accident scenes. Because she was an emergency medical technician,

74 | Putting Ethics Into Practice

however, she greatly underestimated how disturbing these images were to most people. Remember too that
some risks might apply only to some participants. For example, while most people would have no problem
completing a survey about their fear of various crimes, those who have been a victim of one of those crimes
might become upset. This is why you should seek input from a variety of people, including your research
collaborators, more experienced researchers, and even from nonresearchers who might be better able to
take the perspective of a participant.

Once you have identified the risks, you can often reduce or eliminate many of them. One way is to modify the
research design. For example, you might be able to shorten or simplify the procedure to prevent boredom
and frustration. You might be able to replace upsetting or offensive stimulus materials (e.g., graphic accident
scene photos) with less upsetting or offensive ones (e.g., milder photos of the sort people are likely to see
in the newspaper). A good example of modifying a research design is a 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
conducted by Jerry Burger. Instead of allowing his participants to continue administering shocks up to the
450-V maximum, the researcher always stopped the procedure when they were about to administer the
150-V shock (Burger, 2009).1 This made sense because in Milgram’s study (a) participants’ severe negative
reactions occurred after this point and (b) most participants who administered the 150-V shock continued all
the way to the 450-V maximum. Thus the researcher was able to compare his results directly with Milgram’s
at every point up to the 150-V shock and also was able to estimate how many of his participants would have
continued to the maximum—but without subjecting them to the severe stress that Milgram did. (The results,
by the way, were that these contemporary participants were just as obedient as Milgram’s were.)

A second way to minimize risks is to use a pre-screening procedure to identify and eliminate participants
who are at high risk. You can do this in part through the informed consent process. For example, you
can warn participants that a survey includes questions about their fear of crime and remind them that
they are free to withdraw if they think this might upset them. Prescreening can also involve collecting
data to identify and eliminate participants. For example, Burger used an extensive pre-screening procedure
involving multiple questionnaires and an interview with a clinical psychologist to identify and eliminate
participants with physical or psychological problems that put them at high risk.

A third way to minimize risks is to take active steps to maintain confidentiality. You should keep signed
consent forms separately from any data that you collect and in such a way that no individual’s name can be
linked to their data. In addition, beyond people’s sex and age, you should only collect personal information
that you actually need to answer your research question. If people’s sexual orientation or ethnicity is not
clearly relevant to your research question, for example, then do not ask them about it. Be aware also that
certain data collection procedures can lead to unintentional violations of confidentiality. When participants
respond to an oral survey in a shopping mall or complete a questionnaire in a classroom setting, it is
possible that their responses will be overheard or seen by others. If the responses are personal, it is better
to administer the survey or questionnaire individually in private or to use other techniques to prevent the
unintentional sharing of personal information.

Putting Ethics Into Practice | 75

Identify and Minimize Deception

Remember that deception can take a variety of forms, not all of which involve actively misleading
participants. It is also deceptive to allow participants to make incorrect assumptions (e.g., about what will be
on a “memory test”) or simply withhold information about the full design or purpose of the study. It is best
to identify and minimize all forms of deception.

Remember that according to the APA Ethics Code, deception is ethically acceptable only if there is no way
to answer your research question without it. Therefore, if your research design includes any form of active
deception, you should consider whether it is truly necessary. Imagine, for example, that you want to know
whether the age of college professors affects students’ expectations about their teaching ability. You could
do this by telling participants that you will show them photos of college professors and ask them to rate each
one’s teaching ability. But if the photos are not really of college professors but of your own family members
and friends, then this would be deception. This deception could easily be eliminated, however, by telling
participants instead to imagine that the photos are of college professors and to rate them as if they were.

In general, it is considered acceptable to wait until debriefing before you reveal your research question as
long as you describe the procedure, risks, and benefits during the informed consent process. For example,
you would not have to tell participants that you wanted to know whether the age of college professors
affects people’s expectations about them until the study was over. Not only is this information unlikely to
affect people’s decision about whether or not to participate in the study, but it has the potential to invalidate
the results. Participants who know that age is the independent variable might rate the older and younger
“professors” differently because they think you want them to. Alternatively, they might be careful to rate
them the same so that they do not appear prejudiced. But even this extremely mild form of deception
can be minimized by informing participants—orally, in writing, or both—that although you have accurately
described the procedure, risks, and benefits, you will wait to reveal the research question until afterward.
In essence, participants give their consent to be deceived or to have information withheld from them until
later.

Weigh the Risks Against the Benefits

Once the risks of the research have been identified and minimized, you need to weigh them against
the benefits. This requires identifying all the benefits. Remember to consider benefits to the research
participants, to science, and to society. If you are a student researcher, remember that one of the benefits
is the knowledge you will gain about how to conduct scientific research in psychology—knowledge you can
then use to complete your studies and succeed in graduate school or in your career.

If the research poses minimal risk—no more than in people’s daily lives or routine physical or psychological
examinations—then even a small benefit to participants, science, or society is generally considered enough
to justify it. If it poses more than minimal risk, then there should be more benefits. If the research has the
potential to upset some participants, for example, then it becomes more important that the study is well
designed and can answer a scientifically interesting research question or have clear practical implications.

76 | Putting Ethics Into Practice

It would be unethical to subject people to pain, fear, or embarrassment for no better reason than to satisfy
one’s personal curiosity. In general, psychological research that has the potential to cause harm that is more
than minor or lasts for more than a short time is rarely considered justified by its benefits.

Create Informed Consent and Debriefing Procedures

Once you have settled on a research design, you need to create your informed consent and debriefing
procedures. Start by deciding whether informed consent is necessary according to APA Standard 8.05.
If informed consent is necessary, there are several things you should do. First, when you recruit
participants—whether it is through word of mouth, posted advertisements, or a participant pool—provide
them with as much information about the study as you can. This will allow those who might find the study
objectionable to avoid it. Second, prepare a script or set of “talking points” to help you explain the study to
your participants in simple everyday language. This should include a description of the procedure, the risks
and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time. Third, create an informed consent form that covers
all the points in Standard 8.02a that participants can read and sign after you have described the study to
them. Your university, department, or course instructor may have a sample consent form that you can adapt
for your own study. If not, an Internet search will turn up several samples. Remember that if appropriate,
both the oral and written parts of the informed consent process should include the fact that you are keeping
some information about the design or purpose of the study from them but that you will reveal it during
debriefing.

Debriefing is similar to informed consent in that you cannot necessarily expect participants to read and
understand written debriefing forms. So again it is best to write a script or set of talking points with the
goal of being able to explain the study in simple, everyday language. During the debriefing, you should
reveal the research question and full design of the study. For example, if participants are tested under
only one condition, then you should explain what happened in the other conditions. If you deceived your
participants, you should reveal this as soon as possible, apologize for the deception, explain why it was
necessary, and correct any misconceptions that participants might have as a result. Debriefing is also a good
time to provide additional benefits to research participants by giving them relevant practical information
or referrals to other sources of help. For example, in a study of attitudes toward domestic abuse, you could
provide pamphlets about domestic abuse and referral information to the university counseling center for
those who might want it.

Remember to schedule plenty of time for the informed consent and debriefing processes. They cannot be
effective if you have to rush through them.

Get Approval

The next step is to get institutional approval for your research based on the specific policies and procedures
at your institution or for your course. This will generally require writing a protocol that describes the

Putting Ethics Into Practice | 77

purpose of the study, the research design and procedure, the risks and benefits, the steps taken to minimize
risks, and the informed consent and debriefing procedures. Do not think of the institutional approval
process as merely an obstacle to overcome but as an opportunity to think through the ethics of your
research and to consult with others who are likely to have more experience or different perspectives than
you. If the IRB has questions or concerns about your research, address them promptly and in good faith. This
might even mean making further modifications to your research design and procedure before resubmitting
your protocol.

Follow Through

Your concern with ethics should not end when your study receives institutional approval. It now becomes
important to stick to the protocol you submitted or to seek additional approval for anything other than a
minor change. During the research, you should monitor your participants for unanticipated reactions and
seek feedback from them during debriefing. One criticism of Milgram’s study is that although he did not
know ahead of time that his participants would have such severe negative reactions, he certainly knew after
he had tested the first several participants and should have made adjustments at that point (Baumrind,
1985).2 Be alert also for potential violations of confidentiality. Keep the consent forms and the data safe and
separate from each other and make sure that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, has access to any
participant’s personal information.

Finally, you must maintain your integrity through the publication process and beyond. Address publication
credit—who will be authors on the research and the order of authors—with your collaborators early and
avoid plagiarism in your writing. Remember that your scientific goal is to learn about the way the world
actually is and that your scientific duty is to report on your results honestly and accurately. So do not
be tempted to fabricate data or alter your results in any way. Besides, unexpected results are often as
interesting, or more so, than expected ones.

Notes

1. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11.
2. Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174.

78 | Putting Ethics Into Practice

18. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• A wide variety of ethical issues arise in psychological research. Thinking them through requires
considering how each of four moral principles (weighing risks against benefits, acting responsibly and
with integrity, seeking justice, and respecting people’s rights and dignity) applies to each of three groups
of people (research participants, science, and society).

• Ethical conflict in psychological research is unavoidable. Researchers must think through the ethical
issues raised by their research, minimize the risks, weigh the risks against the benefits, be able to explain
their ethical decisions, seek feedback about these decisions from others, and ultimately take
responsibility for them.

• There are several written ethics codes for research with human participants that provide specific
guidance on the ethical issues that arise most frequently. These codes include the Nuremberg Code, the
Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.

• The APA Ethics Code is the most important ethics code for researchers in psychology. It includes many
standards that are relevant mainly to clinical practice, but Standard 8 concerns informed consent,
deception, debriefing, the use of nonhuman animal subjects, and scholarly integrity in research.

• Research conducted at universities, hospitals, and other institutions that receive support from the
federal government must be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB)—a committee at the
institution that reviews research protocols to make sure they conform to ethical standards.

• Informed consent is the process of obtaining and documenting people’s agreement to participate in a
study, having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision.
Although it often involves having them read and sign a consent form, it is not equivalent to reading and
signing a consent form.

• Although some researchers argue that deception of research participants is never ethically justified, the
APA Ethics Code allows for its use when the benefits of using it outweigh the risks, participants cannot
reasonably be expected to be harmed, there is no way to conduct the study without deception, and
participants are informed of the deception as soon as possible.

• It is your responsibility as a researcher to know and accept your ethical responsibilities.
• You can take several concrete steps to minimize risks and deception in your research. These include

making changes to your research design, prescreening to identify and eliminate high-risk participants,
and providing participants with as much information as possible during informed consent and debriefing.

• Your ethical responsibilities continue beyond IRB approval. You need to monitor participants’ reactions,
be alert for potential violations of confidentiality, and maintain scholarly integrity through the publication
process.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 79

Exercises

• Practice: Imagine a study testing the effectiveness of a new drug for treating obsessive-compulsive
disorder. Give a hypothetical example of an ethical issue from each cell of Table 3.1 “A Framework for
Thinking About Ethical Issues in Scientific Research” that could arise in this research.

• Discussion: It has been argued that researchers are not ethically responsible for the misinterpretation or
misuse of their research by others. Do you agree? Why or why not?

• Practice: Read the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report, and Standard 8 of the APA Ethics Code. List five
specific similarities and five specific differences among them.

• Discussion: In a study on the effects of disgust on moral judgment, participants were asked to judge the
morality of disgusting acts, including people eating a dead pet and passionate kissing between a brother
and sister (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993).1 If you were on the IRB that reviewed this protocol, what concerns
would you have with it? Refer to the appropriate sections of the APA Ethics Code.

• Discussion: How could you conduct a study on the extent to which people obey authority in a way that
minimizes risks and deception as much as possible? (Note: Such a study would not have to look at all like
Milgram’s.)

• Practice: Find a study in a professional journal and create a consent form for that study. Be sure to
include all the information in Standard 8.02.

Notes

1. Haidt, J., Koller, S. and Dias, M. (1993) Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613

80 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

CHAPTER IV

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Researchers Tara MacDonald and Alanna Martineau were interested in the effect of female university
students’ moods on their intentions to have unprotected sexual intercourse (MacDonald & Martineau,
2002)1. In a carefully designed empirical study, they found that being in a negative mood increased intentions
to have unprotected sex—but only for students who were low in self-esteem. Although there are many
challenges involved in conducting a study like this, one of the primary ones is the measurement of the
relevant variables. In this study, the researchers needed to know whether each of their participants had high
or low self-esteem, which of course required measuring their self-esteem. They also needed to be sure that
their attempt to put people into a negative mood (by having them think negative thoughts) was successful,
which required measuring their moods. Finally, they needed to see whether self-esteem and mood were
related to participants’ intentions to have unprotected sexual intercourse, which required measuring these
intentions.

To students who are just getting started in psychological research, the challenge of measuring such variables
might seem insurmountable. Is it really possible to measure things as intangible as self-esteem, mood, or an
intention to do something? The answer is a resounding yes, and in this chapter we look closely at the nature
of the variables that psychologists study and how they can be measured. We also look at some practical
issues in psychological measurement.

Do You Feel You Are a Person of Worth?

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989)2 is one of the most common measures of self-esteem and
the one that MacDonald and Martineau used in their study. Participants respond to each of the 10 items that
follow with a rating on a 4-point scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Score Items 1, 2, 4, 6,
and 7 by assigning 3 points for each Strongly Agree response, 2 for each Agree, 1 for each Disagree, and 0 for
each Strongly Disagree. Reverse the scoring for Items 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 by assigning 0 points for each Strongly
Agree, 1 point for each Agree, and so on. The overall score is the total number of points.

1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.

Psychological Measurement | 81

9. I certainly feel useless at times.
10. At times I think I am no good at all.

Notes

1. MacDonald, T. K., & Martineau, A. M. (2002). Self-esteem, mood, and intentions to use condoms: When does low self-
esteem lead to risky health behaviors? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 299–306.

2. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (rev. ed.). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

82 | Psychological Measurement

19. Understanding Psychological Measurement

Learning Objectives

1. Define measurement and give several examples of measurement in psychology.
2. Explain what a psychological construct is and give several examples.
3. Distinguish conceptual from operational definitions, give examples of each, and create simple operational

definitions.
4. Distinguish the four levels of measurement, give examples of each, and explain why this distinction is

important.

What Is Measurement?

Measurement is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic
of the individuals. This very general definition is consistent with the kinds of measurement that everyone
is familiar with—for example, weighing oneself by stepping onto a bathroom scale, or checking the internal
temperature of a roasting turkey using a meat thermometer. It is also consistent with measurement in the
other sciences. In physics, for example, one might measure the potential energy of an object in Earth’s
gravitational field by finding its mass and height (which of course requires measuring those variables) and
then multiplying them together along with the gravitational acceleration of Earth (9.8 m/s2). The result of
this procedure is a score that represents the object’s potential energy.

This general definition of measurement is consistent with measurement in psychology too. (Psychological
measurement is often referred to as psychometrics.) Imagine, for example, that a cognitive psychologist
wants to measure a person’s working memory capacity—their ability to hold in mind and think about several
pieces of information all at the same time. To do this, she might use a backward digit span task, in which she
reads a list of two digits to the person and asks them to repeat them in reverse order. She then repeats this
several times, increasing the length of the list by one digit each time, until the person makes an error. The
length of the longest list for which the person responds correctly is the score and represents their working
memory capacity. Or imagine a clinical psychologist who is interested in how depressed a person is. He
administers the Beck Depression Inventory, which is a 21-item self-report questionnaire in which the person
rates the extent to which they have felt sad, lost energy, and experienced other symptoms of depression
over the past 2 weeks. The sum of these 21 ratings is the score and represents the person’s current level of
depression.

The important point here is that measurement does not require any particular instruments or procedures.

Understanding Psychological Measurement | 83

What it does require is some systematic procedure for assigning scores to individuals or objects so that those
scores represent the characteristic of interest.

Psychological Constructs

Many variables studied by psychologists are straightforward and simple to measure. These include age,
height, weight, and birth order. You can ask people how old they are and be reasonably sure that they
know and will tell you. Although people might not know or want to tell you how much they weigh, you can
have them step onto a bathroom scale. Other variables studied by psychologists—perhaps the majority—are
not so straightforward or simple to measure. We cannot accurately assess people’s level of intelligence
by looking at them, and we certainly cannot put their self-esteem on a bathroom scale. These kinds of
variables are called constructs (pronounced CON-structs) and include personality traits (e.g., extraversion),
emotional states (e.g., fear), attitudes (e.g., toward taxes), and abilities (e.g., athleticism).

Psychological constructs cannot be observed directly. One reason is that they often represent tendencies to
think, feel, or act in certain ways. For example, to say that a particular university student is highly
extraverted does not necessarily mean that she is behaving in an extraverted way right now. In fact, she
might be sitting quietly by herself, reading a book. Instead, it means that she has a general tendency to
behave in extraverted ways (e.g., being outgoing, enjoying social interactions) across a variety of situations.
Another reason psychological constructs cannot be observed directly is that they often involve internal
processes. Fear, for example, involves the activation of certain central and peripheral nervous system
structures, along with certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—none of which is necessarily
obvious to an outside observer. Notice also that neither extraversion nor fear “reduces to” any particular
thought, feeling, act, or physiological structure or process. Instead, each is a kind of summary of a complex
set of behaviors and internal processes.

The Big Five

The Big Five is a set of five broad dimensions that capture much of the variation in human personality. Each of
the Big Five can even be defined in terms of six more specific constructs called “facets” (Costa & McCrae, 1992)1.

84 | Understanding Psychological Measurement

O
pe

nn
es

s
to

pe
ri

en
ce

nt
as

y
Ae

st
he

tic
s

Fe
el

in
gs

tio
ns

ea
s

Va
lu

C
on

sc
ie

nt
io

us
ne

Ex
tr

ov
er

si
on

Ag
re

ea
bl

en
es

N
eu

ro
tic

is
m

Table 4.1 The Big Five Personality Dimensions

Openness to
experience Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values

Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement/
Striving Self-discipline Deliberation

Extroversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement
seeking

Positive
emotions

Agreeableness Trust Straight-forwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender
mindedness

Neuroticism Worry Anger Discouragement Self-consciousness Impulsivity Vulnerability

The conceptual definition of a psychological construct describes the behaviors and internal processes that
make up that construct, along with how it relates to other variables. For example, a conceptual definition
of neuroticism (another one of the Big Five) would be that it is people’s tendency to experience negative
emotions such as anxiety, anger, and sadness across a variety of situations. This definition might also include
that it has a strong genetic component, remains fairly stable over time, and is positively correlated with the
tendency to experience pain and other physical symptoms.

Students sometimes wonder why, when researchers want to understand a construct like self-esteem or
neuroticism, they do not simply look it up in the dictionary. One reason is that many scientific constructs do
not have counterparts in everyday language (e.g., working memory capacity). More important, researchers
are in the business of developing definitions that are more detailed and precise—and that more accurately
describe the way the world is—than the informal definitions in the dictionary. As we will see, they do this
by proposing conceptual definitions, testing them empirically, and revising them as necessary. Sometimes
they throw them out altogether. This is why the research literature often includes different conceptual
definitions of the same construct. In some cases, an older conceptual definition has been replaced by a
newer one that fits and works better. In others, researchers are still in the process of deciding which of
various conceptual definitions is the best.

86 | Understanding Psychological Measurement

Operational Definitions

An operational definition is a definition of a variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured.
These measures generally fall into one of three broad categories. Self-report measures are those in which
participants report on their own thoughts, feelings, and actions, as with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965)2. Behavioral measures are those in which some other aspect of participants’ behavior
is observed and recorded. This is an extremely broad category that includes the observation of people’s
behavior both in highly structured laboratory tasks and in more natural settings. A good example of the
former would be measuring working memory capacity using the backward digit span task. A good example
of the latter is a famous operational definition of physical aggression from researcher Albert Bandura and
his colleagues (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961)3. They let each of several children play for 20 minutes in a room
that contained a clown-shaped punching bag called a Bobo doll. They filmed each child and counted the
number of acts of physical aggression the child committed. These included hitting the doll with a mallet,
punching it, and kicking it. Their operational definition, then, was the number of these specifically defined
acts that the child committed during the 20-minute period. Finally, physiological measures are those that
involve recording any of a wide variety of physiological processes, including heart rate and blood pressure,
galvanic skin response, hormone levels, and electrical activity and blood flow in the brain.

For any given variable or construct, there will be multiple operational definitions. Stress is a good example.
A rough conceptual definition is that stress is an adaptive response to a perceived danger or threat that
involves physiological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. But researchers have operationally
defined it in several ways. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967)4 is a self-report
questionnaire on which people identify stressful events that they have experienced in the past year and
assigns points for each one depending on its severity. For example, a man who has been divorced (73 points),
changed jobs (36 points), and had a change in sleeping habits (16 points) in the past year would have a total
score of 125. The Hassles and Uplifts Scale (Delongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman & Lazarus, 1982) 5 is similar
but focuses on everyday stressors like misplacing things and being concerned about one’s weight. The
Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) 6 is another self-report measure that focuses
on people’s feelings of stress (e.g., “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?”). Researchers have also
operationally defined stress in terms of several physiological variables including blood pressure and levels
of the stress hormone cortisol.

When psychologists use multiple operational definitions of the same construct—either within a study or
across studies—they are using converging operations. The idea is that the various operational definitions
are “converging” or coming together on the same construct. When scores based on several different
operational definitions are closely related to each other and produce similar patterns of results, this
constitutes good evidence that the construct is being measured effectively and that it is useful. The various
measures of stress, for example, are all correlated with each other and have all been shown to be correlated
with other variables such as immune system functioning (also measured in a variety of ways) (Segerstrom &
Miller, 2004)7. This is what allows researchers eventually to draw useful general conclusions, such as “stress
is negatively correlated with immune system functioning,” as opposed to more specific and less useful ones,
such as “people’s scores on the Perceived Stress Scale are negatively correlated with their white blood
counts.”

Understanding Psychological Measurement | 87

Levels of Measurement

The psychologist S. S. Stevens suggested that scores can be assigned to individuals in a way that
communicates more or less quantitative information about the variable of interest (Stevens, 1946)8. For
example, the officials at a 100-m race could simply rank order the runners as they crossed the finish line
(first, second, etc.), or they could time each runner to the nearest tenth of a second using a stopwatch
(11.5 s, 12.1 s, etc.). In either case, they would be measuring the runners’ times by systematically assigning
scores to represent those times. But while the rank ordering procedure communicates the fact that the
second-place runner took longer to finish than the first-place finisher, the stopwatch procedure also
communicates how much longer the second-place finisher took. Stevens actually suggested four different
levels of measurement (which he called “scales of measurement”) that correspond to four types of
information that can be communicated by a set of scores, and the statistical procedures that can be used
with the information.

The nominal level of measurement is used for categorical variables and involves assigning scores that are
category labels. Category labels communicate whether any two individuals are the same or different in
terms of the variable being measured. For example, if you ask your participants about their marital status,
you are engaged in nominal-level measurement. Or if you ask your participants to indicate which of
several ethnicities they identify themselves with, you are again engaged in nominal-level measurement.
The essential point about nominal scales is that they do not imply any ordering among the responses. For
example, when classifying people according to their favorite color, there is no sense in which green is
placed “ahead of” blue. Responses are merely categorized. Nominal scales thus embody the lowest level of
measurement9.

The remaining three levels of measurement are used for quantitative variables. The ordinal level of
measurement involves assigning scores so that they represent the rank order of the individuals. Ranks
communicate not only whether any two individuals are the same or different in terms of the variable being
measured but also whether one individual is higher or lower on that variable. For example, a researcher
wishing to measure consumers’ satisfaction with their microwave ovens might ask them to specify their
feelings as either “very dissatisfied,” “somewhat dissatisfied,” “somewhat satisfied,” or “very satisfied.” The
items in this scale are ordered, ranging from least to most satisfied. This is what distinguishes ordinal
from nominal scales. Unlike nominal scales, ordinal scales allow comparisons of the degree to which two
individuals rate the variable. For example, our satisfaction ordering makes it meaningful to assert that
one person is more satisfied than another with their microwave ovens. Such an assertion reflects the first
person’s use of a verbal label that comes later in the list than the label chosen by the second person.

On the other hand, ordinal scales fail to capture important information that will be present in the other
levels of measurement we examine. In particular, the difference between two levels of an ordinal scale
cannot be assumed to be the same as the difference between two other levels ( just like you cannot assume
that the gap between the runners in first and second place is equal to the gap between the runners in
second and third place). In our satisfaction scale, for example, the difference between the responses “very
dissatisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied” is probably not equivalent to the difference between “somewhat
dissatisfied” and “somewhat satisfied.” Nothing in our measurement procedure allows us to determine

88 | Understanding Psychological Measurement

whether the two differences reflect the same difference in psychological satisfaction. Statisticians express
this point by saying that the differences between adjacent scale values do not necessarily represent equal
intervals on the underlying scale giving rise to the measurements. (In our case, the underlying scale is the
true feeling of satisfaction, which we are trying to measure.)

The interval level of measurement involves assigning scores using numerical scales in which intervals have
the same interpretation throughout. As an example, consider either the Fahrenheit or Celsius temperature
scales. The difference between 30 degrees and 40 degrees represents the same temperature difference as
the difference between 80 degrees and 90 degrees. This is because each 10-degree interval has the same
physical meaning (in terms of the kinetic energy of molecules).

Interval scales are not perfect, however. In particular, they do not have a true zero point even if one of
the scaled values happens to carry the name “zero.” The Fahrenheit scale illustrates the issue. Zero degrees
Fahrenheit does not represent the complete absence of temperature (the absence of any molecular kinetic
energy). In reality, the label “zero” is applied to its temperature for quite accidental reasons connected to the
history of temperature measurement. Since an interval scale has no true zero point, it does not make sense
to compute ratios of temperatures. For example, there is no sense in which the ratio of 40 to 20 degrees
Fahrenheit is the same as the ratio of 100 to 50 degrees; no interesting physical property is preserved across
the two ratios. After all, if the “zero” label were applied at the temperature that Fahrenheit happens to label
as 10 degrees, the two ratios would instead be 30 to 10 and 90 to 40, no longer the same! For this reason, it
does not make sense to say that 80 degrees is “twice as hot” as 40 degrees. Such a claim would depend on
an arbitrary decision about where to “start” the temperature scale, namely, what temperature to call zero
(whereas the claim is intended to make a more fundamental assertion about the underlying physical reality).

In psychology, the intelligence quotient (IQ) is often considered to be measured at the interval level. While
it is technically possible to receive a score of 0 on an IQ test, such a score would not indicate the complete
absence of IQ. Moreover, a person with an IQ score of 140 does not have twice the IQ of a person with a
score of 70. However, the difference between IQ scores of 80 and 100 is the same as the difference between
IQ scores of 120 and 140.

Finally, the ratio level of measurement involves assigning scores in such a way that there is a true zero point
that represents the complete absence of the quantity. Height measured in meters and weight measured in
kilograms are good examples. So are counts of discrete objects or events such as the number of siblings
one has or the number of questions a student answers correctly on an exam. You can think of a ratio scale
as the three earlier scales rolled up in one. Like a nominal scale, it provides a name or category for each
object (the numbers serve as labels). Like an ordinal scale, the objects are ordered (in terms of the ordering
of the numbers). Like an interval scale, the same difference at two places on the scale has the same meaning.
However, in addition, the same ratio at two places on the scale also carries the same meaning (see Table 4.1).

The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However,
zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one
temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy
of the other temperature.

Another example of a ratio scale is the amount of money you have in your pocket right now (25 cents, 50

Understanding Psychological Measurement | 89

cents, etc.). Money is measured on a ratio scale because, in addition to having the properties of an interval
scale, it has a true zero point: if you have zero money, this actually implies the absence of money. Since
money has a true zero point, it makes sense to say that someone with 50 cents has twice as much money as
someone with 25 cents.

Stevens’s levels of measurement are important for at least two reasons. First, they emphasize the generality
of the concept of measurement. Although people do not normally think of categorizing or ranking
individuals as measurement, in fact, they are as long as they are done so that they represent some
characteristic of the individuals. Second, the levels of measurement can serve as a rough guide to the
statistical procedures that can be used with the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. With
nominal-level measurement, for example, the only available measure of central tendency is the mode. With
ordinal-level measurement, the median or mode can be used as indicators of central tendency. Interval and
ratio-level measurement are typically considered the most desirable because they permit for any indicators
of central tendency to be computed (i.e., mean, median, or mode). Also, ratio-level measurement is the only
level that allows meaningful statements about ratios of scores. Once again, one cannot say that someone
with an IQ of 140 is twice as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 70 because IQ is measured at the interval
level, but one can say that someone with six siblings has twice as many as someone with three because
number of siblings is measured at the ratio level.

Table 4.1 Summary of Levels of Measurements

Level of Measurement Category labels Rank order Equal intervals True zero

NOMINAL X

ORDINAL X X

INTERVAL X X X

RATIO X X X X

Notes

1. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13.

2. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
3. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
4. Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2),

213-218.
5. Delongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationships of daily hassles, uplifts, and major

life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1(2), 119-136.
6. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 24, 386-396.
7. Segerstrom, S. E., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of

30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 601–630.

90 | Understanding Psychological Measurement

8. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.
9. Levels of Measurement. Retrieved from http://wikieducator.org/

Introduction_to_Research_Methods_In_Psychology/Theories_and_Measurement/Levels_of_Measurement

Understanding Psychological Measurement | 91

http://wikieducator.org/Introduction_to_Research_Methods_In_Psychology/Theories_and_Measurement/Levels_of_Measurement

20. Reliability and Validity of Measurement

Learning Objectives

1. Define reliability, including the different types and how they are assessed.
2. Define validity, including the different types and how they are assessed.
3. Describe the kinds of evidence that would be relevant to assessing the reliability and validity of a

particular measure.

Again, measurement involves assigning scores to individuals so that they represent some characteristic
of the individuals. But how do researchers know that the scores actually represent the characteristic,
especially when it is a construct like intelligence, self-esteem, depression, or working memory capacity?
The answer is that they conduct research using the measure to confirm that the scores make sense based on
their understanding of the construct being measured. This is an extremely important point. Psychologists
do not simply assume that their measures work. Instead, they collect data to demonstrate that they work. If
their research does not demonstrate that a measure works, they stop using it.

As an informal example, imagine that you have been dieting for a month. Your clothes seem to be fitting
more loosely, and several friends have asked if you have lost weight. If at this point your bathroom scale
indicated that you had lost 10 pounds, this would make sense and you would continue to use the scale. But if
it indicated that you had gained 10 pounds, you would rightly conclude that it was broken and either fix it or
get rid of it. In evaluating a measurement method, psychologists consider two general dimensions: reliability
and validity.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. Psychologists consider three types of consistency: over
time (test-retest reliability), across items (internal consistency), and across different researchers (inter-
rater reliability).

Test-Retest Reliability

When researchers measure a construct that they assume to be consistent across time, then the scores they

92 | Reliability and Validity of Measurement

obtain should also be consistent across time. Test-retest reliability is the extent to which this is actually
the case. For example, intelligence is generally thought to be consistent across time. A person who is highly
intelligent today will be highly intelligent next week. This means that any good measure of intelligence
should produce roughly the same scores for this individual next week as it does today. Clearly, a measure
that produces highly inconsistent scores over time cannot be a very good measure of a construct that is
supposed to be consistent.

Assessing test-retest reliability requires using the measure on a group of people at one time, using it again
on the same group of people at a later time, and then looking at the test-retest correlation between the two
sets of scores. This is typically done by graphing the data in a scatterplot and computing the correlation
coefficient. Figure 4.2 shows the correlation between two sets of scores of several university students on the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, administered two times, a week apart. The correlation coefficient for these
data is +.95. In general, a test-retest correlation of +.80 or greater is considered to indicate good reliability.

Figure 4.2 Test-Retest Correlation Between Two Sets of Scores of Several College Students on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale, Given Two Times a Week Apart

Again, high test-retest correlations make sense when the construct being measured is assumed to be
consistent over time, which is the case for intelligence, self-esteem, and the Big Five personality dimensions.
But other constructs are not assumed to be stable over time. The very nature of mood, for example, is that it
changes. So a measure of mood that produced a low test-retest correlation over a period of a month would
not be a cause for concern.

Reliability and Validity of Measurement | 93

Internal Consistency

Another kind of reliability is internal consistency, which is the consistency of people’s responses across
the items on a multiple-item measure. In general, all the items on such measures are supposed to reflect
the same underlying construct, so people’s scores on those items should be correlated with each other.
On the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, people who agree that they are a person of worth should tend to
agree that they have a number of good qualities. If people’s responses to the different items are not
correlated with each other, then it would no longer make sense to claim that they are all measuring the same
underlying construct. This is as true for behavioral and physiological measures as for self-report measures.
For example, people might make a series of bets in a simulated game of roulette as a measure of their level
of risk seeking. This measure would be internally consistent to the extent that individual participants’ bets
were consistently high or low across trials.

Like test-retest reliability, internal consistency can only be assessed by collecting and analyzing data. One
approach is to look at a split-half correlation. This involves splitting the items into two sets, such as the
first and second halves of the items or the even- and odd-numbered items. Then a score is computed for
each set of items, and the relationship between the two sets of scores is examined. For example, Figure
4.3 shows the split-half correlation between several university students’ scores on the even-numbered
items and their scores on the odd-numbered items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The correlation
coefficient for these data is +.88. A split-half correlation of +.80 or greater is generally considered good
internal consistency.

Figure 4.3 Split-Half Correlation Between Several College Students’ Scores on the Even-Numbered Items and Their Scores
on the Odd-Numbered Items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

94 | Reliability and Validity of Measurement

Perhaps the most common measure of internal consistency used by researchers in psychology is a statistic
called Cronbach’s α (the Greek letter alpha). Conceptually, α is the mean of all possible split-half correlations
for a set of items. For example, there are 252 ways to split a set of 10 items into two sets of five. Cronbach’s
α would be the mean of the 252 split-half correlations. Note that this is not how α is actually computed, but
it is a correct way of interpreting the meaning of this statistic. Again, a value of +.80 or greater is generally
taken to indicate good internal consistency.

Interrater Reliability

Many behavioral measures involve significant judgment on the part of an observer or a rater. Inter-
rater reliability is the extent to which different observers are consistent in their judgments. For example,
if you were interested in measuring university students’ social skills, you could make video recordings of
them as they interacted with another student whom they are meeting for the first time. Then you could
have two or more observers watch the videos and rate each student’s level of social skills. To the extent that
each participant does, in fact, have some level of social skills that can be detected by an attentive observer,
different observers’ ratings should be highly correlated with each other. Inter-rater reliability would also
have been measured in Bandura’s Bobo doll study. In this case, the observers’ ratings of how many acts of
aggression a particular child committed while playing with the Bobo doll should have been highly positively
correlated. Interrater reliability is often assessed using Cronbach’s α when the judgments are quantitative or
an analogous statistic called Cohen’s κ (the Greek letter kappa) when they are categorical.

Validity

Validity is the extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are intended to.
But how do researchers make this judgment? We have already considered one factor that they take into
account—reliability. When a measure has good test-retest reliability and internal consistency, researchers
should be more confident that the scores represent what they are supposed to. There has to be more to
it, however, because a measure can be extremely reliable but have no validity whatsoever. As an absurd
example, imagine someone who believes that people’s index finger length reflects their self-esteem and
therefore tries to measure self-esteem by holding a ruler up to people’s index fingers. Although this measure
would have extremely good test-retest reliability, it would have absolutely no validity. The fact that one
person’s index finger is a centimeter longer than another’s would indicate nothing about which one had
higher self-esteem.

Discussions of validity usually divide it into several distinct “types.” But a good way to interpret these types
is that they are other kinds of evidence—in addition to reliability—that should be taken into account when
judging the validity of a measure. Here we consider three basic kinds: face validity, content validity, and
criterion validity.

Reliability and Validity of Measurement | 95

Face Validity

Face validity is the extent to which a measurement method appears “on its face” to measure the construct
of interest. Most people would expect a self-esteem questionnaire to include items about whether they
see themselves as a person of worth and whether they think they have good qualities. So a questionnaire
that included these kinds of items would have good face validity. The finger-length method of measuring
self-esteem, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to do with self-esteem and therefore has poor face
validity. Although face validity can be assessed quantitatively—for example, by having a large sample of
people rate a measure in terms of whether it appears to measure what it is intended to—it is usually assessed
informally.

Face validity is at best a very weak kind of evidence that a measurement method is measuring what it is
supposed to. One reason is that it is based on people’s intuitions about human behavior, which are frequently
wrong. It is also the case that many established measures in psychology work quite well despite lacking
face validity. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) measures many personality
characteristics and disorders by having people decide whether each of over 567 different statements applies
to them—where many of the statements do not have any obvious relationship to the construct that they
measure. For example, the items “I enjoy detective or mystery stories” and “The sight of blood doesn’t
frighten me or make me sick” both measure the suppression of aggression. In this case, it is not the
participants’ literal answers to these questions that are of interest, but rather whether the pattern of the
participants’ responses to a series of questions matches those of individuals who tend to suppress their
aggression.

Content Validity

Content validity is the extent to which a measure “covers” the construct of interest. For example, if a
researcher conceptually defines test anxiety as involving both sympathetic nervous system activation
(leading to nervous feelings) and negative thoughts, then his measure of test anxiety should include items
about both nervous feelings and negative thoughts. Or consider that attitudes are usually defined as
involving thoughts, feelings, and actions toward something. By this conceptual definition, a person has a
positive attitude toward exercise to the extent that they think positive thoughts about exercising, feels
good about exercising, and actually exercises. So to have good content validity, a measure of people’s
attitudes toward exercise would have to reflect all three of these aspects. Like face validity, content validity
is not usually assessed quantitatively. Instead, it is assessed by carefully checking the measurement method
against the conceptual definition of the construct.

Criterion Validity

Criterion validity is the extent to which people’s scores on a measure are correlated with other variables

96 | Reliability and Validity of Measurement

(known as criteria) that one would expect them to be correlated with. For example, people’s scores on a
new measure of test anxiety should be negatively correlated with their performance on an important school
exam. If it were found that people’s scores were in fact negatively correlated with their exam performance,
then this would be a piece of evidence that these scores really represent people’s test anxiety. But if it were
found that people scored equally well on the exam regardless of their test anxiety scores, then this would
cast doubt on the validity of the measure.

A criterion can be any variable that one has reason to think should be correlated with the construct being
measured, and there will usually be many of them. For example, one would expect test anxiety scores to
be negatively correlated with exam performance and course grades and positively correlated with general
anxiety and with blood pressure during an exam. Or imagine that a researcher develops a new measure
of physical risk taking. People’s scores on this measure should be correlated with their participation in
“extreme” activities such as snowboarding and rock climbing, the number of speeding tickets they have
received, and even the number of broken bones they have had over the years. When the criterion is
measured at the same time as the construct, criterion validity is referred to as concurrent validity; however,
when the criterion is measured at some point in the future (after the construct has been measured), it is
referred to as predictive validity (because scores on the measure have “predicted” a future outcome).

Criteria can also include other measures of the same construct. For example, one would expect new
measures of test anxiety or physical risk taking to be positively correlated with existing established
measures of the same constructs. This is known as convergent validity.

Assessing convergent validity requires collecting data using the measure. Researchers John Cacioppo and
Richard Petty did this when they created their self-report Need for Cognition Scale to measure how much
people value and engage in thinking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)1. In a series of studies, they showed that
people’s scores were positively correlated with their scores on a standardized academic achievement test,
and that their scores were negatively correlated with their scores on a measure of dogmatism (which
represents a tendency toward obedience). In the years since it was created, the Need for Cognition Scale has
been used in literally hundreds of studies and has been shown to be correlated with a wide variety of other
variables, including the effectiveness of an advertisement, interest in politics, and juror decisions (Petty,
Briñol, Loersch, & McCaslin, 2009)2.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity, on the other hand, is the extent to which scores on a measure are not correlated with
measures of variables that are conceptually distinct. For example, self-esteem is a general attitude toward
the self that is fairly stable over time. It is not the same as mood, which is how good or bad one happens to be
feeling right now. So people’s scores on a new measure of self-esteem should not be very highly correlated
with their moods. If the new measure of self-esteem were highly correlated with a measure of mood, it could
be argued that the new measure is not really measuring self-esteem; it is measuring mood instead.

When they created the Need for Cognition Scale, Cacioppo and Petty also provided evidence of discriminant
validity by showing that people’s scores were not correlated with certain other variables. For example,

Reliability and Validity of Measurement | 97

they found only a weak correlation between people’s need for cognition and a measure of their cognitive
style—the extent to which they tend to think analytically by breaking ideas into smaller parts or holistically
in terms of “the big picture.” They also found no correlation between people’s need for cognition and
measures of their test anxiety and their tendency to respond in socially desirable ways. All these low
correlations provide evidence that the measure is reflecting a conceptually distinct construct.

Notes

1. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
2. Petty, R. E, Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),

Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

98 | Reliability and Validity of Measurement

21. Practical Strategies for Psychological
Measurement

Learning Objectives

1. Specify the four broad steps in the measurement process.
2. Explain how you would decide whether to use an existing measure or create your own.
3. Describe multiple strategies to identify and locate existing measures of psychological constructs.
4. Describe several general principles for creating new measures and for implementing existing and new

measures.
5. Create a simple plan for assessing the reliability and validity of an existing or new measure.

So far in this chapter, we have considered several basic ideas about the nature of psychological constructs
and their measurement. But now imagine that you are in the position of actually having to measure a
psychological construct for a research project. How should you proceed? Broadly speaking, there are four
steps in the measurement process: (a) conceptually defining the construct, (b) operationally defining the
construct, (c) implementing the measure, and (d) evaluating the measure. In this section, we will look at each
of these steps in turn.

Conceptually Defining the Construct

Having a clear and complete conceptual definition of a construct is a prerequisite for good measurement.
For one thing, it allows you to make sound decisions about exactly how to measure the construct. If you had
only a vague idea that you wanted to measure people’s “memory,” for example, you would have no way to
choose whether you should have them remember a list of vocabulary words, a set of photographs, a newly
learned skill, an experience from long ago, or have them remember to perform a task at a later time. Because
psychologists now conceptualize memory as a set of semi-independent systems, you would have to be more
precise about what you mean by “memory.” If you are interested in long-term episodic memory (memory for
previous experiences), then having participants remember a list of words that they learned last week would
make sense, but having them try to remember to execute a task in the future would not. In general, there
is no substitute for reading the research literature on a construct and paying close attention to how others
have defined it.

Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement | 99

Operationally Defining the Construct

Once you have a conceptual definition of the construct you are interested in studying it is time to
operationally define the construct. Recall an operational definition is a definition of the variable in terms
of precisely how it is to be measured. Since most variables are relatively abstract concepts that cannot
be directly observed (e.g., stress), and observation is at the heart of the scientific method, conceptual
definitions must be transformed into something that can be directly observed and measured. Most variables
can be operationally defined in many different ways. For example, stress can be operationally defined as
people’s scores on a stress scale such as the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) 1,
cortisol concentrations in their saliva, or the number of stressful life events they have recently experienced.
As described below, operationally defining your variable(s) of interest may involve using an existing measure
or creating your own measure.

Using an Existing Measure

It is usually a good idea to use an existing measure that has been used successfully in previous research.
Among the advantages are that (a) you save the time and trouble of creating your own, (b) there is already
some evidence that the measure is valid (if it has been used successfully), and (c) your results can more easily
be compared with and combined with previous results. In fact, if there already exists a reliable and valid
measure of a construct, other researchers might expect you to use it unless you have a good and clearly
stated reason for not doing so.

If you choose to use an existing measure, you may still have to choose among several alternatives. You might
choose the most common one, the one with the best evidence of reliability and validity, the one that best
measures a particular aspect of a construct that you are interested in (e.g., a physiological measure of stress
if you are most interested in its underlying physiology), or even the one that would be easiest to use. For
example, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is a self-report questionnaire that measures all the Big
Five personality dimensions with just 10 items (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003)2. It is not as reliable or
valid as longer and more comprehensive measures, but a researcher might choose to use it when testing
time is severely limited.

When an existing measure was created primarily for use in scientific research, it is usually described in
detail in a published research article and is free to use in your own research—with a proper citation.
You might find that later researchers who use the same measure describe it only briefly but provide a
reference to the original article, in which case you would have to get the details from the original article.
The American Psychological Association also publishes the Directory of Unpublished Experimental Measures
and PsycTESTS, which are extensive catalogs/collections of measures that have been used in previous
research. Many existing measures—especially those that have applications in clinical psychology—are
proprietary. This means that a publisher owns the rights to them and that you would have to purchase
them. These include many standard intelligence tests, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Details about many of these measures and how to obtain them

100 | Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement

https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psyctests/

can be found in other reference books, including Tests in Print and the Mental Measurements Yearbook.
There is a good chance you can find these reference books in your university library.

Creating Your Own Measure

Instead of using an existing measure, you might want to create your own. Perhaps there is no existing
measure of the construct you are interested in or existing ones are too difficult or time-consuming to
use. Or perhaps you want to use a new measure specifically to see whether it works in the same way as
existing measures—that is, to evaluate convergent validity. In this section, we consider some general issues
in creating new measures that apply equally to self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures. More
detailed guidelines for creating self-report measures are presented in Chapter 7.

First, be aware that most new measures in psychology are really variations of existing measures, so you
should still look to the research literature for ideas. Perhaps you can modify an existing questionnaire,
create a paper-and-pencil version of a measure that is normally computerized (or vice versa), or adapt a
measure that has traditionally been used for another purpose. For example, the famous Stroop task (Stroop,
1935)3—in which people quickly name the colors that various color words are printed in—has been adapted
for the study of social anxiety. People high in social anxiety are slower at color naming when the words have
negative social connotations such as “stupid” (Amir, Freshman, & Foa, 2002)4.

When you create a new measure, you should strive for simplicity. Remember that your participants are not
as interested in your research as you are and that they will vary widely in their ability to understand and
carry out whatever task you give them. You should create a set of clear instructions using simple language
that you can present in writing or read aloud (or both). It is also a good idea to include one or more practice
items so that participants can become familiar with the task, and to build in an opportunity for them to ask
questions before continuing. It is also best to keep the measure brief to avoid boring or frustrating your
participants to the point that their responses start to become less reliable and valid.

The need for brevity, however, needs to be weighed against the fact that it is nearly always better for
a measure to include multiple items rather than a single item. There are two reasons for this. One is a
matter of content validity. Multiple items are often required to cover a construct adequately. The other
is a matter of reliability. People’s responses to single items can be influenced by all sorts of irrelevant
factors—misunderstanding the particular item, a momentary distraction, or a simple error such as checking
the wrong response option. But when several responses are summed or averaged, the effects of these
irrelevant factors tend to cancel each other out to produce more reliable scores. Remember, however, that
multiple items must be structured in a way that allows them to be combined into a single overall score by
summing or averaging. To measure “financial responsibility,” a student might ask people about their annual
income, obtain their credit score, and have them rate how “thrifty” they are—but there is no obvious way to
combine these responses into an overall score. To create a true multiple-item measure, the student might
instead ask people to rate the degree to which 10 statements about financial responsibility describe them
on the same five-point scale.

Finally, the very best way to assure yourself that your measure has clear instructions, includes sufficient

Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement | 101

practice, and is an appropriate length is to test several people. Observe them as they complete the task, time
them, and ask them afterward to comment on how easy or difficult it was, whether the instructions were
clear, and anything else you might be wondering about. Obviously, it is better to discover problems with a
measure before beginning any large-scale data collection.

Implementing the Measure

You will want to implement any measure in a way that maximizes its reliability and validity. In most cases, it
is best to test everyone under similar conditions that, ideally, are quiet and free of distractions. Participants
are often tested in groups because it is efficient, but be aware that it can create distractions that reduce the
reliability and validity of the measure. As always, it is good to use previous research as a guide. If others have
successfully tested people in groups using a particular measure, then you should consider doing it too.

Be aware also that people can react in a variety of ways to being measured that reduce the reliability and
validity of the scores. Although some disagreeable participants might intentionally respond in ways meant
to disrupt a study, participant reactivity is more likely to take the opposite form. Agreeable participants
might respond in ways they believe they are expected to. Some participants might engage in
socially desirable responding, doing or saying things because they think it is the socially appropriate thing.
For example, people with low self-esteem agree that they feel they are a person of worth not because they
really feel this way but because they believe this is the socially appropriate response and do not want to look
bad in the eyes of the researcher. Additionally, research studies can have built-in demand characteristics:
subtle cues that reveal how the researcher expects participants to behave. For example, a participant whose
attitude toward exercise is measured immediately after she is asked to read a passage about the dangers of
heart disease might reasonably conclude that the passage was meant to improve her attitude. As a result,
she might respond more favorably because she believes she is expected to by the researcher. Finally, your
own expectations can bias participants’ behaviors in unintended ways.

There are several precautions you can take to minimize these kinds of reactivity. One is to make the
procedure as clear and brief as possible so that participants are not tempted to vent their frustrations on
your results. Another is to guarantee participants’ anonymity and make clear to them that you are doing so.
If you are testing them in groups, be sure that they are seated far enough apart that they cannot see each
other’s responses. Give them all the same type of writing implement so that they cannot be identified by,
for example, the pink glitter pen that they used. You can even allow them to seal completed questionnaires
into individual envelopes or put them into a drop box where they immediately become mixed with others’
questionnaires. Although informed consent requires telling participants what they will be doing, it does not
require revealing your hypothesis or other information that might suggest to participants how you expect
them to respond. A questionnaire designed to measure financial responsibility need not be titled “Are You
Financially Responsible?” It could be titled “Money Questionnaire” or have no title at all. Finally, the effects
of your expectations can be minimized by arranging to have the measure administered by a helper who is
“blind” or unaware of its intent or of any hypothesis being tested. Regardless of whether this is possible, you
should standardize all interactions between researchers and participants—for example, by always reading
the same set of instructions word for word.

102 | Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement

Evaluating the Measure

Once you have used your measure on a sample of people and have a set of scores, you are in a position to
evaluate it more thoroughly in terms of reliability and validity. Even if the measure has been used extensively
by other researchers and has already shown evidence of reliability and validity, you should not assume that
it worked as expected for your particular sample and under your particular testing conditions. Regardless,
you now have additional evidence bearing on the reliability and validity of the measure, and it would make
sense to add that evidence to the research literature.

In most research designs, it is not possible to assess test-retest reliability because participants are tested at
only one time. For a new measure, you might design a study specifically to assess its test-retest reliability
by testing the same set of participants at two separate times. In other cases, a study designed to answer
a different question still allows for the assessment of test-retest reliability. For example, a psychology
instructor might measure his students’ attitude toward critical thinking using the same measure at the
beginning and end of the semester to see if there is any change. Even if there is no change, he could still look
at the correlation between students’ scores at the two times to assess the measure’s test-retest reliability.
It is also customary to assess internal consistency for any multiple-item measure—usually by looking at a
split-half correlation or Cronbach’s α.

Criterion validity can be assessed in various ways. For example, if your study included more than one
measure of the same construct or measures of conceptually distinct constructs, then you should look
at the correlations among these measures to be sure that they fit your expectations. Note also that a
successful experimental manipulation also provides evidence of criterion validity. Recall that MacDonald
and Martineau manipulated participant’s moods by having them think either positive or negative thoughts,
and after the manipulation, their mood measure showed a distinct difference between the two groups. This
simultaneously provided evidence that their mood manipulation worked and that their mood measure was
valid.

But what if your newly collected data cast doubt on the reliability or validity of your measure? The short
answer is that you have to ask why. It could be that there is something wrong with your measure or how
you administered it. It could be that there is something wrong with your conceptual definition. It could be
that your experimental manipulation failed. For example, if a mood measure showed no difference between
people whom you instructed to think positive versus negative thoughts, maybe it is because the participants
did not actually think the thoughts they were supposed to or that the thoughts did not actually affect their
moods. In short, it is “back to the drawing board” to revise the measure, revise the conceptual definition, or
try a new manipulation.

Notes

1. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 386-396.

2. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains.

Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement | 103

Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
3. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
4. Amir, N., Freshman, M., & Foa, E. (2002). Enhanced Stroop interference for threat in social phobia. Journal of Anxiety

Disorders, 16, 1–9.

104 | Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement

22. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Measurement is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic
of the individuals. Psychological measurement can be achieved in a wide variety of ways, including self-
report, behavioral, and physiological measures.

• Psychological constructs such as intelligence, self-esteem, and depression are variables that are not
directly observable because they represent behavioral tendencies or complex patterns of behavior and
internal processes. An important goal of scientific research is to conceptually define psychological
constructs in ways that accurately describe them.

• For any conceptual definition of a construct, there will be many different operational definitions or ways
of measuring it. The use of multiple operational definitions, or converging operations, is a common
strategy in psychological research.

• Variables can be measured at four different levels—nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio—that
communicate increasing amounts of quantitative information. The level of measurement affects the kinds
of statistics you can use and conclusions you can draw from your data.

• Psychological researchers do not simply assume that their measures work. Instead, they conduct
research to show that they work. If they cannot show that they work, they stop using them.

• There are two distinct criteria by which researchers evaluate their measures: reliability and validity.
Reliability is consistency across time (test-retest reliability), across items (internal consistency), and
across researchers (interrater reliability). Validity is the extent to which the scores actually represent the
variable they are intended to.

• Validity is a judgment based on various types of evidence. The relevant evidence includes the measure’s
reliability, whether it covers the construct of interest, and whether the scores it produces are correlated
with other variables they are expected to be correlated with and not correlated with variables that are
conceptually distinct.

• Good measurement begins with a clear conceptual definition of the construct to be measured. This is
accomplished both by clear and detailed thinking and by a review of the research literature.

• You often have the option of using an existing measure or creating a new measure. You should make this
decision based on the availability of existing measures and their adequacy for your purposes.

• Several simple steps can be taken in creating new measures and in implementing both existing and new
measures that can help maximize reliability and validity.

• Once you have used a measure, you should reevaluate its reliability and validity based on your new data.
Remember that the assessment of reliability and validity is an ongoing process.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 105

Exercises

• Practice: Complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and compute your overall score.
• Practice: Think of three operational definitions for sexual jealousy, decisiveness, and social anxiety.

Consider the possibility of self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures. Be as precise as you can.
• Practice: For each of the following variables, decide which level of measurement is being used.

◦ A university instructor measures the time it takes her students to finish an exam by looking
through the stack of exams at the end. She assigns the one on the bottom a score of 1, the one on
top of that a 2, and so on.

◦ A researcher accesses her participants’ medical records and counts the number of times they have
seen a doctor in the past year.

◦ Participants in a research study are asked whether they are right-handed or left-handed.

• Practice: Ask several friends to complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Then assess its internal
consistency by making a scatterplot to show the split-half correlation (even- vs. odd-numbered items).
Compute the correlation coefficient too if you know how.

• Discussion: Think back to the last college exam you took and think of the exam as a psychological
measure. What construct do you think it was intended to measure? Comment on its face and content
validity. What data could you collect to assess its reliability and criterion validity?

• Practice: Write your own conceptual definition of self-confidence, irritability, and athleticism.
• Practice: Choose a construct (sexual jealousy, self-confidence, etc.) and find two measures of that

construct in the research literature. If you were conducting your own study, which one (if either) would
you use and why?

106 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

https://www.wwnorton.com/college/psych/psychsci/media/rosenberg.htm

CHAPTER V

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

In the late 1960s social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané proposed a counter-intuitive hypothesis.
The more witnesses there are to an accident or a crime, the less likely any of them is to help the victim
(Darley & Latané, 1968)1.

They also suggested the theory that this phenomenon occurs because each witness feels less responsible
for helping—a process referred to as the “diffusion of responsibility.” Darley and Latané noted that their
ideas were consistent with many real-world cases. For example, a New York woman named Catherine “Kitty”
Genovese was assaulted and murdered while several witnesses evidently failed to help. But Darley and
Latané also understood that such isolated cases did not provide convincing evidence for their hypothesized
“bystander effect.” There was no way to know, for example, whether any of the witnesses to Kitty Genovese’s
murder would have helped had there been fewer of them.

So to test their hypothesis, Darley and Latané created a simulated emergency situation in a laboratory. Each
of their university student participants was isolated in a small room and told that they would be having a
discussion about university life with other students via an intercom system. Early in the discussion, however,
one of the students began having what seemed to be an epileptic seizure. Over the intercom came the
following: “I could really-er-use some help so if somebody would-er-give me a little h-help-uh-er-er-er-er-
er c-could somebody-er-er-help-er-uh-uh-uh (choking sounds)…I’m gonna die-er-er-I’m…gonna die-er-
help-er-er-seizure-er- [chokes, then quiet]” (Darley & Latané, 1968, p. 379).

In actuality, there were no other students. These comments had been prerecorded and were played back
to create the appearance of a real emergency. The key to the study was that some participants were told
that the discussion involved only one other student (the victim), others were told that it involved two other
students, and still others were told that it included five other students. Because this was the only difference
between these three groups of participants, any difference in their tendency to help the victim would have
to have been caused by it. And sure enough, the likelihood that the participant left the room to seek help for
the “victim” decreased from 85% to 62% to 31% as the number of “witnesses” increased.

The Parable of the 38 Witnesses

The story of Kitty Genovese has been told and retold in numerous psychology textbooks. The standard version
is that there were 38 witnesses to the crime, that all of them watched (or listened) for an extended period of
time, and that none of them did anything to help. However, recent scholarship suggests that the standard story
is inaccurate in many ways (Manning, Levine, & Collins, 2007)2. For example, only six eyewitnesses testified at
the trial, none of them was aware that they were witnessing a lethal assault, and there have been several

Experimental Research | 107

reports of witnesses calling the police or even coming to the aid of Kitty Genovese. Although the standard
story inspired a long line of research on the bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility, it may also have
directed researchers’ and students’ attention away from other equally interesting and important issues in the
psychology of helping—including the conditions in which people do in fact respond collectively to emergency
situations.

The research that Darley and Latané conducted was a particular kind of study called an experiment.
Experiments are used to determine not only whether there is a meaningful relationship between two
variables but also whether the relationship is a causal one that is supported by statistical analysis. For this
reason, experiments are one of the most common and useful tools in the psychological researcher’s toolbox.
In this chapter, we look at experiments in detail. We will first consider what sets experiments apart from
other kinds of studies and why they support causal conclusions while other kinds of studies do not. We
then look at two basic ways of designing an experiment—between-subjects designs and within-subjects
designs—and discuss their pros and cons. Finally, we consider several important practical issues that arise
when conducting experiments.

Notes

1. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 377–383.

2. Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The
parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62, 555–562.

108 | Experimental Research

23. Experiment Basics

Learning Objectives

1. Explain what an experiment is and recognize examples of studies that are experiments and studies that
are not experiments.

2. Distinguish between the manipulation of the independent variable and control of extraneous variables
and explain the importance of each.

3. Recognize examples of confounding variables and explain how they affect the internal validity of a study.
4. Define what a control condition is, explain its purpose in research on treatment effectiveness, and

describe some alternative types of control conditions.

What Is an Experiment?

As we saw earlier in the book, an experiment is a type of study designed specifically to answer the
question of whether there is a causal relationship between two variables. In other words, whether changes
in one variable (referred to as an independent variable) cause a change in another variable (referred to
as a dependent variable). Experiments have two fundamental features. The first is that the researchers
manipulate, or systematically vary, the level of the independent variable. The different levels of the
independent variable are called conditions. For example, in Darley and Latané’s experiment, the
independent variable was the number of witnesses that participants believed to be present. The researchers
manipulated this independent variable by telling participants that there were either one, two, or five other
students involved in the discussion, thereby creating three conditions. For a new researcher, it is easy
to confuse these terms by believing there are three independent variables in this situation: one, two, or
five students involved in the discussion, but there is actually only one independent variable (number of
witnesses) with three different levels or conditions (one, two or five students). The second fundamental
feature of an experiment is that the researcher exerts control over, or minimizes the variability in, variables
other than the independent and dependent variable. These other variables are called extraneous variables.
Darley and Latané tested all their participants in the same room, exposed them to the same emergency
situation, and so on. They also randomly assigned their participants to conditions so that the three groups
would be similar to each other to begin with. Notice that although the words manipulation and control have
similar meanings in everyday language, researchers make a clear distinction between them. They
manipulate the independent variable by systematically changing its levels and control other variables by
holding them constant.

Experiment Basics | 109

Manipulation of the Independent Variable

Again, to manipulate an independent variable means to change its level systematically so that different
groups of participants are exposed to different levels of that variable, or the same group of participants
is exposed to different levels at different times. For example, to see whether expressive writing affects
people’s health, a researcher might instruct some participants to write about traumatic experiences and
others to write about neutral experiences. The different levels of the independent variable are referred to
as conditions, and researchers often give the conditions short descriptive names to make it easy to talk and
write about them. In this case, the conditions might be called the “traumatic condition” and the “neutral
condition.”

Notice that the manipulation of an independent variable must involve the active intervention of the
researcher. Comparing groups of people who differ on the independent variable before the study begins is
not the same as manipulating that variable. For example, a researcher who compares the health of people
who already keep a journal with the health of people who do not keep a journal has not manipulated this
variable and therefore has not conducted an experiment. This distinction is important because groups that
already differ in one way at the beginning of a study are likely to differ in other ways too. For example,
people who choose to keep journals might also be more conscientious, more introverted, or less stressed
than people who do not. Therefore, any observed difference between the two groups in terms of their health
might have been caused by whether or not they keep a journal, or it might have been caused by any of the
other differences between people who do and do not keep journals. Thus the active manipulation of the
independent variable is crucial for eliminating potential alternative explanations for the results.

Of course, there are many situations in which the independent variable cannot be manipulated for practical
or ethical reasons and therefore an experiment is not possible. For example, whether or not people have a
significant early illness experience cannot be manipulated, making it impossible to conduct an experiment
on the effect of early illness experiences on the development of hypochondriasis. This caveat does not mean
it is impossible to study the relationship between early illness experiences and hypochondriasis—only that
it must be done using nonexperimental approaches. We will discuss this type of methodology in detail later
in the book.

Independent variables can be manipulated to create two conditions and experiments involving a single
independent variable with two conditions are often referred to as a single factor two-level design. However,
sometimes greater insights can be gained by adding more conditions to an experiment. When an experiment
has one independent variable that is manipulated to produce more than two conditions it is referred to as
a single factor multi level design. So rather than comparing a condition in which there was one witness
to a condition in which there were five witnesses (which would represent a single-factor two-level design),
Darley and Latané’s experiment used a single factor multi-level design, by manipulating the independent
variable to produce three conditions (a one witness, a two witnesses, and a five witnesses condition).

110 | Experiment Basics

Control of Extraneous Variables

As we have seen previously in the chapter, an extraneous variable is anything that varies in the context of
a study other than the independent and dependent variables. In an experiment on the effect of expressive
writing on health, for example, extraneous variables would include participant variables (individual
differences) such as their writing ability, their diet, and their gender. They would also include situational
or task variables such as the time of day when participants write, whether they write by hand or on a
computer, and the weather. Extraneous variables pose a problem because many of them are likely to have
some effect on the dependent variable. For example, participants’ health will be affected by many things
other than whether or not they engage in expressive writing. This influencing factor can make it difficult to
separate the effect of the independent variable from the effects of the extraneous variables, which is why it
is important to control extraneous variables by holding them constant.

Extraneous Variables as “Noise”

Extraneous variables make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent variable in two ways. One is by
adding variability or “noise” to the data. Imagine a simple experiment on the effect of mood (happy vs. sad)
on the number of happy childhood events people are able to recall. Participants are put into a negative or
positive mood (by showing them a happy or sad video clip) and then asked to recall as many happy childhood
events as they can. The two leftmost columns of Table 5.1 show what the data might look like if there were no
extraneous variables and the number of happy childhood events participants recalled was affected only by
their moods. Every participant in the happy mood condition recalled exactly four happy childhood events,
and every participant in the sad mood condition recalled exactly three. The effect of mood here is quite
obvious. In reality, however, the data would probably look more like those in the two rightmost columns
of Table 5.1. Even in the happy mood condition, some participants would recall fewer happy memories
because they have fewer to draw on, use less effective recall strategies, or are less motivated. And even in
the sad mood condition, some participants would recall more happy childhood memories because they have
more happy memories to draw on, they use more effective recall strategies, or they are more motivated.
Although the mean difference between the two groups is the same as in the idealized data, this difference
is much less obvious in the context of the greater variability in the data. Thus one reason researchers try to
control extraneous variables is so their data look more like the idealized data in Table 5.1, which makes the
effect of the independent variable easier to detect (although real data never look quite that good).

Experiment Basics | 111

Table 5.1 Hypothetical Noiseless Data and Realistic
Noisy Data

Idealized “noiseless” data Realistic “noisy” data

Happy mood Sad mood Happy mood Sad mood

4 3 3 1

4 3 6 3

4 3 2 4

4 3 4 0

4 3 5 5

4 3 2 7

4 3 3 2

4 3 1 5

4 3 6 1

4 3 8 2

M = 4 M = 3 M = 4 M = 3

One way to control extraneous variables is to hold them constant. This technique can mean holding
situation or task variables constant by testing all participants in the same location, giving them identical
instructions, treating them in the same way, and so on. It can also mean holding participant variables
constant. For example, many studies of language limit participants to right-handed people, who generally
have their language areas isolated in their left cerebral hemispheres1. Left-handed people are more likely
to have their language areas isolated in their right cerebral hemispheres or distributed across both
hemispheres, which can change the way they process language and thereby add noise to the data.

In principle, researchers can control extraneous variables by limiting participants to one very specific
category of person, such as 20-year-old, heterosexual, female, right-handed psychology majors. The
obvious downside to this approach is that it would lower the external validity of the study—in particular, the
extent to which the results can be generalized beyond the people actually studied. For example, it might be
unclear whether results obtained with a sample of younger lesbian women would apply to older gay men. In
many situations, the advantages of a diverse sample (increased external validity) outweigh the reduction in
noise achieved by a homogeneous one.

Extraneous Variables as Confounding Variables

The second way that extraneous variables can make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent
variable is by becoming confounding variables. A confounding variable is an extraneous variable that differs
on average across levels of the independent variable (i.e., it is an extraneous variable that varies
systematically with the independent variable). For example, in almost all experiments, participants’

112 | Experiment Basics

intelligence quotients (IQs) will be an extraneous variable. But as long as there are participants with lower
and higher IQs in each condition so that the average IQ is roughly equal across the conditions, then
this variation is probably acceptable (and may even be desirable). What would be bad, however, would be
for participants in one condition to have substantially lower IQs on average and participants in another
condition to have substantially higher IQs on average. In this case, IQ would be a confounding variable.

To confound means to confuse, and this effect is exactly why confounding variables are undesirable.
Because they differ systematically across conditions—just like the independent variable—they provide an
alternative explanation for any observed difference in the dependent variable. Figure 5.1 shows the results
of a hypothetical study, in which participants in a positive mood condition scored higher on a memory
task than participants in a negative mood condition. But if IQ is a confounding variable—with participants
in the positive mood condition having higher IQs on average than participants in the negative mood
condition—then it is unclear whether it was the positive moods or the higher IQs that caused participants
in the first condition to score higher. One way to avoid confounding variables is by holding extraneous
variables constant. For example, one could prevent IQ from becoming a confounding variable by limiting
participants only to those with IQs of exactly 100. But this approach is not always desirable for reasons we
have already discussed. A second and much more general approach—random assignment to conditions—will
be discussed in detail shortly.

Figure 5.1 Hypothetical Results From a Study on the Effect of Mood on Memory. Because IQ also differs across conditions, it
is a confounding variable.

Treatment and Control Conditions

In psychological research, a treatment is any intervention meant to change people’s behavior for the
better. This intervention includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but
also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To

Experiment Basics | 113

determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment condition,
in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition, in which they do not receive the treatment.
If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for
example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher
can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical
treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial.

There are different types of control conditions. In a no-treatment control condition, participants receive
no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A
placebo is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective,
and a placebo effect is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such
as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bed sheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are
probably nothing more than placebos. Although placebo effects are not well understood, they are probably
driven primarily by people’s expectations that they will improve. Having the expectation to improve can
result in reduced stress, anxiety, and depression, which can alter perceptions and even improve immune
system functioning (Price, Finniss, & Benedetti, 2008)2.

Placebo effects are interesting in their own right (see Note “The Powerful Placebo”), but they also pose
a serious problem for researchers who want to determine whether a treatment works. Figure 5.2 shows
some hypothetical results in which participants in a treatment condition improved more on average than
participants in a no-treatment control condition. If these conditions (the two leftmost bars in Figure 5.2)
were the only conditions in this experiment, however, one could not conclude that the treatment worked. It
could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve,
while those in the no-treatment control condition did not.

Figure 5.2 Hypothetical Results From a Study Including Treatment, No-Treatment, and Placebo Conditions

114 | Experiment Basics

Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. One is to include a placebo control condition, in
which participants receive a placebo that looks much like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient
or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness. When participants in a treatment
condition take a pill, for example, then those in a placebo control condition would take an identical-
looking pill that lacks the active ingredient in the treatment (a “sugar pill”). In research on psychotherapy
effectiveness, the placebo might involve going to a psychotherapist and talking in an unstructured way about
one’s problems. The idea is that if participants in both the treatment and the placebo control groups expect
to improve, then any improvement in the treatment group over and above that in the placebo control group
must have been caused by the treatment and not by participants’ expectations. This difference is what is
shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in Figure 5.4.

Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned
to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the
experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an
opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a wait-list control condition, in
which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the
treatment condition have already received it. This disclosure allows researchers to compare participants
who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to
improve (eventually). A final solution to the problem of placebo effects is to leave out the control condition
completely and compare any new treatment with the best available alternative treatment. For example, a
new treatment for simple phobia could be compared with standard exposure therapy. Because participants
in both conditions receive a treatment, their expectations about improvement should be similar. This
approach also makes sense because once there is an effective treatment, the interesting question about a
new treatment is not simply “Does it work?” but “Does it work better than what is already available?

The Powerful Placebo

Many people are not surprised that placebos can have a positive effect on disorders that seem fundamentally
psychological, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. However, placebos can also have a positive effect on
disorders that most people think of as fundamentally physiological. These include asthma, ulcers, and warts
(Shapiro & Shapiro, 1999)3. There is even evidence that placebo surgery—also called “sham surgery”—can be as
effective as actual surgery.

Medical researcher J. Bruce Moseley and his colleagues conducted a study on the effectiveness of two
arthroscopic surgery procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee (Moseley et al., 2002)4. The control participants
in this study were prepped for surgery, received a tranquilizer, and even received three small incisions in their
knees. But they did not receive the actual arthroscopic surgical procedure. Note that the IRB would have
carefully considered the use of deception in this case and judged that the benefits of using it outweighed the
risks and that there was no other way to answer the research question (about the effectiveness of a placebo
procedure) without it. The surprising result was that all participants improved in terms of both knee pain and

Experiment Basics | 115

function, and the sham surgery group improved just as much as the treatment groups. According to the
researchers, “This study provides strong evidence that arthroscopic lavage with or without débridement [the
surgical procedures used] is not better than and appears to be equivalent to a placebo procedure in improving
knee pain and self-reported function” (p. 85).

Notes

1. Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., . . . Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and
hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 123(12), 2512-2518.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.12.2512

2. Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and
current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 565–590.

3. Shapiro, A. K., & Shapiro, E. (1999). The powerful placebo: From ancient priest to modern physician. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

4. Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., … Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled
trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 81–88.

116 | Experiment Basics

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/brain/123.12.2512

24. Experimental Design

Learning Objectives

1. Explain the difference between between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, list some of the pros
and cons of each approach, and decide which approach to use to answer a particular research question.

2. Define random assignment, distinguish it from random sampling, explain its purpose in experimental
research, and use some simple strategies to implement it

3. Define several types of carryover effect, give examples of each, and explain how counterbalancing helps
to deal with them.

In this section, we look at some different ways to design an experiment. The primary distinction we will
make is between approaches in which each participant experiences one level of the independent variable
and approaches in which each participant experiences all levels of the independent variable. The former are
called between-subjects experiments and the latter are called within-subjects experiments.

Between-Subjects Experiments

In a between-subjects experiment, each participant is tested in only one condition. For example, a
researcher with a sample of 100 university students might assign half of them to write about a traumatic
event and the other half write about a neutral event. Or a researcher with a sample of 60 people with severe
agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) might assign 20 of them to receive each of three different treatments
for that disorder. It is essential in a between-subjects experiment that the researcher assigns participants
to conditions so that the different groups are, on average, highly similar to each other. Those in a trauma
condition and a neutral condition, for example, should include a similar proportion of men and women, and
they should have similar average IQs, similar average levels of motivation, similar average numbers of health
problems, and so on. This matching is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across
conditions so that they do not become confounding variables.

Random Assignment

The primary way that researchers accomplish this kind of control of extraneous variables across conditions
is called random assignment, which means using a random process to decide which participants are tested

Experimental Design | 117

in which conditions. Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a
method for selecting a sample from a population, and it is rarely used in psychological research. Random
assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an
important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too.

In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal
chance of being assigned to each condition (e.g., a 50% chance of being assigned to each of two conditions).
The second is that each participant is assigned to a condition independently of other participants. Thus one
way to assign participants to two conditions would be to flip a coin for each one. If the coin lands heads,
the participant is assigned to Condition A, and if it lands tails, the participant is assigned to Condition B. For
three conditions, one could use a computer to generate a random integer from 1 to 3 for each participant. If
the integer is 1, the participant is assigned to Condition A; if it is 2, the participant is assigned to Condition
B; and if it is 3, the participant is assigned to Condition C. In practice, a full sequence of conditions—one
for each participant expected to be in the experiment—is usually created ahead of time, and each new
participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence as they are tested. When the procedure is
computerized, the computer program often handles the random assignment.

One problem with coin flipping and other strict procedures for random assignment is that they are likely to
result in unequal sample sizes in the different conditions. Unequal sample sizes are generally not a serious
problem, and you should never throw away data you have already collected to achieve equal sample sizes.
However, for a fixed number of participants, it is statistically most efficient to divide them into equal-
sized groups. It is standard practice, therefore, to use a kind of modified random assignment that keeps
the number of participants in each group as similar as possible. One approach is block randomization. In
block randomization, all the conditions occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated. Then
they all occur again before any of them is repeated again. Within each of these “blocks,” the conditions
occur in a random order. Again, the sequence of conditions is usually generated before any participants
are tested, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence. Table 5.2 shows
such a sequence for assigning nine participants to three conditions. The Research Randomizer website
(http://www.randomizer.org) will generate block randomization sequences for any number of participants
and conditions. Again, when the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the block
randomization.

118 | Experimental Design

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.randomizer.org/&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNH_FpOxIlkMjNqZHpXAd30V-I27HA

Table 5.2 Block
Randomization Sequence

for Assigning Nine
Participants to Three

Conditions

Participant Condition

1 A

2 C

3 B

4 B

5 C

6 A

7 C

8 B

9 A

Random assignment is not guaranteed to control all extraneous variables across conditions. The process is
random, so it is always possible that just by chance, the participants in one condition might turn out to be
substantially older, less tired, more motivated, or less depressed on average than the participants in another
condition. However, there are some reasons that this possibility is not a major concern. One is that random
assignment works better than one might expect, especially for large samples. Another is that the inferential
statistics that researchers use to decide whether a difference between groups reflects a difference in the
population takes the “fallibility” of random assignment into account. Yet another reason is that even if
random assignment does result in a confounding variable and therefore produces misleading results, this
confound is likely to be detected when the experiment is replicated. The upshot is that random assignment
to conditions—although not infallible in terms of controlling extraneous variables—is always considered a
strength of a research design.

Matched Groups

An alternative to simple random assignment of participants to conditions is the use of a matched-groups
design. Using this design, participants in the various conditions are matched on the dependent variable
or on some extraneous variable(s) prior the manipulation of the independent variable. This guarantees that
these variables will not be confounded across the experimental conditions. For instance, if we want to
determine whether expressive writing affects people’s health then we could start by measuring various
health-related variables in our prospective research participants. We could then use that information
to rank-order participants according to how healthy or unhealthy they are. Next, the two healthiest
participants would be randomly assigned to complete different conditions (one would be randomly assigned
to the traumatic experiences writing condition and the other to the neutral writing condition). The next two
healthiest participants would then be randomly assigned to complete different conditions, and so on until

Experimental Design | 119

the two least healthy participants. This method would ensure that participants in the traumatic experiences
writing condition are matched to participants in the neutral writing condition with respect to health at
the beginning of the study. If at the end of the experiment, a difference in health was detected across the
two conditions, then we would know that it is due to the writing manipulation and not to pre-existing
differences in health.

Within-Subjects Experiments

In a within-subjects experiment, each participant is tested under all conditions. Consider an experiment
on the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on judgments of his guilt. Again, in a between-subjects
experiment, one group of participants would be shown an attractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt,
and another group of participants would be shown an unattractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt.
In a within-subjects experiment, however, the same group of participants would judge the guilt of both an
attractive and an unattractive defendant.

The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides maximum control of extraneous participant
variables. Participants in all conditions have the same mean IQ, same socioeconomic status, same number
of siblings, and so on—because they are the very same people. Within-subjects experiments also make it
possible to use statistical procedures that remove the effect of these extraneous participant variables on
the dependent variable and therefore make the data less “noisy” and the effect of the independent variable
easier to detect. We will look more closely at this idea later in the book. However, not all experiments can
use a within-subjects design nor would it be desirable to do so.

Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing

The primary disadvantage of within-subjects designs is that they can result in order effects. An order
effect occurs when participants’ responses in the various conditions are affected by the order of conditions
to which they were exposed. One type of order effect is a carryover effect. A carryover effect is an effect
of being tested in one condition on participants’ behavior in later conditions. One type of carryover
effect is a practice effect, where participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have
had a chance to practice it. Another type is a fatigue effect, where participants perform a task worse
in later conditions because they become tired or bored. Being tested in one condition can also change
how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions. This type of effect is called
a context effect (or contrast effect). For example, an average-looking defendant might be judged more
harshly when participants have just judged an attractive defendant than when they have just judged an
unattractive defendant. Within-subjects experiments also make it easier for participants to guess the
hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is
asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant
attractiveness affects judgments of guilt. This knowledge could lead the participant to judge the unattractive

120 | Experimental Design

defendant more harshly because he thinks this is what he is expected to do. Or it could make participants
judge the two defendants similarly in an effort to be “fair.”

Carryover effects can be interesting in their own right. (Does the attractiveness of one person depend on the
attractiveness of other people that we have seen recently?) But when they are not the focus of the research,
carryover effects can be problematic. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of an attractive
defendant and then judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant. If they judge the unattractive defendant
more harshly, this might be because of his unattractiveness. But it could be instead that they judge him
more harshly because they are becoming bored or tired. In other words, the order of the conditions is a
confounding variable. The attractive condition is always the first condition and the unattractive condition
the second. Thus any difference between the conditions in terms of the dependent variable could be caused
by the order of the conditions and not the independent variable itself.

There is a solution to the problem of order effects, however, that can be used in many situations. It
is counterbalancing, which means testing different participants in different orders. The best method of
counterbalancing is complete counterbalancing in which an equal number of participants complete each
possible order of conditions. For example, half of the participants would be tested in the attractive
defendant condition followed by the unattractive defendant condition, and others half would be tested in
the unattractive condition followed by the attractive condition. With three conditions, there would be six
different orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA), so some participants would be tested in each of the
six orders. With four conditions, there would be 24 different orders; with five conditions there would be 120
possible orders. With counterbalancing, participants are assigned to orders randomly, using the techniques
we have already discussed. Thus, random assignment plays an important role in within-subjects designs
just as in between-subjects designs. Here, instead of randomly assigning to conditions, they are randomly
assigned to different orders of conditions. In fact, it can safely be said that if a study does not involve random
assignment in one form or another, it is not an experiment.

A more efficient way of counterbalancing is through a Latin square design which randomizes through having
equal rows and columns. For example, if you have four treatments, you must have four versions. Like a
Sudoku puzzle, no treatment can repeat in a row or column. For four versions of four treatments, the Latin
square design would look like:

A B C D

B C D A

C D A B

D A B C

You can see in the diagram above that the square has been constructed to ensure that each condition
appears at each ordinal position (A appears first once, second once, third once, and fourth once) and each
condition precedes and follows each other condition one time. A Latin square for an experiment with

Experimental Design | 121

6 conditions would by 6 x 6 in dimension, one for an experiment with 8 conditions would be 8 x 8 in
dimension, and so on. So while complete counterbalancing of 6 conditions would require 720 orders, a Latin
square would only require 6 orders.

Finally, when the number of conditions is large experiments can use random counterbalancing in which the
order of the conditions is randomly determined for each participant. Using this technique every possible
order of conditions is determined and then one of these orders is randomly selected for each participant.
This is not as powerful a technique as complete counterbalancing or partial counterbalancing using a Latin
squares design. Use of random counterbalancing will result in more random error, but if order effects are
likely to be small and the number of conditions is large, this is an option available to researchers.

There are two ways to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes. One is that it controls the order
of conditions so that it is no longer a confounding variable. Instead of the attractive condition always being
first and the unattractive condition always being second, the attractive condition comes first for some
participants and second for others. Likewise, the unattractive condition comes first for some participants
and second for others. Thus any overall difference in the dependent variable between the two conditions
cannot have been caused by the order of conditions. A second way to think about what counterbalancing
accomplishes is that if there are carryover effects, it makes it possible to detect them. One can analyze the
data separately for each order to see whether it had an effect.

When 9 Is “Larger” Than 221

Researcher Michael Birnbaum has argued that the lack of context provided by between-subjects designs is
often a bigger problem than the context effects created by within-subjects designs. To demonstrate this
problem, he asked participants to rate two numbers on how large they were on a scale of 1-to-10 where 1 was
“very very small” and 10 was “very very large”. One group of participants were asked to rate the number 9 and
another group was asked to rate the number 221 (Birnbaum, 1999)1. Participants in this between-subjects design
gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9
as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this difference is because participants spontaneously compared 9
with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit
numbers (in which case it is relatively small).

Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs

So far, we have discussed an approach to within-subjects designs in which participants are tested in
one condition at a time. There is another approach, however, that is often used when participants make
multiple responses in each condition. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of 10 attractive

122 | Experimental Design

defendants and 10 unattractive defendants. Instead of having people make judgments about all 10 defendants
of one type followed by all 10 defendants of the other type, the researcher could present all 20 defendants
in a sequence that mixed the two types. The researcher could then compute each participant’s mean rating
for each type of defendant. Or imagine an experiment designed to see whether people with social anxiety
disorder remember negative adjectives (e.g., “stupid,” “incompetent”) better than positive ones (e.g., “happy,”
“productive”). The researcher could have participants study a single list that includes both kinds of words
and then have them try to recall as many words as possible. The researcher could then count the number of
each type of word that was recalled.

Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects?

Almost every experiment can be conducted using either a between-subjects design or a within-subjects
design. This possibility means that researchers must choose between the two approaches based on their
relative merits for the particular situation.

Between-subjects experiments have the advantage of being conceptually simpler and requiring less testing
time per participant. They also avoid carryover effects without the need for counterbalancing. Within-
subjects experiments have the advantage of controlling extraneous participant variables, which generally
reduces noise in the data and makes it easier to detect any effect of the independent variable upon the
dependent variable. Within-subjects experiments also require fewer participants than between-subjects
experiments to detect an effect of the same size.

A good rule of thumb, then, is that if it is possible to conduct a within-subjects experiment (with proper
counterbalancing) in the time that is available per participant—and you have no serious concerns about
carryover effects—this design is probably the best option. If a within-subjects design would be difficult
or impossible to carry out, then you should consider a between-subjects design instead. For example, if
you were testing participants in a doctor’s waiting room or shoppers in line at a grocery store, you might
not have enough time to test each participant in all conditions and therefore would opt for a between-
subjects design. Or imagine you were trying to reduce people’s level of prejudice by having them interact
with someone of another race. A within-subjects design with counterbalancing would require testing some
participants in the treatment condition first and then in a control condition. But if the treatment works and
reduces people’s level of prejudice, then they would no longer be suitable for testing in the control condition.
This difficulty is true for many designs that involve a treatment meant to produce long-term change in
participants’ behavior (e.g., studies testing the effectiveness of psychotherapy). Clearly, a between-subjects
design would be necessary here.

Remember also that using one type of design does not preclude using the other type in a different study.
There is no reason that a researcher could not use both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects
design to answer the same research question. In fact, professional researchers often take exactly this type
of mixed methods approach.

Experimental Design | 123

Notes

1. Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological
Methods, 4(3), 243-249.

124 | Experimental Design

25. Experimentation and Validity

Learning Objectives

1. Explain what internal validity is and why experiments are considered to be high in internal validity.
2. Explain what external validity is and evaluate studies in terms of their external validity.
3. Explain the concepts of construct and statistical validity.

Four Big Validities

When we read about psychology experiments with a critical view, one question to ask is “is this study
valid (accurate)?” However, that question is not as straightforward as it seems because, in psychology, there
are many different kinds of validities. Researchers have focused on four validities to help assess whether
an experiment is sound (Judd & Kenny, 1981; Morling, 2014)12: internal validity, external validity, construct
validity, and statistical validity. We will explore each validity in depth.

Internal Validity

Two variables being statistically related does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. In your
psychology education, you have probably heard the term, “Correlation does not imply causation.” For
example, if it were the case that people who exercise regularly are happier than people who do not exercise
regularly, this implication would not necessarily mean that exercising increases people’s happiness. It could
mean instead that greater happiness causes people to exercise or that something like better physical health
causes people to exercise and be happier.

The purpose of an experiment, however, is to show that two variables are statistically related and to do
so in a way that supports the conclusion that the independent variable caused any observed differences
in the dependent variable. The logic is based on this assumption: If the researcher creates two or more
highly similar conditions and then manipulates the independent variable to produce just one difference
between them, then any later difference between the conditions must have been caused by the independent
variable. For example, because the only difference between Darley and Latané’s conditions was the number
of students that participants believed to be involved in the discussion, this difference in belief must have
been responsible for differences in helping between the conditions.

An empirical study is said to be high in internal validity if the way it was conducted supports the conclusion

Experimentation and Validity | 125

that the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable. Thus experiments
are high in internal validity because the way they are conducted—with the manipulation of the independent
variable and the control of extraneous variables (such as through the use of random assignment to minimize
confounds)—provides strong support for causal conclusions. In contrast, non-experimental research
designs (e.g., correlational designs), in which variables are measured but are not manipulated by an
experimenter, are low in internal validity.

External Validity

At the same time, the way that experiments are conducted sometimes leads to a different kind of criticism.
Specifically, the need to manipulate the independent variable and control extraneous variables means that
experiments are often conducted under conditions that seem artificial (Bauman, McGraw, Bartels, & Warren,
2014)3. In many psychology experiments, the participants are all undergraduate students and come to a
classroom or laboratory to fill out a series of paper-and-pencil questionnaires or to perform a carefully
designed computerized task. Consider, for example, an experiment in which researcher Barbara Fredrickson
and her colleagues had undergraduate students come to a laboratory on campus and complete a math test
while wearing a swimsuit (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998)4. At first, this manipulation
might seem silly. When will undergraduate students ever have to complete math tests in their swimsuits
outside of this experiment?

The issue we are confronting is that of external validity. An empirical study is high in external validity if
the way it was conducted supports generalizing the results to people and situations beyond those actually
studied. As a general rule, studies are higher in external validity when the participants and the situation
studied are similar to those that the researchers want to generalize to and participants encounter every
day, often described as mundane realism. Imagine, for example, that a group of researchers is interested
in how shoppers in large grocery stores are affected by whether breakfast cereal is packaged in yellow or
purple boxes. Their study would be high in external validity and have high mundane realism if they studied
the decisions of ordinary people doing their weekly shopping in a real grocery store. If the shoppers bought
much more cereal in purple boxes, the researchers would be fairly confident that this increase would be
true for other shoppers in other stores. Their study would be relatively low in external validity, however,
if they studied a sample of undergraduate students in a laboratory at a selective university who merely
judged the appeal of various colors presented on a computer screen; however, this study would have high
psychological realism where the same mental process is used in both the laboratory and in the real world.
If the students judged purple to be more appealing than yellow, the researchers would not be very confident
that this preference is relevant to grocery shoppers’ cereal-buying decisions because of low external validity
but they could be confident that the visual processing of colors has high psychological realism.

We should be careful, however, not to draw the blanket conclusion that experiments are low in external
validity. One reason is that experiments need not seem artificial. Consider that Darley and Latané’s
experiment provided a reasonably good simulation of a real emergency situation. Or consider field
experiments that are conducted entirely outside the laboratory. In one such experiment, Robert Cialdini
and his colleagues studied whether hotel guests choose to reuse their towels for a second day as opposed

126 | Experimentation and Validity

to having them washed as a way of conserving water and energy (Cialdini, 2005)5. These researchers
manipulated the message on a card left in a large sample of hotel rooms. One version of the message
emphasized showing respect for the environment, another emphasized that the hotel would donate a
portion of their savings to an environmental cause, and a third emphasized that most hotel guests choose
to reuse their towels. The result was that guests who received the message that most hotel guests choose
to reuse their towels, reused their own towels substantially more often than guests receiving either of the
other two messages. Given the way they conducted their study, it seems very likely that their result would
hold true for other guests in other hotels.

A second reason not to draw the blanket conclusion that experiments are low in external validity is that they
are often conducted to learn about psychological processes that are likely to operate in a variety of people
and situations. Let us return to the experiment by Fredrickson and colleagues. They found that the women
in their study, but not the men, performed worse on the math test when they were wearing swimsuits. They
argued that this gender difference was due to women’s greater tendency to objectify themselves—to think
about themselves from the perspective of an outside observer—which diverts their attention away from
other tasks. They argued, furthermore, that this process of self-objectification and its effect on attention is
likely to operate in a variety of women and situations—even if none of them ever finds herself taking a math
test in her swimsuit.

Construct Validity

In addition to the generalizability of the results of an experiment, another element to scrutinize in a study is
the quality of the experiment’s manipulations or the construct validity. The research question that Darley
and Latané started with is “does helping behavior become diffused?” They hypothesized that participants in
a lab would be less likely to help when they believed there were more potential helpers besides themselves.
This conversion from research question to experiment design is called operationalization (see Chapter 4
for more information about the operational definition). Darley and Latané operationalized the independent
variable of diffusion of responsibility by increasing the number of potential helpers. In evaluating this design,
we would say that the construct validity was very high because the experiment’s manipulations very clearly
speak to the research question; there was a crisis, a way for the participant to help, and increasing the
number of other students involved in the discussion, they provided a way to test diffusion.

What if the number of conditions in Darley and Latané’s study changed? Consider if there were only two
conditions: one student involved in the discussion or two. Even though we may see a decrease in helping
by adding another person, it may not be a clear demonstration of diffusion of responsibility, just merely the
presence of others. We might think it was a form of Bandura’s concept of social inhibition. The construct
validity would be lower. However, had there been five conditions, perhaps we would see the decrease
continue with more people in the discussion or perhaps it would plateau after a certain number of people.
In that situation, we may develop a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. But by adding still
more conditions, the construct validity may not get higher. When designing your own experiment, consider
how well the research question is operationalized your study.

Experimentation and Validity | 127

Statistical Validity

Statistical validity concerns the proper statistical treatment of data and the soundness of the researchers’
statistical conclusions. There are many different types of inferential statistics tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA,
regression, correlation) and statistical validity concerns the use of the proper type of test to analyze the
data. When considering the proper type of test, researchers must consider the scale of measure their
dependent variable was measured on and the design of their study. Further, many inferential statistics tests
carry certain assumptions (e.g., the data are normally distributed) and statistical validity is threatened when
these assumptions are not met but the statistics are used nonetheless.

One common critique of experiments is that a study did not have enough participants. The main reason
for this criticism is that it is difficult to generalize about a population from a small sample. At the outset, it
seems as though this critique is about external validity but there are studies where small sample sizes are
not a problem (subsequent chapters will discuss how small samples, even of only one person, are still very
illuminating for psychological research). Therefore, small sample sizes are actually a critique of statistical
validity. The statistical validity speaks to whether the statistics conducted in the study are sound and
support the conclusions that are made.

The proper statistical analysis should be conducted on the data to determine whether the difference or
relationship that was predicted was indeed found. Interestingly, the likelihood of detecting an effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable depends on not just whether a relationship really exists
between these variables, but also the number of conditions and the size of the sample. This is why it is
important to conduct a power analysis when designing a study, which is a calculation that informs you of
the number of participants you need to recruit to detect an effect of a specific size.

Prioritizing Validities

These four big validities–internal, external, construct, and statistical–are useful to keep in mind when both
reading about other experiments and designing your own. However, researchers must prioritize and often
it is not possible to have high validity in all four areas. In Cialdini’s study on towel usage in hotels, the
external validity was high but the statistical validity was more modest. This discrepancy does not invalidate
the study but it shows where there may be room for improvement for future follow-up studies (Goldstein,
Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008)6. Morling (2014) points out that many psychology studies have high internal
and construct validity but sometimes sacrifice external validity.

Notes

1. Judd, C.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social interventions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

128 | Experimentation and Validity

2. Morling, B. (2014, April). Teach your students to be better consumers. APS Observer. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/april-14/teach-your-students-to-be-
better-consumers.html

3. Bauman, C.W., McGraw, A.P., Bartels, D.M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley
problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8/9,
536-554.

4. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). The swimsuit becomes you: Sex
differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 269–284.

5. Cialdini, R. (2005, April). Don’t throw in the towel: Use social influence research. APS Observer. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2005/april-05/dont-throw-in-the-towel-
use-social-influence-research.html

6. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate
environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.

Experimentation and Validity | 129

26. Practical Considerations

Learning Objectives

1. Describe several strategies for recruiting participants for an experiment.
2. Explain why it is important to standardize the procedure of an experiment and several ways to do this.
3. Explain what pilot testing is and why it is important.

The information presented so far in this chapter is enough to design a basic experiment. When it comes time
to conduct that experiment, however, several additional practical issues arise. In this section, we consider
some of these issues and how to deal with them. Much of this information applies to non-experimental
studies as well as experimental ones.

Recruiting Participants

Of course, at the start of any research project, you should be thinking about how you will obtain your
participants. Unless you have access to people with schizophrenia or incarcerated juvenile offenders, for
example, then there is no point designing a study that focuses on these populations. But even if you plan to
use a convenience sample, you will have to recruit participants for your study.

There are several approaches to recruiting participants. One is to use participants from a
formal subject pool—an established group of people who have agreed to be contacted about participating
in research studies. For example, at many colleges and universities, there is a subject pool consisting of
students enrolled in introductory psychology courses who must participate in a certain number of studies
to meet a course requirement. Researchers post descriptions of their studies and students sign up to
participate, usually via an online system. Participants who are not in subject pools can also be recruited by
posting or publishing advertisements or making personal appeals to groups that represent the population of
interest. For example, a researcher interested in studying older adults could arrange to speak at a meeting
of the residents at a retirement community to explain the study and ask for volunteers.

130 | Practical Considerations

“Study” Retrieved from http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/
study (CC-BY-NC 2.5)

The Volunteer Subject

Even if the participants in a study receive compensation in the form of course credit, a small amount of money,
or a chance at being treated for a psychological problem, they are still essentially volunteers. This is worth
considering because people who volunteer to participate in psychological research have been shown to differ
in predictable ways from those who do not volunteer. Specifically, there is good evidence that on average,
volunteers have the following characteristics compared with non-volunteers (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1976)1:

• They are more interested in the topic of the research.
• They are more educated.
• They have a greater need for approval.
• They have higher IQ.
• They are more sociable.
• They are higher in social class.

This difference can be an issue of external validity if there is a reason to believe that participants with these

Practical Considerations | 131

characteristics are likely to behave differently than the general population. For example, in testing different
methods of persuading people, a rational argument might work better on volunteers than it does on the general
population because of their generally higher educational level and IQ.

In many field experiments, the task is not recruiting participants but selecting them. For example,
researchers Nicolas Guéguen and Marie-Agnès de Gail conducted a field experiment on the effect of being
smiled at on helping, in which the participants were shoppers at a supermarket. A confederate walking down
a stairway gazed directly at a shopper walking up the stairway and either smiled or did not smile. Shortly
afterward, the shopper encountered another confederate, who dropped some computer diskettes on the
ground. The dependent variable was whether or not the shopper stopped to help pick up the diskettes
(Guéguen & de Gail, 2003)2. There are two aspects of this study that are worth addressing here. First, notice
that these participants were not “recruited,” which means that the IRB would have taken care to ensure
that dispensing with informed consent in this case was acceptable (e.g., the situation would not have been
expected to cause any harm and the study was conducted in the context of people’s ordinary activities).
Second, even though informed consent was not necessary, the researchers still had to select participants
from among all the shoppers taking the stairs that day. It is extremely important that this kind of selection be
done according to a well-defined set of rules that are established before the data collection begins and can
be explained clearly afterward. In this case, with each trip down the stairs, the confederate was instructed
to gaze at the first person he encountered who appeared to be between the ages of 20 and 50. Only if the
person gazed back did they become a participant in the study. The point of having a well-defined selection
rule is to avoid bias in the selection of participants. For example, if the confederate was free to choose
which shoppers he would gaze at, he might choose friendly-looking shoppers when he was set to smile and
unfriendly-looking ones when he was not set to smile. As we will see shortly, such biases can be entirely
unintentional.

Standardizing the Procedure

It is surprisingly easy to introduce extraneous variables during the procedure. For example, the same
experimenter might give clear instructions to one participant but vague instructions to another. Or one
experimenter might greet participants warmly while another barely makes eye contact with them. To the
extent that such variables affect participants’ behavior, they add noise to the data and make the effect of
the independent variable more difficult to detect. If they vary systematically across conditions, they become
confounding variables and provide alternative explanations for the results. For example, if participants in
a treatment group are tested by a warm and friendly experimenter and participants in a control group are
tested by a cold and unfriendly one, then what appears to be an effect of the treatment might actually be
an effect of experimenter demeanor. When there are multiple experimenters, the possibility of introducing
extraneous variables is even greater, but is often necessary for practical reasons.

132 | Practical Considerations

Experimenter’s Sex as an Extraneous Variable

It is well known that whether research participants are male or female can affect the results of a study. But
what about whether the experimenter is male or female? There is plenty of evidence that this matters too. Male
and female experimenters have slightly different ways of interacting with their participants, and of course,
participants also respond differently to male and female experimenters (Rosenthal, 1976)3.

For example, in a recent study on pain perception, participants immersed their hands in icy water for as long as
they could (Ibolya, Brake, & Voss, 2004)4. Male participants tolerated the pain longer when the experimenter
was a woman, and female participants tolerated it longer when the experimenter was a man.

Researcher Robert Rosenthal has spent much of his career showing that this kind of unintended variation
in the procedure does, in fact, affect participants’ behavior. Furthermore, one important source of such
variation is the experimenter’s expectations about how participants “should” behave in the experiment.
This outcome is referred to as an experimenter expectancy effect (Rosenthal, 1976)5. For example, if an
experimenter expects participants in a treatment group to perform better on a task than participants in a
control group, then they might unintentionally give the treatment group participants clearer instructions
or more encouragement or allow them more time to complete the task. In a striking example, Rosenthal
and Kermit Fode had several students in a laboratory course in psychology train rats to run through a
maze. Although the rats were genetically similar, some of the students were told that they were working
with “maze-bright” rats that had been bred to be good learners, and other students were told that they
were working with “maze-dull” rats that had been bred to be poor learners. Sure enough, over five days of
training, the “maze-bright” rats made more correct responses, made the correct response more quickly, and
improved more steadily than the “maze-dull” rats (Rosenthal & Fode, 1963)6. Clearly, it had to have been the
students’ expectations about how the rats would perform that made the difference. But how? Some clues
come from data gathered at the end of the study, which showed that students who expected their rats to
learn quickly felt more positively about their animals and reported behaving toward them in a more friendly
manner (e.g., handling them more).

The way to minimize unintended variation in the procedure is to standardize it as much as possible so that
it is carried out in the same way for all participants regardless of the condition they are in. Here are several
ways to do this:

• Create a written protocol that specifies everything that the experimenters are to do and say from the
time they greet participants to the time they dismiss them.

• Create standard instructions that participants read themselves or that are read to them word for word
by the experimenter.

• Automate the rest of the procedure as much as possible by using software packages for this purpose or

Practical Considerations | 133

even simple computer slide shows.
• Anticipate participants’ questions and either raise and answer them in the instructions or develop

standard answers for them.
• Train multiple experimenters on the protocol together and have them practice on each other.
• Be sure that each experimenter tests participants in all conditions.

Another good practice is to arrange for the experimenters to be “blind” to the research question or to
the condition in which each participant is tested. The idea is to minimize experimenter expectancy effects
by minimizing the experimenters’ expectations. For example, in a drug study in which each participant
receives the drug or a placebo, it is often the case that neither the participants nor the experimenter who
interacts with the participants knows which condition they have been assigned to complete. Because both
the participants and the experimenters are blind to the condition, this technique is referred to as a double-
blind study. (A single-blind study is one in which only the participant is blind to the condition.) Of course,
there are many times this blinding is not possible. For example, if you are both the investigator and the only
experimenter, it is not possible for you to remain blind to the research question. Also, in many studies, the
experimenter must know the condition because they must carry out the procedure in a different way in the
different conditions.

“Placebo Blocker” retrieved from http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/placebo_blocker (CC-BY-NC 2.5). [Image description]

Record Keeping

It is essential to keep good records when you conduct an experiment. As discussed earlier, it is typical for

134 | Practical Considerations

experimenters to generate a written sequence of conditions before the study begins and then to test each
new participant in the next condition in the sequence. As you test them, it is a good idea to add to this list
basic demographic information; the date, time, and place of testing; and the name of the experimenter who
did the testing. It is also a good idea to have a place for the experimenter to write down comments about
unusual occurrences (e.g., a confused or uncooperative participant) or questions that come up. This kind of
information can be useful later if you decide to analyze sex differences or effects of different experimenters,
or if a question arises about a particular participant or testing session.

Since participants’ identities should be kept as confidential (or anonymous) as possible, their names and
other identifying information should not be included with their data. In order to identify individual
participants, it can, therefore, be useful to assign an identification number to each participant as you test
them. Simply numbering them consecutively beginning with 1 is usually sufficient. This number can then
also be written on any response sheets or questionnaires that participants generate, making it easier to keep
them together.

Manipulation Check

In many experiments, the independent variable is a construct that can only be manipulated indirectly. For
example, a researcher might try to manipulate participants’ stress levels indirectly by telling some of them
that they have five minutes to prepare a short speech that they will then have to give to an audience of
other participants. In such situations, researchers often include a manipulation check in their procedure.
A manipulation check is a separate measure of the construct the researcher is trying to manipulate. The
purpose of a manipulation check is to confirm that the independent variable was, in fact, successfully
manipulated. For example, researchers trying to manipulate participants’ stress levels might give them a
paper-and-pencil stress questionnaire or take their blood pressure—perhaps right after the manipulation or
at the end of the procedure—to verify that they successfully manipulated this variable.

Manipulation checks are particularly important when the results of an experiment turn out null. In cases
where the results show no significant effect of the manipulation of the independent variable on the
dependent variable, a manipulation check can help the experimenter determine whether the null result is
due to a real absence of an effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable or if it is due
to a problem with the manipulation of the independent variable. Imagine, for example, that you exposed
participants to happy or sad movie music—intending to put them in happy or sad moods—but you found
that this had no effect on the number of happy or sad childhood events they recalled. This could be because
being in a happy or sad mood has no effect on memories for childhood events. But it could also be that the
music was ineffective at putting participants in happy or sad moods. A manipulation check—in this case, a
measure of participants’ moods—would help resolve this uncertainty. If it showed that you had successfully
manipulated participants’ moods, then it would appear that there is indeed no effect of mood on memory
for childhood events. But if it showed that you did not successfully manipulate participants’ moods, then it
would appear that you need a more effective manipulation to answer your research question.

Manipulation checks are usually done at the end of the procedure to be sure that the effect of the

Practical Considerations | 135

manipulation lasted throughout the entire procedure and to avoid calling unnecessary attention to the
manipulation (to avoid a demand characteristic). However, researchers are wise to include a manipulation
check in a pilot test of their experiment so that they avoid spending a lot of time and resources on an
experiment that is doomed to fail and instead spend that time and energy finding a better manipulation of
the independent variable.

Pilot Testing

It is always a good idea to conduct a pilot test of your experiment. A pilot test is a small-scale study
conducted to make sure that a new procedure works as planned. In a pilot test, you can recruit participants
formally (e.g., from an established participant pool) or you can recruit them informally from among family,
friends, classmates, and so on. The number of participants can be small, but it should be enough to give
you confidence that your procedure works as planned. There are several important questions that you can
answer by conducting a pilot test:

• Do participants understand the instructions?
• What kind of misunderstandings do participants have, what kind of mistakes do they make, and what

kind of questions do they ask?
• Do participants become bored or frustrated?
• Is an indirect manipulation effective? (You will need to include a manipulation check.)
• Can participants guess the research question or hypothesis (are there demand characteristics)?
• How long does the procedure take?
• Are computer programs or other automated procedures working properly?
• Are data being recorded correctly?

Of course, to answer some of these questions you will need to observe participants carefully during the
procedure and talk with them about it afterward. Participants are often hesitant to criticize a study in
front of the researcher, so be sure they understand that their participation is part of a pilot test and you
are genuinely interested in feedback that will help you improve the procedure. If the procedure works as
planned, then you can proceed with the actual study. If there are problems to be solved, you can solve them,
pilot test the new procedure, and continue with this process until you are ready to proceed.

Image Descriptions

Placebo blocker image description: A comic of two stick figures talking.

Person 1: Some researchers are starting to figure out the mechanism behind the placebo effect. We’ve used
their work to create a new drug: A placebo effect blocker. Now we just need to run a trial. We’ll get two
groups, give them both placebos, then give one the REAL placebo blocker, and the other a…. wait.

136 | Practical Considerations

[The two people scratch their heads]

Person 2: My head hurts.

Person 1: Mine too. Here, want a sugar pill?

[Return to Placebo blocker Image]

Media Attributions

• Study by XKCD CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)
• Placebo blocker by XKCD CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)

Notes

1. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1976). The volunteer subject. New York, NY: Wiley.
2. Guéguen, N., & de Gail, Marie-Agnès. (2003). The effect of smiling on helping behavior: Smiling and good Samaritan

behavior. Communication Reports, 16, 133–140.
3. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research (enlarged ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
4. Ibolya, K., Brake, A., & Voss, U. (2004). The effect of experimenter characteristics on pain reports in women and men.

Pain, 112, 142–147.
5. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research (enlarged ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
6. Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. (1963). The effect of experimenter bias on performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science,

8, 183-189.

Practical Considerations | 137

https://xkcd.com/749/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/placebo_blocker

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

27. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• An experiment is a type of empirical study that features the manipulation of an independent variable, the
measurement of a dependent variable, and control of extraneous variables.

• An extraneous variable is any variable other than the independent and dependent variables. A confound is
an extraneous variable that varies systematically with the independent variable.

• Experimental research on the effectiveness of a treatment requires both a treatment condition and a
control condition, which can be a no-treatment control condition, a placebo control condition, or a wait-
list control condition. Experimental treatments can also be compared with the best available alternative.

• Experiments can be conducted using either between-subjects or within-subjects designs. Deciding which
to use in a particular situation requires careful consideration of the pros and cons of each approach.

• Random assignment to conditions in between-subjects experiments or counterbalancing of orders of
conditions in within-subjects experiments is a fundamental element of experimental research. The
purpose of these techniques is to control extraneous variables so that they do not become confounding
variables.

• Studies are high in internal validity to the extent that the way they are conducted supports the
conclusion that the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.
Experiments are generally high in internal validity because of the manipulation of the independent
variable and control of extraneous variables.

• Studies are high in external validity to the extent that the result can be generalized to people and
situations beyond those actually studied. Although experiments can seem “artificial”—and low in external
validity—it is important to consider whether the psychological processes under study are likely to
operate in other people and situations.

• There are several effective methods you can use to recruit research participants for your experiment,
including through formal subject pools, advertisements, and personal appeals. Field experiments require
well-defined participant selection procedures.

• It is important to standardize experimental procedures to minimize extraneous variables, including
experimenter expectancy effects.

• It is important to conduct one or more small-scale pilot tests of an experiment to be sure that the
procedure works as planned.

Exercises

• Practice: List five variables that can be manipulated by the researcher in an experiment. List five variables
that cannot be manipulated by the researcher in an experiment.

• Practice: For each of the following topics, decide whether that topic could be studied using an

138 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

experimental research design and explain why or why not.

◦ Effect of parietal lobe damage on people’s ability to do basic arithmetic.
◦ Effect of being clinically depressed on the number of close friendships people have.
◦ Effect of group training on the social skills of teenagers with Asperger’s syndrome.
◦ Effect of paying people to take an IQ test on their performance on that test.

• Discussion: Imagine that an experiment shows that participants who receive psychodynamic therapy for
a dog phobia improve more than participants in a no-treatment control group. Explain a fundamental
problem with this research design and at least two ways that it might be corrected.

• Discussion: For each of the following topics, list the pros and cons of a between-subjects and within-
subjects design and decide which would be better.

◦ You want to test the relative effectiveness of two training programs for running a marathon.
◦ Using photographs of people as stimuli, you want to see if smiling people are perceived as more

intelligent than people who are not smiling.
◦ In a field experiment, you want to see if the way a panhandler is dressed (neatly vs. sloppily) affects

whether or not passersby give him any money.
◦ You want to see if concrete nouns (e.g., dog) are recalled better than abstract nouns (e.g., truth).

• Practice: List two ways that you might recruit participants from each of the following populations:

◦ elderly adults
◦ unemployed people
◦ regular exercisers
◦ math majors

• Discussion: Imagine a study in which you will visually present participants with a list of 20 words, one at a
time, wait for a short time, and then ask them to recall as many of the words as they can. In the stressed
condition, they are told that they might also be chosen to give a short speech in front of a small audience.
In the unstressed condition, they are not told that they might have to give a speech. What are several
specific things that you could do to standardize the procedure?

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 139

CHAPTER VI

NON-EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

What do the following classic studies have in common?

• Stanley Milgram found that about two thirds of his research participants were willing to administer
dangerous shocks to another person just because they were told to by an authority figure (Milgram,
1963)1.

• Elizabeth Loftus and Jacqueline Pickrell showed that it is relatively easy to “implant” false memories in
people by repeatedly asking them about childhood events that did not actually happen to them (Loftus
& Pickrell, 1995)2.

• John Cacioppo and Richard Petty evaluated the validity of their Need for Cognition Scale—a measure of
the extent to which people like and value thinking—by comparing the scores of university professors
with those of factory workers (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)3.

• David Rosenhan found that confederates who went to psychiatric hospitals claiming to have heard
voices saying things like “empty” and “thud” were labeled as schizophrenic by the hospital staff and
kept there even though they behaved normally in all other ways (Rosenhan, 1973)4.

The answer for purposes of this chapter is that they are not experiments. In this chapter, we look more
closely at non-experimental research. We begin with a general definition of non-experimental research,
along with a discussion of when and why non-experimental research is more appropriate than experimental
research. We then look separately at two important types of non-experimental research: correlational
research and observational research.

Notes

1. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
2. Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720–725.
3. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
4. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.

Non-Experimental Research | 141

28. Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Learning Objectives

1. Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several
examples.

2. Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to
experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than
manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure
variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental
research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide
strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-
experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions
does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research. It is simply
used in cases where experimental research is not able to be carried out.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter, experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific
research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible,
feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-
experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many
times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

• the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship
between two variables (e.g., how accurate are people’s first impressions?).

• the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a
correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).

• the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be

Overview of Non-Experimental Research | 143

manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for
practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-
term memory traces?).

• the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular
experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by
the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and
to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the
experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental
approach is appropriate. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question
in complementary ways. For example, in Milgram’s original (non-experimental) obedience study, he was
primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told
them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the
same conditions. However, Milgram subsequently conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect
obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter
and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974)1.

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into two broad categories: correlational research and observational
research.

The most common type of non-experimental research conducted in psychology is correlational research.
Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship
between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable. More specifically,
in correlational research, the researcher measures two variables with little or no attempt to control
extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher
interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students’
self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related.

Observational research is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in
a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was
non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed
the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing
the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning
of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants
“remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall)
that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this
particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s
original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories).

144 | Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Cross-Sequential Studies

When psychologists wish to study change over time (for example, when developmental psychologists wish
to study aging) they usually take one of three non-experimental approaches: cross-sectional, longitudinal,
or cross-sequential. Cross-sectional studies involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people
(e.g., children at different stages of development). What makes this approach non-experimental is that there
is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Using
this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults
spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent
variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design
to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for
differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the
generation that people come from (a cohort effect) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason,
longitudinal studies, in which one group of people is followed over time as they age, offer a superior means
of studying the effects of aging. However, longitudinal studies are by definition more time consuming and
so require a much greater investment on the part of the researcher and the participants. A third approach,
known as cross-sequential studies, combines elements of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
Rather than measuring differences between people in different age groups or following the same people
over a long period of time, researchers adopting this approach choose a smaller period of time during which
they follow people in different age groups. For example, they might measure changes over a ten year period
among participants who at the start of the study fall into the following age groups: 20 years old, 30 years
old, 40 years old, 50 years old, and 60 years old. This design is advantageous because the researcher reaps
the immediate benefits of being able to compare the age groups after the first assessment. Further, by
following the different age groups over time they can subsequently determine whether the original
differences they found across the age groups are due to true age effects or cohort effects.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data
consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many
observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In qualitative research, the data are usually
nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study
of the experience of people in psychiatric wards was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken
by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records.
Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients,
supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their
patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations
in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there”
(Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256)2. Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research

Overview of Non-Experimental Research | 145

question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation
analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that
changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable. Figure
6.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in
terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of
manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative
explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment
differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference.
Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use
manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a
subsequent chapter) falls in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true
experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to
use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds
two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that
“treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition,
the inability to randomly assign children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school
differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying
(e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Figure 6.1 Internal Validity of Correlation, Quasi-Experimental, and Experimental Studies. Experiments are generally high
in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlation (non-experimental) studies lower still.

Notice also in Figure 6.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-
experiments, and correlational (non-experimental) studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment
that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-
experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that
one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

146 | Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Notes

1. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
2. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.

Overview of Non-Experimental Research | 147

29. Correlational Research

Learning Objectives

1. Define correlational research and give several examples.
2. Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental

research or another type of non-experimental research.
3. Interpret the strength and direction of different correlation coefficients.
4. Explain why correlation does not imply causation.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two
variables (binary or continuous) and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them
with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are many reasons that researchers interested
in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than
an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one or are
not interested in causal relationships. Recall two goals of science are to describe and to predict and the
correlational research strategy allows researchers to achieve both of these goals. Specifically, this strategy
can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables and if there is
a relationship between the variables then the researchers can use scores on one variable to predict scores
on the other (using a statistical technique called regression, which is discussed further in the section on
Complex Correlation in this chapter).

Another reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is
that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher cannot manipulate
the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, while a researcher
might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory
abilities they cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, they must rely
on the correlational research strategy; they must simply measure the frequency that people use cannabis
and measure their memory abilities using a standardized test of memory and then determine whether the
frequency people use cannabis is statistically related to memory test performance.

Correlation is also used to establish the reliability and validity of measurements. For example, a researcher
might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants
along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then
check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on

148 | Correlational Research

the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to
manipulate. In fact, the terms independent variable and dependent variable do not apply to this kind of
research.

Another strength of correlational research is that it is often higher in external validity than experimental
research. Recall there is typically a trade-off between internal validity and external validity. As greater
controls are added to experiments, internal validity is increased but often at the expense of external validity
as artificial conditions are introduced that do not exist in reality. In contrast, correlational studies typically
have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or controlled but they often have high external
validity. Since nothing is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter the results are more likely to reflect
relationships that exist in the real world.

Finally, extending upon this trade-off between internal and external validity, correlational research can help
to provide converging evidence for a theory. If a theory is supported by a true experiment that is high in
internal validity as well as by a correlational study that is high in external validity then the researchers
can have more confidence in the validity of their theory. As a concrete example, correlational studies
establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have
been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman &
Huesmann, 2001)1.

Does Correlational Research Always Involve Quantitative Variables?

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two
quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of daily hassles and number
of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the
two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the
variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels”
like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate
the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty
and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers
did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 6.2 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily
list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a
correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the
researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an
experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a
correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be

Correlational Research | 149

concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it
could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative
effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more
conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem).
The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being
studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to
analyze the data. What defines a study is how the study is conducted.

Figure 6.2 Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than
People Who Do Not Make Such Lists

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not
matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory
to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and
then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to
a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits
and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational
because no independent variable is manipulated.

150 | Correlational Research

Correlations Between Quantitative Variables

Correlations between quantitative variables are often presented using scatterplots. Figure 6.3 shows some
hypothetical data on the relationship between the amount of stress people are under and the number of
physical symptoms they have. Each point in the scatterplot represents one person’s score on both variables.
For example, the circled point in Figure 6.3 represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had
three physical symptoms. Taking all the points into account, one can see that people under more stress
tend to have more physical symptoms. This is a good example of a positive relationship, in which higher
scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other. In other words, they move in
the same direction, either both up or both down. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on
one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. In other words, they move in opposite
directions. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example,
because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning.

Figure 6.3 Scatterplot Showing a Hypothetical Positive Relationship Between Stress and Number of Physical Symptoms. The
circled point represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Pearson’s r for these data
is +.51.

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic
called Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson’s r). As Figure 6.4 shows, Pearson’s r ranges from −1.00
(the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value
of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. When Pearson’s r is 0, the points on a
scatterplot form a shapeless “cloud.” As its value moves toward −1.00 or +1.00, the points come closer and
closer to falling on a single straight line. Correlation coefficients near ±.10 are considered small, values near

Correlational Research | 151

± .30 are considered medium, and values near ±.50 are considered large. Notice that the sign of Pearson’s r is
unrelated to its strength. Pearson’s r values of +.30 and −.30, for example, are equally strong; it is just that
one represents a moderate positive relationship and the other a moderate negative relationship. With the
exception of reliability coefficients, most correlations that we find in Psychology are small or moderate in
size. The website http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/, created by Kristoffer Magnusson, provides an
excellent interactive visualization of correlations that permits you to adjust the strength and direction of a
correlation while witnessing the corresponding changes to the scatterplot.

Figure 6.4 Range of Pearson’s r, From −1.00 (Strongest Possible Negative Relationship), Through 0 (No Relationship), to +1.00
(Strongest Possible Positive Relationship)

There are two common situations in which the value of Pearson’s r can be misleading. Pearson’s r is a good
measure only for linear relationships, in which the points are best approximated by a straight line. It is
not a good measure for nonlinear relationships, in which the points are better approximated by a curved
line. Figure 6.5, for example, shows a hypothetical relationship between the amount of sleep people get
per night and their level of depression. In this example, the line that best approximates the points is a
curve—a kind of upside-down “U”—because people who get about eight hours of sleep tend to be the least
depressed. Those who get too little sleep and those who get too much sleep tend to be more depressed.
Even though Figure 6.5 shows a fairly strong relationship between depression and sleep, Pearson’s r would
be close to zero because the points in the scatterplot are not well fit by a single straight line. This means
that it is important to make a scatterplot and confirm that a relationship is approximately linear before using
Pearson’s r. Nonlinear relationships are fairly common in psychology, but measuring their strength is beyond
the scope of this book.

152 | Correlational Research

http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/

Figure 6.5 Hypothetical Nonlinear Relationship Between Sleep and Depression

The other common situations in which the value of Pearson’s r can be misleading is when one or both of
the variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population. This problem is referred to
as restriction of range. Assume, for example, that there is a strong negative correlation between people’s
age and their enjoyment of hip hop music as shown by the scatterplot in Figure 6.6. Pearson’s r here is −.77.
However, if we were to collect data only from 18- to 24-year-olds—represented by the shaded area of Figure
6.6—then the relationship would seem to be quite weak. In fact, Pearson’s r for this restricted range of ages
is 0. It is a good idea, therefore, to design studies to avoid restriction of range. For example, if age is one
of your primary variables, then you can plan to collect data from people of a wide range of ages. Because
restriction of range is not always anticipated or easily avoidable, however, it is good practice to examine
your data for possible restriction of range and to interpret Pearson’s r in light of it. (There are also statistical
methods to correct Pearson’s r for restriction of range, but they are beyond the scope of this book).

Correlational Research | 153

Figure 6.6 Hypothetical Data Showing How a Strong Overall Correlation Can Appear to Be Weak When One Variable Has a
Restricted Range. The overall correlation here is −.77, but the correlation for the 18- to 24-year-olds (in the blue box) is 0.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

You have probably heard repeatedly that “Correlation does not imply causation.” An amusing example of
this comes from a 2012 study that showed a positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.79) between the per capita
chocolate consumption of a nation and the number of Nobel prizes awarded to citizens of that nation2. It
seems clear, however, that this does not mean that eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel prizes, and
it would not make sense to try to increase the number of Nobel prizes won by recommending that parents
feed their children more chocolate.

There are two reasons that correlation does not imply causation. The first is called
the directionality problem. Two variables, X and Y, can be statistically related because X causes Y or
because Y causes X. Consider, for example, a study showing that whether or not people exercise is
statistically related to how happy they are—such that people who exercise are happier on average than
people who do not. This statistical relationship is consistent with the idea that exercising causes happiness,
but it is also consistent with the idea that happiness causes exercise. Perhaps being happy gives people more
energy or leads them to seek opportunities to socialize with others by going to the gym. The second reason
that correlation does not imply causation is called the third-variable problem. Two variables, X and Y, can
be statistically related not because X causes Y, or because Y causes X, but because some third variable, Z,
causes both X and Y. For example, the fact that nations that have won more Nobel prizes tend to have higher
chocolate consumption probably reflects geography in that European countries tend to have higher rates of
per capita chocolate consumption and invest more in education and technology (once again, per capita) than
many other countries in the world. Similarly, the statistical relationship between exercise and happiness
could mean that some third variable, such as physical health, causes both of the others. Being physically

154 | Correlational Research

healthy could cause people to exercise and cause them to be happier. Correlations that are a result of a
third-variable are often referred to as spurious correlations.

Some excellent and amusing examples of spurious correlations can be found at
http://www.tylervigen.com (Figure 6.7 provides one such example).

Figure 6.7 Example of a Spurious Correlation. Source: http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (CC-BY 4.0)

“Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence”

Although researchers in psychology know that correlation does not imply causation, many journalists do not.
One website about correlation and causation, http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/
correlation_or_causation.htm, links to dozens of media reports about real biomedical and psychological
research. Many of the headlines suggest that a causal relationship has been demonstrated when a careful
reading of the articles shows that it has not because of the directionality and third-variable problems.

One such article is about a study showing that children who ate candy every day were more likely than other
children to be arrested for a violent offense later in life. But could candy really “lead to” violence, as the
headline suggests? What alternative explanations can you think of for this statistical relationship? How could
the headline be rewritten so that it is not misleading?

As you have learned by reading this book, there are various ways that researchers address the directionality
and third-variable problems. The most effective is to conduct an experiment. For example, instead of simply
measuring how much people exercise, a researcher could bring people into a laboratory and randomly assign
half of them to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and the rest to sit on a couch for 15 minutes. Although this
seems like a minor change to the research design, it is extremely important. Now if the exercisers end up in

Correlational Research | 155

http://www.tylervigen.com/

http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm

more positive moods than those who did not exercise, it cannot be because their moods affected how much
they exercised (because it was the researcher who used random assignment to determine how much they
exercised). Likewise, it cannot be because some third variable (e.g., physical health) affected both how much
they exercised and what mood they were in. Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable
problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships.

Media Attributions

• Nicholas Cage and Pool Drownings © Tyler Viegen is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

Notes

1. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.),
Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

2. Messerli, F. H. (2012). Chocolate consumption, cognitive function, and Nobel laureates. New England Journal of
Medicine, 367, 1562-1564.

156 | Correlational Research

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

30. Complex Correlation

Learning Objectives

1. Explain some reasons that researchers use complex correlational designs.
2. Create and interpret a correlation matrix.
3. Describe how researchers can use partial correlation and multiple regression to statistically control for

third variables.

As we have already seen, researchers conduct correlational studies rather than experiments when they
are interested in noncausal relationships or when they are interested in causal relationships but the
independent variable cannot be manipulated for practical or ethical reasons. In this section, we look at some
approaches to complex correlational research that involve measuring several variables and assessing the
relationships among them.

Assessing Relationships Among Multiple Variables

Most complex correlational research involves measuring several variables—either binary or continuous—and
then assessing the statistical relationships among them. For example, researchers Nathan Radcliffe and
William Klein studied a sample of middle-aged adults to see how their level of optimism (measured by using
a short questionnaire called the Life Orientation Test) relates to several other variables related to having
a heart attack (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002)1. These included their health, their knowledge of heart attack risk
factors, and their beliefs about their own risk of having a heart attack. They found that more optimistic
participants were healthier (e.g., they exercised more and had lower blood pressure), knew about heart
attack risk factors, and correctly believed their own risk to be lower than that of their peers.

In another example, Ernest Jouriles and his colleagues measured adolescents’ experiences of physical
and psychological relationship aggression and their psychological distress. Because measures of physical
aggression (such as the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory and the Relationship Violence
Interview) often tend to result in highly skewed distributions, the researchers transformed their measures
of physical aggression into a dichotomous (i.e., binary) measure (0 = did not occur, 1 = did occur). They
did the same with their measures of psychological aggression and then measured the correlations among
these variables, finding that adolescents who experienced physical aggression were moderately likely to also
have experienced psychological aggression and that experiencing psychological aggression was related to
symptoms of psychological distress. (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2009)2

Complex Correlation | 157

This approach is often used to assess the validity of new psychological measures. For example, when John
Cacioppo and Richard Petty created their Need for Cognition Scale—a measure of the extent to which
people like to think and value thinking—they used it to measure the need for cognition for a large sample of
college students, along with three other variables: intelligence, socially desirable responding (the tendency
to give what one thinks is the “appropriate” response), and dogmatism (Caccioppo & Petty, 1982)3. The
results of this study are summarized in Table 6.1, which is a correlation matrix showing the correlation
(Pearson’s r) between every possible pair of variables in the study. For example, the correlation between
the need for cognition and intelligence was +.39, the correlation between intelligence and socially desirable
responding was +.02, and so on. (Only half the matrix is filled in because the other half would contain exactly
the same information. Also, because the correlation between a variable and itself is always +1.00, these
values are replaced with dashes throughout the matrix.) In this case, the overall pattern of correlations was
consistent with the researchers’ ideas about how scores on the need for cognition should be related to these
other constructs.

Table 6.1 Correlation Matrix Showing Correlations Among the Need for Cognition and Three Other Variables
Based on Research by Cacioppo and Petty (1982)

Need for cognition Intelligence Social desirability Dogmatism

Need for cognition —

Intelligence +.39 —

Social desirability +.08 +.02 —

Dogmatism −.27 −.23 +.03 —

Factor Analysis

When researchers study relationships among a large number of conceptually similar variables, they often
use a complex statistical technique called factor analysis. In essence, factor analysis organizes the variables
into a smaller number of clusters, such that they are strongly correlated within each cluster but weakly
correlated between clusters. Each cluster is then interpreted as multiple measures of the same underlying
construct. These underlying constructs are also called “factors.” For example, when people perform a wide
variety of mental tasks, factor analysis typically organizes them into two main factors—one that researchers
interpret as mathematical intelligence (arithmetic, quantitative estimation, spatial reasoning, and so on) and
another that they interpret as verbal intelligence (grammar, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and so on).
The Big Five personality factors have been identified through factor analyses of people’s scores on a large
number of more specific traits. For example, measures of warmth, gregariousness, activity level, and positive
emotions tend to be highly correlated with each other and are interpreted as representing the construct
of extraversion. As a final example, researchers Peter Rentfrow and Samuel Gosling asked more than 1,700
university students to rate how much they liked 14 different popular genres of music (Rentfrow & Gosling,
2008)4. They then submitted these 14 variables to a factor analysis, which identified four distinct factors. The

158 | Complex Correlation

researchers called them Reflective and Complex (blues, jazz, classical, and folk), Intense and Rebellious (rock,
alternative, and heavy metal), Upbeat and Conventional (country, soundtrack, religious, pop), and Energetic
and Rhythmic (rap/hip-hop, soul/funk, and electronica); see Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Factor Loadings of the 14 Music Genres on Four Varimax-Rotated Principal Components. Based on
Research by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003)

Music-preference dimension

Genre Reflective and
Complex

Intense and
Rebellious

Upbeat and
Conventional

Energetic and
Rhythmic

Blues .85 .01 -.09 .12

Jazz .83 .04 .07 .15

Classical .66 .14 .02 -.13

Folk .64 .09 .15 -.16

Rock .17 .85 -.04 -.07

Alternative .02 .80 .13 .04

Heavy metal .07 .75 -.11 .04

Country -.06 .05 .72 -.03

Sound tracks .01 .04 .70 .17

Religious .23 -.21 .64 -.01

Pop -.20 .06 .59 .45

Rap/hip-hop -.19 -.12 .17 .79

Soul/funk .39 -.11 .11 .69

Electronica/dance -.02 .15 -.01 .60

Note. N = 1,704. All factor loadings .40 or larger are in italics; the highest factor loadings for each dimension are listed
in boldface type.

Two additional points about factor analysis are worth making here. One is that factors are not categories.
Factor analysis does not tell us that people are either extraverted or conscientious or that they
like either “reflective and complex” music or “intense and rebellious” music. Instead, factors are constructs
that operate independently of each other. So people who are high in extraversion might be high or low in
conscientiousness, and people who like reflective and complex music might or might not also like intense
and rebellious music. The second point is that factor analysis reveals only the underlying structure of the
variables. It is up to researchers to interpret and label the factors and to explain the origin of that particular
factor structure. For example, one reason that extraversion and the other Big Five operate as separate
factors is that they appear to be controlled by different genes (Plomin, DeFries, McClean, & McGuffin,
2008)5.

Complex Correlation | 159

Exploring Causal Relationships

Another important use of complex correlational research is to explore possible causal relationships among
variables. This might seem surprising given the oft-quoted saying that “correlation does not imply
causation.” It is true that correlational research cannot unambiguously establish that one variable causes
another. Complex correlational research, however, can often be used to rule out other plausible
interpretations. The primary way of doing this is through the statistical control of potential third variables.
Instead of controlling these variables through random assignment or by holding them constant as in
an experiment, the researcher instead measures them and includes them in the statistical analysis
called partial correlation. Using this technique, researchers can examine the relationship between two
variables, while statistically controlling for one or more potential third variables.

For example, assume a researcher was interested in the relationship between watching violent television
shows and aggressive behavior but she was concerned that socioeconomic status (SES) might represent a
third variable that is driving this relationship. In this case, she could conduct a study in which she measures
the amount of violent television that participants watch in their everyday life, the number of acts of
aggression that they have engaged in, and their SES. She could first examine the correlation between violent
television viewing and aggression. Let’s say she found a correlation of +.35, which would be considered a
moderate sized positive correlation. Next, she could use partial correlation to reexamine this relationship
after statistically controlling for SES. This technique would allow her to examine the relationship between
the part of violent television viewing that is independent of SES and the part of aggressive behavior that
is independent of SES. If she found that the partial correlation between violent television viewing and
aggression while controlling for SES was +.34, that would suggest that the relationship between violent
television viewing and aggression is largely independent of SES (i.e., SES is not a third variable driving this
relationship). On the other hand, if she found that after statistically controlling for SES the correlation
between violent television viewing and aggression dropped to +.03, then that would suggest that SES is
indeed a third variable that is driving the relationship. If, however, she found that statistically controlling for
SES reduced the magnitude of the correlation from +.35 to +.20, then this would suggest that SES accounts
for some, but not all, of the relationship between television violence and aggression. It is important to note
that while partial correlation provides an important tool for researchers to statistically control for third
variables, researchers using this technique are still limited in their ability to arrive at causal conclusions
because this technique does not take care of the directionality problem and there may be other third
variables driving the relationship that the researcher did not consider and statistically control.

Regression

Once a relationship between two variables has been established, researchers can use that information to
make predictions about the value of one variable given the value of another variable. For, instance, once
we have established that there is a correlation between IQ and GPA we can use people’s IQ scores to
predict their GPA. Thus, while correlation coefficients can be used to describe the strength and direction of
relationships between variables, regression is a statistical technique that allows researchers to predict one

160 | Complex Correlation

variable given another. Regression can also be used to describe more complex relationships between more
than two variables. Typically the variable that is used to make the prediction is referred to as the predictor
variable and the variable that is being predicted is called the outcome variable or criterion variable. This
regression equation has the following general form:

Y = b1X1

Y in this formula represents the person’s predicted score on the outcome variable, b1 represents the slope
of the line depicting the relationship between two variables (or the regression weight), and X1 represents
the person’s score on the predictor variable. You can see that to predict a person’s score on the outcome
variable (Y), one simply needs to multiply their score on the predictor variable (X) by the regression weight
(b1 )

While simple regression involves using one variable to predict another, multiple regression involves
measuring several variables (X1, X2, X3,…Xi), and using them to predict some outcome variable (Y). Multiple
regression can also be used to simply describe the relationship between a single outcome variable (Y) and
a set of predictor variables (X1, X2, X3,…Xi). The result of a multiple regression analysis is an equation
that expresses the outcome variable as an additive combination of the predictor variables. This regression
equation has the following general form:

Y = b1X1+ b2X2+ b3X3+ … + biXi

The regression weights (b1, b2, and so on) indicate how large a contribution a predictor variable makes,
on average, to the prediction of the outcome variable. Specifically, they indicate how much the outcome
variable changes for each one-unit change in the predictor variable.

The advantage of multiple regression is that it can show whether a predictor variable makes a contribution
to an outcome variable over and above the contributions made by other predictor variables (i.e., it can be
used to show whether a predictor variable is related to an outcome variable after statistically controlling for
other predictor variables). As a hypothetical example, imagine that a researcher wants to know how income
and health relate to happiness. This is tricky because income and health are themselves related to each
other. Thus if people with greater incomes tend to be happier, then perhaps this is only because they tend
to be healthier. Likewise, if people who are healthier tend to be happier, perhaps this is only because they
tend to make more money. But a multiple regression analysis including both income and health as predictor
variables would show whether each one makes a contribution to the prediction of happiness when the other
is taken into account (when it is statistically controlled). In other words, multiple regression would allow
the researcher to examine whether that part of income that is unrelated to health predicts or relates to
happiness as well as whether that part of health that is unrelated to income predicts or relates to happiness.

Complex Correlation | 161

Research like this, by the way, has shown both income and health make extremely small contributions to
happiness except in the case of severe poverty or illness (Diener, 20006).

The examples discussed in this section only scratch the surface of how researchers use complex
correlational research to explore possible causal relationships among variables. It is important to keep
in mind, however, that purely correlational approaches cannot unambiguously establish that one variable
causes another. The best they can do is show patterns of relationships that are consistent with some causal
interpretations and inconsistent with others.

Notes

1. Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. P. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism: Differential relations
with knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 836–846.

2. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression
in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(7), 451–460.

3. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
4. Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of

music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236–1256.
5. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2008). Behavioral genetics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
6. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American

Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

162 | Complex Correlation

31. Qualitative Research

Learning Objectives

1. List several ways in which qualitative research differs from quantitative research in psychology.
2. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research in psychology compared with quantitative

research.
3. Give examples of qualitative research in psychology.

What Is Qualitative Research?

This textbook is primarily about quantitative research, in part because most studies conducted in
psychology are quantitative in nature. Quantitative researchers typically start with a focused research
question or hypothesis, collect a small amount of numerical data from a large number of individuals,
describe the resulting data using statistical techniques, and draw general conclusions about some large
population. Although this method is by far the most common approach to conducting empirical research
in psychology, there is an important alternative called qualitative research. Qualitative research originated
in the disciplines of anthropology and sociology but is now used to study psychological topics as well.
Qualitative researchers generally begin with a less focused research question, collect large amounts of
relatively “unfiltered” data from a relatively small number of individuals, and describe their data using
nonstatistical techniques, such as grounded theory, thematic analysis, critical discourse analysis, or
interpretative phenomenological analysis. They are usually less concerned with drawing general conclusions
about human behavior than with understanding in detail the experience of their research participants.

Consider, for example, a study by researcher Per Lindqvist and his colleagues, who wanted to learn how
the families of teenage suicide victims cope with their loss (Lindqvist, Johansson, & Karlsson, 2008)1. They
did not have a specific research question or hypothesis, such as, What percentage of family members join
suicide support groups? Instead, they wanted to understand the variety of reactions that families had, with
a focus on what it is like from their perspectives. To address this question, they interviewed the families
of 10 teenage suicide victims in their homes in rural Sweden. The interviews were relatively unstructured,
beginning with a general request for the families to talk about the victim and ending with an invitation to
talk about anything else that they wanted to tell the interviewer. One of the most important themes that
emerged from these interviews was that even as life returned to “normal,” the families continued to struggle
with the question of why their loved one committed suicide. This struggle appeared to be especially difficult
for families in which the suicide was most unexpected.

Qualitative Research | 163

The Purpose of Qualitative Research

Again, this textbook is primarily about quantitative research in psychology. The strength of quantitative
research is its ability to provide precise answers to specific research questions and to draw general
conclusions about human behavior. This method is how we know that people have a strong tendency to obey
authority figures, for example, and that female undergraduate students are not substantially more talkative
than male undergraduate students. But while quantitative research is good at providing precise answers to
specific research questions, it is not nearly as good at generating novel and interesting research questions.
Likewise, while quantitative research is good at drawing general conclusions about human behavior, it is not
nearly as good at providing detailed descriptions of the behavior of particular groups in particular situations.
And quantitative research is not very good at communicating what it is actually like to be a member of a
particular group in a particular situation.

But the relative weaknesses of quantitative research are the relative strengths of qualitative research.
Qualitative research can help researchers to generate new and interesting research questions and
hypotheses. The research of Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, suggests that there may be a general
relationship between how unexpected a suicide is and how consumed the family is with trying to understand
why the teen committed suicide. This relationship can now be explored using quantitative research. But
it is unclear whether this question would have arisen at all without the researchers sitting down with the
families and listening to what they themselves wanted to say about their experience. Qualitative research
can also provide rich and detailed descriptions of human behavior in the real-world contexts in which it
occurs. Among qualitative researchers, this depth is often referred to as “thick description” (Geertz, 1973)2.
Similarly, qualitative research can convey a sense of what it is actually like to be a member of a particular
group or in a particular situation—what qualitative researchers often refer to as the “lived experience” of
the research participants. Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, describe how all the families spontaneously
offered to show the interviewer the victim’s bedroom or the place where the suicide occurred—revealing
the importance of these physical locations to the families. It seems unlikely that a quantitative study would
have discovered this detail.

Table 6.3 Some contrasts between qualitative and quantitative research

Qualitative Quantitative

1. In-depth information about relatively few people 1. Less depth information with larger samples

2. Conclusions are based on interpretations drawn by the
investigator 2. Conclusions are based on statistical analyses

3. Global and exploratory 3. Specific and focused

164 | Qualitative Research

Data Collection and Analysis in Qualitative Research

Data collection approaches in qualitative research are quite varied and can involve naturalistic observation,
participant observation, archival data, artwork, and many other things. But one of the most common
approaches, especially for psychological research, is to conduct interviews. Interviews in qualitative
research can be unstructured—consisting of a small number of general questions or prompts that allow
participants to talk about what is of interest to them—or structured, where there is a strict script that the
interviewer does not deviate from. Most interviews are in between the two and are called semi-structured
interviews, where the researcher has a few consistent questions and can follow up by asking more detailed
questions about the topics that come up. Such interviews can be lengthy and detailed, but they are usually
conducted with a relatively small sample. The unstructured interview was the approach used by Lindqvist
and colleagues in their research on the families of suicide victims because the researchers were aware that
how much was disclosed about such a sensitive topic should be led by the families, not by the researchers.

Another approach used in qualitative research involves small groups of people who participate together
in interviews focused on a particular topic or issue, known as focus groups. The interaction among
participants in a focus group can sometimes bring out more information than can be learned in a one-
on-one interview. The use of focus groups has become a standard technique in business and industry
among those who want to understand consumer tastes and preferences. The content of all focus group
interviews is usually recorded and transcribed to facilitate later analyses. However, we know from social
psychology that group dynamics are often at play in any group, including focus groups, and it is useful to be
aware of those possibilities. For example, the desire to be liked by others can lead participants to provide
inaccurate answers that they believe will be perceived favorably by the other participants. The same may be
said for personality characteristics. For example, highly extraverted participants can sometimes dominate
discussions within focus groups.

Data Analysis in Qualitative Research

Although quantitative and qualitative research generally differ along several important dimensions (e.g.,
the specificity of the research question, the type of data collected), it is the method of data analysis that
distinguishes them more clearly than anything else. To illustrate this idea, imagine a team of researchers
that conducts a series of unstructured interviews with people recovering from alcohol use disorder to learn
about the role of their religious faith in their recovery. Although this project sounds like qualitative research,
imagine further that once they collect the data, they code the data in terms of how often each participant
mentions God (or a “higher power”), and they then use descriptive and inferential statistics to find out
whether those who mention God more often are more successful in abstaining from alcohol. Now it sounds
like quantitative research. In other words, the quantitative-qualitative distinction depends more on what
researchers do with the data they have collected than with why or how they collected the data.

But what does qualitative data analysis look like? Just as there are many ways to collect data in qualitative
research, there are many ways to analyze data. Here we focus on one general approach

Qualitative Research | 165

called grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)3. This approach was developed within the field of sociology
in the 1960s and has gradually gained popularity in psychology. Remember that in quantitative research, it
is typical for the researcher to start with a theory, derive a hypothesis from that theory, and then collect
data to test that specific hypothesis. In qualitative research using grounded theory, researchers start with
the data and develop a theory or an interpretation that is “grounded in” those data. They do this analysis
in stages. First, they identify ideas that are repeated throughout the data. Then they organize these ideas
into a smaller number of broader themes. Finally, they write a theoretical narrative—an interpretation of
the data in terms of the themes that they have identified. This theoretical narrative focuses on the subjective
experience of the participants and is usually supported by many direct quotations from the participants
themselves.

As an example, consider a study by researchers Laura Abrams and Laura Curran, who used the grounded
theory approach to study the experience of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers
(Abrams & Curran, 2009)4. Their data were the result of unstructured interviews with 19 participants. Table
6.4 shows the five broad themes the researchers identified and the more specific repeating ideas that
made up each of those themes. In their research report, they provide numerous quotations from their
participants, such as this one from “Destiny:”

Well, just recently my apartment was broken into and the fact that his Medicaid for some reason was
cancelled so a lot of things was happening within the last two weeks all at one time. So that in itself I
don’t want to say almost drove me mad but it put me in a funk.…Like I really was depressed. (p. 357)

Their theoretical narrative focused on the participants’ experience of their symptoms, not as an abstract
“affective disorder” but as closely tied to the daily struggle of raising children alone under often difficult
circumstances.

Table 6.4 Themes and Repeating Ideas in a Study of Postpartum Depression Among Low-Income
Mothers. Based on Research by Abrams and Curran (2009).

Theme Repeating ideas

Ambivalence “I wasn’t prepared for this baby,” “I didn’t want to have any more children.”

Caregiving overload “Please stop crying,” “I need a break,” “I can’t do this anymore.”

Juggling “No time to breathe,” “Everyone depends on me,” “Navigating the maze.”

Mothering alone “I really don’t have any help,” “My baby has no father.”

Real-life worry “I don’t have any money,” “Will my baby be OK?” “It’s not safe here.”

The Quantitative-Qualitative “Debate”

Given their differences, it may come as no surprise that quantitative and qualitative research in psychology
and related fields do not coexist in complete harmony. Some quantitative researchers criticize qualitative
methods on the grounds that they lack objectivity, are difficult to evaluate in terms of reliability and validity,

166 | Qualitative Research

and do not allow generalization to people or situations other than those actually studied. At the same time,
some qualitative researchers criticize quantitative methods on the grounds that they overlook the richness
of human behavior and experience and instead answer simple questions about easily quantifiable variables.

In general, however, qualitative researchers are well aware of the issues of objectivity, reliability, validity, and
generalizability. In fact, they have developed a number of frameworks for addressing these issues (which
are beyond the scope of our discussion). And in general, quantitative researchers are well aware of the
issue of oversimplification. They do not believe that all human behavior and experience can be adequately
described in terms of a small number of variables and the statistical relationships among them. Instead, they
use simplification as a strategy for uncovering general principles of human behavior.

Many researchers from both the quantitative and qualitative camps now agree that the two approaches
can and should be combined into what has come to be called mixed-methods research (Todd, Nerlich,
McKeown, & Clarke, 2004)5. (In fact, the studies by Lindqvist and colleagues and by Abrams and Curran
both combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.) One approach to combining quantitative and
qualitative research is to use qualitative research for hypothesis generation and quantitative research
for hypothesis testing. Again, while a qualitative study might suggest that families who experience an
unexpected suicide have more difficulty resolving the question of why, a well-designed quantitative study
could test a hypothesis by measuring these specific variables in a large sample. A second approach to
combining quantitative and qualitative research is referred to as triangulation. The idea is to use both
quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously to study the same general questions and to compare
the results. If the results of the quantitative and qualitative methods converge on the same general
conclusion, they reinforce and enrich each other. If the results diverge, then they suggest an interesting new
question: Why do the results diverge and how can they be reconciled?

Using qualitative research can often help clarify quantitative results via triangulation. Trenor, Yu, Waight,
Zerda, and Sha (2008)6 investigated the experience of female engineering students at a university. In the first
phase, female engineering students were asked to complete a survey, where they rated a number of their
perceptions, including their sense of belonging. Their results were compared across the student ethnicities,
and statistically, the various ethnic groups showed no differences in their ratings of their sense of belonging.
One might look at that result and conclude that ethnicity does not have anything to do with one’s sense of
belonging. However, in the second phase, the authors also conducted interviews with the students, and in
those interviews, many minority students reported how the diversity of cultures at the university enhanced
their sense of belonging. Without the qualitative component, we might have drawn the wrong conclusion
about the quantitative results.

This example shows how qualitative and quantitative research work together to help us understand human
behavior. Some researchers have characterized qualitative research as best for identifying behaviors or
the phenomenon whereas quantitative research is best for understanding meaning or identifying the
mechanism. However, Bryman (2012)7 argues for breaking down the divide between these arbitrarily
different ways of investigating the same questions.

Qualitative Research | 167

Notes

1. Lindqvist, P., Johansson, L., & Karlsson, U. (2008). In the aftermath of teenage suicide: A qualitative study of the
psychosocial consequences for the surviving family members. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 26. Retrieved from
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/8/26

2. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
3. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:

Aldine.
4. Abrams, L. S., & Curran, L. (2009). “And you’re telling me not to stress?” A grounded theory study of postpartum

depression symptoms among low-income mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 351–362.
5. Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. D. (2004) Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative

and quantitative methods in theory and practice. London, UK: Psychology Press.
6. Trenor, J.M., Yu, S.L., Waight, C.L., Zerda. K.S & Sha T.-L. (2008). The relations of ethnicity to female engineering

students’ educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal
of Engineering Education, 97(4), 449-465.

7. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford: OUP.

168 | Qualitative Research

32. Observational Research

Learning Objectives

1. List the various types of observational research methods and distinguish between each.
2. Describe the strengths and weakness of each observational research method.

What Is Observational Research?

The term observational research is used to refer to several different types of non-experimental studies in
which behavior is systematically observed and recorded. The goal of observational research is to describe
a variable or set of variables. More generally, the goal is to obtain a snapshot of specific characteristics
of an individual, group, or setting. As described previously, observational research is non-experimental
because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and as such we cannot arrive at causal conclusions using this
approach. The data that are collected in observational research studies are often qualitative in nature but
they may also be quantitative or both (mixed-methods). There are several different types of observational
methods that will be described below.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is an observational method that involves observing people’s behavior in the
environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as
opposed to a type of laboratory research). Jane Goodall’s famous research on chimpanzees is a classic
example of naturalistic observation. Dr. Goodall spent three decades observing chimpanzees in their natural
environment in East Africa. She examined such things as chimpanzee’s social structure, mating patterns,
gender roles, family structure, and care of offspring by observing them in the wild. However, naturalistic
observation could more simply involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school
playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually
make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are not aware that they are being
studied. Such an approach is called disguised naturalistic observation. Ethically, this method is considered
to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where
people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their
shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and
other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them

Observational Research | 169

for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation
of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy
even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated.

In cases where it is not ethical or practical to conduct disguised naturalistic observation, researchers can
conduct undisguised naturalistic observation where the participants are made aware of the researcher
presence and monitoring of their behavior. However, one concern with undisguised naturalistic observation
is reactivity. Reactivity refers to when a measure changes participants’ behavior. In the case of undisguised
naturalistic observation, the concern with reactivity is that when people know they are being observed
and studied, they may act differently than they normally would. This type of reactivity is known as the
Hawthorne effect. For instance, you may act much differently in a bar if you know that someone is observing
you and recording your behaviors and this would invalidate the study. So disguised observation is less
reactive and therefore can have higher validity because people are not aware that their behaviors are being
observed and recorded. However, we now know that people often become used to being observed and with
time they begin to behave naturally in the researcher’s presence. In other words, over time people habituate
to being observed. Think about reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor where people are constantly being
observed and recorded. While they may be on their best behavior at first, in a fairly short amount of time
they are flirting, having sex, wearing next to nothing, screaming at each other, and occasionally behaving in
ways that are embarrassing.

Participant Observation

Another approach to data collection in observational research is participant observation.
In participant observation, researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are
studying. Participant observation is very similar to naturalistic observation in that it involves observing
people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. As with naturalistic observation, the
data that are collected can include interviews (usually unstructured), notes based on their observations
and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The only difference between naturalistic
observation and participant observation is that researchers engaged in participant observation become
active members of the group or situations they are studying. The basic rationale for participant observation
is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone
who is an active participant in the group or situation. Like naturalistic observation, participant observation
can be either disguised or undisguised. In disguised participant observation, the researchers pretend to be
members of the social group they are observing and conceal their true identity as researchers.

In a famous example of disguised participant observation, Leon Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated
a doomsday cult known as the Seekers, whose members believed that the apocalypse would occur on
December 21, 1954. Interested in studying how members of the group would cope psychologically when the
prophecy inevitably failed, they carefully recorded the events and reactions of the cult members in the days
before and after the supposed end of the world. Unsurprisingly, the cult members did not give up their belief
but instead convinced themselves that it was their faith and efforts that saved the world from destruction.

170 | Observational Research

Festinger and his colleagues later published a book about this experience, which they used to illustrate the
theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956)1.

In contrast with undisguised participant observation, the researchers become a part of the group they are
studying and they disclose their true identity as researchers to the group under investigation. Once again
there are important ethical issues to consider with disguised participant observation. First no informed
consent can be obtained and second deception is being used. The researcher is deceiving the participants
by intentionally withholding information about their motivations for being a part of the social group they
are studying. But sometimes disguised participation is the only way to access a protective group (like a
cult). Further, disguised participant observation is less prone to reactivity than undisguised participant
observation.

Rosenhan’s study (1973)2 of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward would be considered disguised
participant observation because Rosenhan and his pseudopatients were admitted into psychiatric hospitals
on the pretense of being patients so that they could observe the way that psychiatric patients are treated by
staff. The staff and other patients were unaware of their true identities as researchers.

Another example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins on a university-
based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008)3. Wilkins spent
12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several
group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for
example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and
using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

One of the primary benefits of participant observation is that the researchers are in a much better position
to understand the viewpoint and experiences of the people they are studying when they are a part of the
social group. The primary limitation with this approach is that the mere presence of the observer could
affect the behavior of the people being observed. While this is also a concern with naturalistic observation,
additional concerns arise when researchers become active members of the social group they are studying
because that they may change the social dynamics and/or influence the behavior of the people they are
studying. Similarly, if the researcher acts as a participant observer there can be concerns with biases
resulting from developing relationships with the participants. Concretely, the researcher may become less
objective resulting in more experimenter bias.

Structured Observation

Another observational method is structured observation. Here the investigator makes careful observations
of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting that is more structured than the settings used
in naturalistic or participant observation. Often the setting in which the observations are made is not the
natural setting. Instead, the researcher may observe people in the laboratory environment. Alternatively, the
researcher may observe people in a natural setting (like a classroom setting) that they have structured some
way, for instance by introducing some specific task participants are to engage in or by introducing a specific
social situation or manipulation.

Observational Research | 171

Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all
three cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior; however, the emphasis in structured
observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are
interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing.
In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic or participant observation because
the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors.
Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific
behaviors of interest.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used structured observation to study differences in the
“pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999)4. One of their measures involved observing
pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some
countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in Canada and Sweden
covered 60 feet in just under 13 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to
17 seconds. When structured observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” the
questions of when, where, and under what conditions the observations will be made, and who exactly will
be observed are important to consider. Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

“Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations
in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on
clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently
uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects
of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical
handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most
cities.” (p. 186).

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the
observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making
their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects
of the weather on people’s walking speeds. In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively
straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a
stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance.

As another example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to
their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions
(Kraut & Johnston, 1979)5. But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their
own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,”
“laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands).
The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who
had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing
the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely
smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their
companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social
communication.

172 | Observational Research

In yet another example (this one in a laboratory environment), Dov Cohen and his colleagues had observers
rate the emotional reactions of participants who had just been deliberately bumped and insulted by a
confederate after they dropped off a completed questionnaire at the end of a hallway. The confederate was
posing as someone who worked in the same building and who was frustrated by having to close a file drawer
twice in order to permit the participants to walk past them (first to drop off the questionnaire at the end
of the hallway and once again on their way back to the room where they believed the study they signed
up for was taking place). The two observers were positioned at different ends of the hallway so that they
could read the participants’ body language and hear anything they might say. Interestingly, the researchers
hypothesized that participants from the southern United States, which is one of several places in the world
that has a “culture of honor,” would react with more aggression than participants from the northern United
States, a prediction that was in fact supported by the observational data (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz,
1996)6.

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in the studies by Kraut and
Johnston and Cohen and his colleagues—a process referred to as coding is typically required. Coding
generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants
individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each
behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be
defined in such a way that guides different observers to code them in the same way. This difficulty with
coding illustrates the issue of interrater reliability, as mentioned in Chapter 4. Researchers are expected
to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same
behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and
Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers
independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited
97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

One of the primary benefits of structured observation is that it is far more efficient than naturalistic
and participant observation. Since the researchers are focused on specific behaviors this reduces time
and expense. Also, often times the environment is structured to encourage the behaviors of interest
which again means that researchers do not have to invest as much time in waiting for the behaviors of
interest to naturally occur. Finally, researchers using this approach can clearly exert greater control over
the environment. However, when researchers exert more control over the environment it may make the
environment less natural which decreases external validity. It is less clear for instance whether structured
observations made in a laboratory environment will generalize to a real world environment. Furthermore,
since researchers engaged in structured observation are often not disguised there may be more concerns
with reactivity.

Case Studies

A case study is an in-depth examination of an individual. Sometimes case studies are also completed on
social units (e.g., a cult) and events (e.g., a natural disaster). Most commonly in psychology, however, case

Observational Research | 173

Reading in print?
Scan this QR code
to view the video
on your mobile
device. Or go to
youtu.be/
KkaXNvzE4pk

studies provide a detailed description and analysis of an individual. Often the individual has a rare or unusual
condition or disorder or has damage to a specific region of the brain.

Like many observational research methods, case studies tend to be more qualitative in nature. Case study
methods involve an in-depth, and often a longitudinal examination of an individual. Depending on the focus
of the case study, individuals may or may not be observed in their natural setting. If the natural setting
is not what is of interest, then the individual may be brought into a therapist’s office or a researcher’s
lab for study. Also, the bulk of the case study report will focus on in-depth descriptions of the person
rather than on statistical analyses. With that said some quantitative data may also be included in the write-
up of a case study. For instance, an individual’s depression score may be compared to normative scores
or their score before and after treatment may be compared. As with other qualitative methods, a variety
of different methods and tools can be used to collect information on the case. For instance, interviews,
naturalistic observation, structured observation, psychological testing (e.g., IQ test), and/or physiological
measurements (e.g., brain scans) may be used to collect information on the individual.

HM is one of the most notorious case studies in psychology. HM suffered from intractable and very severe
epilepsy. A surgeon localized HM’s epilepsy to his medial temporal lobe and in 1953 he removed large
sections of his hippocampus in an attempt to stop the seizures. The treatment was a success, in that
it resolved his epilepsy and his IQ and personality were unaffected. However, the doctors soon realized
that HM exhibited a strange form of amnesia, called anterograde amnesia. HM was able to carry out a
conversation and he could remember short strings of letters, digits, and words. Basically, his short term
memory was preserved. However, HM could not commit new events to memory. He lost the ability to
transfer information from his short-term memory to his long term memory, something memory researchers
call consolidation. So while he could carry on a conversation with someone, he would completely forget
the conversation after it ended. This was an extremely important case study for memory researchers
because it suggested that there’s a dissociation between short-term memory and long-term memory, it
suggested that these were two different abilities sub-served by different areas of the brain. It also suggested
that the temporal lobes are particularly important for consolidating new information (i.e., for transferring
information from short-term memory to long-term memory).

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view

them online here: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/?p=78#oembed-1

The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s
description of “Anna O.” (see Note 6.1 “The Case of “Anna O.””) and John Watson and Rosalie
Rayner’s description of Little Albert (Watson & Rayner, 1920)7, who allegedly learned to
fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers repeatedly made a
loud noise every time the rat approached him.

174 | Observational Research

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O.” to illustrate many principles of his theory of
psychoanalysis (Freud, 1961)8. (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went
on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef
Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for
several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

She would take up the glass of water that she longed for, but as soon as it touched her lips she would push
it away like someone suffering from hydrophobia.…She lived only on fruit, such as melons, etc., so as to
lessen her tormenting thirst. (p. 9)

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

[S]he grumbled about her English “lady-companion,” whom she did not care for, and went on to describe,
with every sign of disgust, how she had once gone into this lady’s room and how her little dog—horrid
creature!—had drunk out of a glass there. The patient had said nothing, as she had wanted to be polite.
After giving further energetic expression to the anger she had held back, she asked for something to
drink, drank a large quantity of water without any difficulty, and awoke from her hypnosis with the glass
at her lips; and thereupon the disturbance vanished, never to return. (p.9)

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it
triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, he believed that her
recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom
to go away.

As an illustration of Freud’s theory, the case study of Anna O. is quite effective. As evidence for the theory,
however, it is essentially worthless. The description provides no way of knowing whether Anna had really
repressed the memory of the dog drinking from the glass, whether this repression had caused her inability to
drink, or whether recalling this “trauma” relieved the symptom. It is also unclear from this case study how
typical or atypical Anna’s experience was.

Observational Research | 175

Figure 6.8 Anna O. “Anna O.”
was the subject of a famous case
study used by Freud to illustrate
the principles of psychoanalysis.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/File:Pappenheim_1882

Case studies are useful because they provide a level of detailed analysis not found in many other research
methods and greater insights may be gained from this more detailed analysis. As a result of the case study,
the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of what might become important to look at more
extensively in future more controlled research. Case studies are also often the only way to study rare
conditions because it may be impossible to find a large enough sample of individuals with the condition to
use quantitative methods. Although at first glance a case study of a rare individual might seem to tell us little
about ourselves, they often do provide insights into normal behavior. The case of HM provided important
insights into the role of the hippocampus in memory consolidation.

However, it is important to note that while case studies can provide insights into certain areas and variables
to study, and can be useful in helping develop theories, they should never be used as evidence for theories.
In other words, case studies can be used as inspiration to formulate theories and hypotheses, but those
hypotheses and theories then need to be formally tested using more rigorous quantitative methods. The
reason case studies shouldn’t be used to provide support for theories is that they suffer from problems with
both internal and external validity. Case studies lack the proper controls that true experiments contain.
As such, they suffer from problems with internal validity, so they cannot be used to determine causation.
For instance, during HM’s surgery, the surgeon may have accidentally lesioned another area of HM’s brain
(a possibility suggested by the dissection of HM’s brain following his death) and that lesion may have
contributed to his inability to consolidate new information. The fact is, with case studies we cannot rule

176 | Observational Research

out these sorts of alternative explanations. So, as with all observational methods, case studies do not permit
determination of causation. In addition, because case studies are often of a single individual, and typically
an abnormal individual, researchers cannot generalize their conclusions to other individuals. Recall that
with most research designs there is a trade-off between internal and external validity. With case studies,
however, there are problems with both internal validity and external validity. So there are limits both to the
ability to determine causation and to generalize the results. A final limitation of case studies is that ample
opportunity exists for the theoretical biases of the researcher to color or bias the case description. Indeed,
there have been accusations that the woman who studied HM destroyed a lot of her data that were not
published and she has been called into question for destroying contradictory data that didn’t support her
theory about how memories are consolidated. There is a fascinating New York Times article that describes
some of the controversies that ensued after HM’s death and analysis of his brain that can be found at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

Archival Research

Another approach that is often considered observational research involves analyzing archival data that have
already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues
on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to
themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005)9. In one study, they examined Social Security records to show
that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to
the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with
archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based
on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and
his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many
years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988)10. In the 1940s, healthy
male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences.
In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a
measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More
pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect
many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited
negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers
used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal
explanations for them were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group
of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These
ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then
assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as undergraduate students and
archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more
optimistic the men were as undergraduate students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was
+.25.

Observational Research | 177

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

This method is an example of content analysis—a family of systematic approaches to measurement using
complex archival data. Just as structured observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then
noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding
all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time
devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

Media Attributions

• What happens when you remove the hippocampus? – Sam Kean by TED-Ed licensed under a standard
YouTube License

• Pappenheim 1882 by unknown is in the Public Domain.

Notes

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

2. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.
3. Wilkins, A. (2008). “Happier than Non-Christians”: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical

Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 281–301.
4. Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 178–205.
5. Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1539–1553.
6. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An

“experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945-960.
7. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1–14.
8. Freud, S. (1961). Five lectures on psycho-analysis. New York, NY: Norton.
9. Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14,

106–110.
10. Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness:

A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 23–27.

178 | Observational Research

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsooa4yRKGN_zEE8iknghZA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pappenheim_1882

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

33. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable.
• There are two broad types of non-experimental research. Correlational research that focuses on

statistical relationships between variables that are measured but not manipulated; and observational
research in which participants are observed and their behavior is recorded without the researcher
interfering or manipulating any variables.

• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal
validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.

• Correlational research involves measuring two variables and assessing the relationship between them,
with no manipulation of an independent variable.

• Correlation does not imply causation. A statistical relationship between two variables, X and Y, does not
necessarily mean that X causes Y. It is also possible that Y causes X, or that a third variable, Z, causes
both X and Y.

• While correlational research cannot be used to establish causal relationships between variables,
correlational research does allow researchers to achieve many other important objectives (establishing
reliability and validity, providing converging evidence, describing relationships, and making predictions)

• Correlation coefficients can range from -1 to +1. The sign indicates the direction of the
relationship between the variables and the numerical value indicates the strength of the relationship.

• Researchers often use complex correlational research to explore relationships among several variables in
the same study.

• Complex correlational research can be used to explore possible causal relationships among variables
using techniques such as partial correlation and multiple regression. Such designs can show patterns of
relationships that are consistent with some causal interpretations and inconsistent with others, but they
cannot unambiguously establish that one variable causes another.

• Qualitative research is an important alternative to quantitative research in psychology. It generally
involves asking broader research questions, collecting more detailed data (e.g., interviews), and using
non-statistical analyses.

• Many researchers conceptualize quantitative and qualitative research as complementary and advocate
combining them. For example, qualitative research can be used to generate hypotheses and quantitative
research to test them.

• There are several different approaches to observational research including naturalistic observation,
participant observation, structured observation, case studies, and archival research.

• Naturalistic observation is used to observe people in their natural setting; participant observation
involves becoming an active member of the group being observed; structured observation involves coding
a small number of behaviors in a quantitative manner; case studies are typically used to collect in-depth
information on a single individual; and archival research involves analyzing existing data.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 179

Exercises

• Discussion: For each of the following studies, decide which type of research design it is and explain why.

◦ A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they
feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written
narrative.

◦ A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical
relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.

◦ A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis
or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.

• Discussion: For each of the following, decide whether it is most likely that the study described is
experimental or non-experimental and explain why.

◦ A cognitive psychologist compares the ability of people to recall words that they were instructed to
“read” with their ability to recall words that they were instructed to “imagine.”

◦ A manager studies the correlation between new employees’ college grade point averages and their
first-year performance reports.

◦ An automotive engineer installs different stick shifts in a new car prototype, each time asking
several people to rate how comfortable the stick shift feels.

◦ A food scientist studies the relationship between the temperature inside people’s refrigerators and
the amount of bacteria on their food.

◦ A social psychologist tells some research participants that they need to hurry over to the next
building to complete a study. She tells others that they can take their time. Then she observes
whether they stop to help a research assistant who is pretending to be hurt.

• Practice: For each of the following statistical relationships, decide whether the directionality problem is
present and think of at least one plausible third variable.

◦ People who eat more lobster tend to live longer.
◦ People who exercise more tend to weigh less.
◦ College students who drink more alcohol tend to have poorer grades.

• Practice: Construct a correlation matrix for a hypothetical study including the variables of depression,
anxiety, self-esteem, and happiness. Include the Pearson’s r values that you would expect.

• Discussion: Imagine a correlational study that looks at intelligence, the need for cognition, and high
school students’ performance in a critical thinking course. A multiple regression analysis shows that
intelligence is not related to performance in the class but that the need for cognition is. Explain what this
study has shown in terms of what is related to good performance in the critical thinking course.

• Discussion: What are some ways in which a qualitative study of girls who play youth baseball would likely
differ from a quantitative study on the same topic? How would the data differ by interviewing girls one-
on-one rather than conducting focus groups or surveys?

• Practice: Find and read a published case study in psychology. (Use case study as a key term in a PsycINFO
search.) Then do the following:

◦ Describe one problem related to internal validity.

180 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

◦ Describe one problem related to external validity.
◦ Generate one hypothesis suggested by the case study that might be interesting to test in a

subsequent study.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 181

CHAPTER VII

SURVEY RESEARCH

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, in September of 2001, researcher
Jennifer Lerner and her colleagues conducted an Internet-based survey of nearly 2,000 American teens and
adults ranging in age from 13 to 88 (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003)1. They asked participants
about their reactions to the attacks and for their judgments of various terrorism-related and other risks.
Among the results were that the participants tended to overestimate most risks, that females did so more
than males, and that there were no differences between teens and adults. The most interesting result,
however, had to do with the fact that some participants were “primed” to feel anger by asking them what
made them angry about the attacks and by presenting them with a photograph and audio clip intended to
evoke anger. Others were primed to feel fear by asking them what made them fearful about the attacks
and by presenting them with a photograph and audio clip intended to evoke fear. As the researchers
hypothesized, the participants who were primed to feel anger perceived less risk than the participants who
had been primed to feel fear—showing how risk perceptions are strongly tied to specific emotions.

The study by Lerner and her colleagues is an example of survey research in psychology—the topic of this
chapter. We begin with an overview of survey research, including its definition, some history, and a bit about
who conducts it and why. We then look at survey responding as a psychological process and the implications
of this for constructing good survey questionnaires. Finally, we consider some issues related to actually
conducting survey research, including sampling the participants and collecting the data.

Notes

1. Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of
terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.

Survey Research | 183

34. Overview of Survey Research

Learning Objectives

1. Define what survey research is, including its two important characteristics.
2. Describe several different ways that survey research can be used and give some examples.

What Is Survey Research?

Survey research is a quantitative and qualitative method with two important characteristics. First, the
variables of interest are measured using self-reports (using questionnaires or interviews). In essence, survey
researchers ask their participants (who are often called respondents in survey research) to report directly
on their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Second, considerable attention is paid to the issue of
sampling. In particular, survey researchers have a strong preference for large random samples because they
provide the most accurate estimates of what is true in the population. In fact, survey research may be the
only approach in psychology in which random sampling is routinely used. Beyond these two characteristics,
almost anything goes in survey research. Surveys can be long or short. They can be conducted in person,
by telephone, through the mail, or over the Internet. They can be about voting intentions, consumer
preferences, social attitudes, health, or anything else that it is possible to ask people about and receive
meaningful answers. Although survey data are often analyzed using statistics, there are many questions that
lend themselves to more qualitative analysis.

Most survey research is non-experimental. It is used to describe single variables (e.g., the percentage of
voters who prefer one presidential candidate or another, the prevalence of schizophrenia in the general
population, etc.) and also to assess statistical relationships between variables (e.g., the relationship between
income and health). But surveys can also be used within experimental research. The study by Lerner and
her colleagues is a good example. Their use of self-report measures and a large national sample identifies
their work as survey research. But their manipulation of an independent variable (anger vs. fear) to assess its
effect on a dependent variable (risk judgments) also identifies their work as experimental.

History and Uses of Survey Research

Survey research may have its roots in English and American “social surveys” conducted around the turn
of the 20th century by researchers and reformers who wanted to document the extent of social problems
such as poverty (Converse, 1987)1. By the 1930s, the US government was conducting surveys to document

Overview of Survey Research | 185

economic and social conditions in the country. The need to draw conclusions about the entire population
helped spur advances in sampling procedures. At about the same time, several researchers who had already
made a name for themselves in market research, studying consumer preferences for American businesses,
turned their attention to election polling. A watershed event was the presidential election of 1936 between
Alf Landon and Franklin Roosevelt. A magazine called Literary Digest conducted a survey by sending ballots
(which were also subscription requests) to millions of Americans. Based on this “straw poll,” the editors
predicted that Landon would win in a landslide. At the same time, the new pollsters were using scientific
methods with much smaller samples to predict just the opposite—that Roosevelt would win in a landslide.
In fact, one of them, George Gallup, publicly criticized the methods of Literary Digest before the election
and all but guaranteed that his prediction would be correct. And of course, it was, demonstrating the
effectiveness of careful survey methodology (We will consider the reasons that Gallup was right later in this
chapter). Gallup’s demonstration of the power of careful survey methods led later researchers to to local,
and in 1948, the first national election survey by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan.
This work eventually became the American National Election Studies (https://electionstudies.org/) as a
collaboration of Stanford University and the University of Michigan, and these studies continue today.

From market research and election polling, survey research made its way into several academic fields,
including political science, sociology, and public health—where it continues to be one of the primary
approaches to collecting new data. Beginning in the 1930s, psychologists made important advances in
questionnaire design, including techniques that are still used today, such as the Likert scale. (See “What Is a
Likert Scale?” in Section 7.2 “Constructing Survey Questionnaires”.) Survey research has a strong historical
association with the social psychological study of attitudes, stereotypes, and prejudice. Early attitude
researchers were also among the first psychologists to seek larger and more diverse samples than the
convenience samples of university students that were routinely used in psychology (and still are).

Survey research continues to be important in psychology today. For example, survey data have been
instrumental in estimating the prevalence of various mental disorders and identifying statistical
relationships among those disorders and with various other factors. The National Comorbidity Survey is
a large-scale mental health survey conducted in the United States (see http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/
ncs). In just one part of this survey, nearly 10,000 adults were given a structured mental health interview in
their homes in 2002 and 2003. Table 7.1 presents results on the lifetime prevalence of some anxiety, mood,
and substance use disorders. (Lifetime prevalence is the percentage of the population that develops the
problem sometime in their lifetime.) Obviously, this kind of information can be of great use both to basic
researchers seeking to understand the causes and correlates of mental disorders as well as to clinicians and
policymakers who need to understand exactly how common these disorders are.

186 | Overview of Survey Research

https://electionstudies.org/

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNHGgRvKIdEBbW5iqCRTVDJMgBDeaA

Table 7.1 Some Lifetime Prevalence Results From the National Comorbidity Survey

Lifetime prevalence*

Disorder Total Female Male

Generalized anxiety disorder 5.7 7.1 4.2

Obsessive-compulsive disorder 2.3 3.1 1.6

Major depressive disorder 16.9 20.2 13.2

Bipolar disorder 4.4 4.5 4.3

Alcohol abuse 13.2 7.5 19.6

Drug abuse 8.0 4.8 11.6

*The lifetime prevalence of a disorder is the percentage of people in the population that develop that disorder at
any time in their lives.

And as the opening example makes clear, survey research can even be used as a data collection method
within experimental research to test specific hypotheses about causal relationships between variables. Such
studies, when conducted on large and diverse samples, can be a useful supplement to laboratory studies
conducted on university students. Survey research is thus a flexible approach that can be used to study a
variety of basic and applied research questions.

Notes

1. Converse, J. M. (1987). Survey research in the United States: Roots and emergence, 1890–1960. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Overview of Survey Research | 187

35. Constructing Surveys

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the cognitive processes involved in responding to a survey item.
2. Explain what a context effect is and give some examples.
3. Create a simple survey questionnaire based on principles of effective item writing and organization.

The heart of any survey research project is the survey itself. Although it is easy to think of interesting
questions to ask people, constructing a good survey is not easy at all. The problem is that the answers people
give can be influenced in unintended ways by the wording of the items, the order of the items, the response
options provided, and many other factors. At best, these influences add noise to the data. At worst, they
result in systematic biases and misleading results. In this section, therefore, we consider some principles for
constructing surveys to minimize these unintended effects and thereby maximize the reliability and validity
of respondents’ answers.

Survey Responding as a Psychological Process

Before looking at specific principles of survey construction, it will help to consider survey responding as a
psychological process.

A Cognitive Model

Figure 7.1 presents a model of the cognitive processes that people engage in when responding to a survey
item (Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, 1996)1. Respondents must interpret the question, retrieve relevant
information from memory, form a tentative judgment, convert the tentative judgment into one of the
response options provided (e.g., a rating on a 1-to-7 scale), and finally edit their response as necessary.

188 | Constructing Surveys

Figure 7.1 Model of the Cognitive Processes Involved in Responding to a Survey Item. [Image description]

Consider, for example, the following questionnaire item:

How many alcoholic drinks do you consume in a typical day?

• _____ a lot more than average
• _____ somewhat more than average
• _____ average
• _____ somewhat fewer than average
• _____ a lot fewer than average

Although this item at first seems straightforward, it poses several difficulties for respondents. First, they
must interpret the question. For example, they must decide whether “alcoholic drinks” include beer and
wine (as opposed to just hard liquor) and whether a “typical day” is a typical weekday, typical weekend day,
or both. Even though Chang and Krosnick (2003)2 found that asking about “typical” behavior has been shown
to be more valid than asking about “past” behavior, their study compared “typical week” to “past week” and
may be different when considering typical weekdays or weekend days). Once respondents have interpreted
the question, they must retrieve relevant information from memory to answer it. But what information
should they retrieve, and how should they go about retrieving it? They might think vaguely about some
recent occasions on which they drank alcohol, they might carefully try to recall and count the number
of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week, or they might retrieve some existing beliefs that they have
about themselves (e.g., “I am not much of a drinker”). Then they must use this information to arrive at a
tentative judgment about how many alcoholic drinks they consume in a typical day. For example, this mental
calculation might mean dividing the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week by seven to come
up with an average number per day. Then they must format this tentative answer in terms of the response
options actually provided. In this case, the options pose additional problems of interpretation. For example,
what does “average” mean, and what would count as “somewhat more” than average? Finally, they must
decide whether they want to report the response they have come up with or whether they want to edit it in
some way. For example, if they believe that they drink a lot more than average, they might not want to report
that for fear of looking bad in the eyes of the researcher, so instead, they may opt to select the “somewhat
more than average” response option.

Constructing Surveys | 189

From this perspective, what at first appears to be a simple matter of asking people how much they drink
(and receiving a straightforward answer from them) turns out to be much more complex.

Context Effects on Survey Responses

Again, this complexity can lead to unintended influences on respondents’ answers. These are often referred
to as context effects because they are not related to the content of the item but to the context in which the
item appears (Schwarz & Strack, 1990)3. For example, there is an item-order effect when the order in which
the items are presented affects people’s responses. One item can change how participants interpret a later
item or change the information that they retrieve to respond to later items. For example, researcher Fritz
Strack and his colleagues asked college students about both their general life satisfaction and their dating
frequency (Strack, Martin, & Schwarz, 1988)4. When the life satisfaction item came first, the correlation
between the two was only −.12, suggesting that the two variables are only weakly related. But when the
dating frequency item came first, the correlation between the two was +.66, suggesting that those who date
more have a strong tendency to be more satisfied with their lives. Reporting the dating frequency first made
that information more accessible in memory so that they were more likely to base their life satisfaction
rating on it.

The response options provided can also have unintended effects on people’s responses (Schwarz, 1999)5. For
example, when people are asked how often they are “really irritated” and given response options ranging
from “less than once a year” to “more than once a month,” they tend to think of major irritations and report
being irritated infrequently. But when they are given response options ranging from “less than once a day” to
“several times a month,” they tend to think of minor irritations and report being irritated frequently. People
also tend to assume that middle response options represent what is normal or typical. So if they think of
themselves as normal or typical, they tend to choose middle response options. For example, people are likely
to report watching more television when the response options are centered on a middle option of 4 hours
than when centered on a middle option of 2 hours. To mitigate against order effects, rotate questions and
response items when there is no natural order. Counterbalancing or randomizing the order of presentation
of the questions in online surveys are good practices for survey questions and can reduce response order
effects that show that among undecided voters, the first candidate listed in a ballot receives a 2.5% boost
simply by virtue of being listed first6!

Writing Survey Items

Types of Items

Questionnaire items can be either open-ended or closed-ended. Open-ended items simply ask a question

190 | Constructing Surveys

and allow participants to answer in whatever way they choose. The following are examples of open-ended
questionnaire items.

• “What is the most important thing to teach children to prepare them for life?”
• “Please describe a time when you were discriminated against because of your age.”
• “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about?”

Open-ended items are useful when researchers do not know how participants might respond or when they
want to avoid influencing their responses. Open-ended items are more qualitative in nature, so they tend
to be used when researchers have more vaguely defined research questions—often in the early stages of a
research project. Open-ended items are relatively easy to write because there are no response options to
worry about. However, they take more time and effort on the part of participants, and they are more difficult
for the researcher to analyze because the answers must be transcribed, coded, and submitted to some form
of qualitative analysis, such as content analysis. Another disadvantage is that respondents are more likely to
skip open-ended items because they take longer to answer. It is best to use open-ended questions when the
answer is unsure or for quantities which can easily be converted to categories later in the analysis.

Closed-ended items ask a question and provide a set of response options for participants to choose from.
The alcohol item just mentioned is an example, as are the following:

How old are you?

• _____ Under 18
• _____ 18 to 34
• _____ 35 to 49
• _____ 50 to 70
• _____ Over 70

On a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst pain ever experienced), how much pain are you in right now?

Have you ever in your adult life been depressed for a period of 2 weeks or more? Yes No

Closed-ended items are used when researchers have a good idea of the different responses that participants
might make. They are more quantitative in nature, so they are also used when researchers are interested
in a well-defined variable or construct such as participants’ level of agreement with some statement,
perceptions of risk, or frequency of a particular behavior. Closed-ended items are more difficult to write
because they must include an appropriate set of response options. However, they are relatively quick
and easy for participants to complete. They are also much easier for researchers to analyze because the
responses can be easily converted to numbers and entered into a spreadsheet. For these reasons, closed-
ended items are much more common.

All closed-ended items include a set of response options from which a participant must choose. For

Constructing Surveys | 191

categorical variables like sex, race, or political party preference, the categories are usually listed and
participants choose the one (or ones) to which they belong. For quantitative variables, a rating scale is
typically provided. A rating scale is an ordered set of responses that participants must choose from. Figure
7.2 shows several examples. The number of response options on a typical rating scale ranges from three
to 11—although five and seven are probably most common. Five-point scales are best for unipolar scales
where only one construct is tested, such as frequency (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always). Seven-
point scales are best for bipolar scales where there is a dichotomous spectrum, such as liking (Like very
much, Like somewhat, Like slightly, Neither like nor dislike, Dislike slightly, Dislike somewhat, Dislike very
much). For bipolar questions, it is useful to offer an earlier question that branches them into an area of
the scale; if asking about liking ice cream, first ask “Do you generally like or dislike ice cream?” Once
the respondent chooses like or dislike, refine it by offering them relevant choices from the seven-point
scale. Branching improves both reliability and validity (Krosnick & Berent, 1993)7. Although you often see
scales with numerical labels, it is best to only present verbal labels to the respondents but convert them
to numerical values in the analyses. Avoid partial labels or length or overly specific labels. In some cases,
the verbal labels can be supplemented with (or even replaced by) meaningful graphics. The last rating
scale shown in Figure 7.2 is a visual-analog scale, on which participants make a mark somewhere along the
horizontal line to indicate the magnitude of their response.

Figure 7.2 Example Rating Scales for Closed-Ended Questionnaire Items. [Image description]

192 | Constructing Surveys

What Is a Likert Scale?

In reading about psychological research, you are likely to encounter the term Likert scale. Although this term is
sometimes used to refer to almost any rating scale (e.g., a 0-to-10 life satisfaction scale), it has a much more
precise meaning.

In the 1930s, researcher Rensis Likert (pronounced LICK-ert) created a new approach for measuring people’s
attitudes (Likert, 1932)8. It involves presenting people with several statements—including both favorable and
unfavorable statements—about some person, group, or idea. Respondents then express their agreement or
disagreement with each statement on a 5-point scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Numbers are assigned to each response and then summed across all
items to produce a score representing the attitude toward the person, group, or idea. For items that are
phrased in an opposite direction (e.g., negatively worded statements instead of positively worded statements),
reverse coding is used so that the numerical scoring of statements also runs in the opposite direction. The
entire set of items came to be called a Likert scale.

Thus unless you are measuring people’s attitude toward something by assessing their level of agreement with
several statements about it, it is best to avoid calling it a Likert scale. You are probably just using a “rating
scale.”

Writing Effective Items

We can now consider some principles of writing questionnaire items that minimize unintended context
effects and maximize the reliability and validity of participants’ responses. A rough guideline for writing
questionnaire items is provided by the BRUSO model (Peterson, 2000)9. An acronym, BRUSO stands for
“brief,” “relevant,” “unambiguous,” “specific,” and “objective.” Effective questionnaire items are brief and to
the point. They avoid long, overly technical, or unnecessary words. This brevity makes them easier for
respondents to understand and faster for them to complete. Effective questionnaire items are
also relevant to the research question. If a respondent’s sexual orientation, marital status, or income is not
relevant, then items on them should probably not be included. Again, this makes the questionnaire faster
to complete, but it also avoids annoying respondents with what they will rightly perceive as irrelevant
or even “nosy” questions. Effective questionnaire items are also unambiguous; they can be interpreted in
only one way. Part of the problem with the alcohol item presented earlier in this section is that different
respondents might have different ideas about what constitutes “an alcoholic drink” or “a typical day.”
Effective questionnaire items are also specific so that it is clear to respondents what their
response should be about and clear to researchers what it is about. A common problem here is closed-
ended items that are “double barrelled.” They ask about two conceptually separate issues but allow only one
response. For example, “Please rate the extent to which you have been feeling anxious and depressed.” This
item should probably be split into two separate items—one about anxiety and one about depression. Finally,
effective questionnaire items are objective in the sense that they do not reveal the researcher’s own opinions

Constructing Surveys | 193

or lead participants to answer in a particular way. Table 7.2 shows some examples of poor and effective
questionnaire items based on the BRUSO criteria. The best way to know how people interpret the wording
of the question is to conduct a pilot test and ask a few people to explain how they interpreted the question.

Table 7.2 BRUSO Model of Writing Effective Questionnaire Items, Plus Examples

Criterion Poor Effective

B—Brief “Are you now or have you ever been the possessor
of a firearm?” “Have you ever owned a gun?”

R—Relevant “What is your sexual orientation?” Do not include this item unless it is clearly
relevant to the research.

U—Unambiguous “Are you a gun person?” “Do you currently own a gun?”

S—Specific “How much have you read about the new gun
control measure and sales tax?”

“How much have you read about the new
sales tax?”

O—Objective “How much do you support the new gun control
measure?”

“What is your view of the new gun control
measure?”

For closed-ended items, it is also important to create an appropriate response scale. For categorical
variables, the categories presented should generally be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Mutually
exclusive categories do not overlap. For a religion item, for example, the categories of Christian and
Catholic are not mutually exclusive but Protestant and Catholic are mutually exclusive. Exhaustive
categories cover all possible responses. Although Protestant and Catholic are mutually exclusive, they are
not exhaustive because there are many other religious categories that a respondent might
select: Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and so on. In many cases, it is not feasible to include every possible category,
in which case an Other category, with a space for the respondent to fill in a more specific response, is a good
solution. If respondents could belong to more than one category (e.g., race), they should be instructed to
choose all categories that apply.

For rating scales, five or seven response options generally allow about as much precision as respondents
are capable of. However, numerical scales with more options can sometimes be appropriate. For dimensions
such as attractiveness, pain, and likelihood, a 0-to-10 scale will be familiar to many respondents and easy
for them to use. Regardless of the number of response options, the most extreme ones should generally
be “balanced” around a neutral or modal midpoint. An example of an unbalanced rating scale measuring
perceived likelihood might look like this:

Unlikely | Somewhat Likely | Likely | Very Likely | Extremely Likely

A balanced version might look like this:

Extremely Unlikely | Somewhat Unlikely | As Likely as Not | Somewhat Likely |Extremely Likely

Note, however, that a middle or neutral response option does not have to be included. Researchers
sometimes choose to leave it out because they want to encourage respondents to think more deeply about

194 | Constructing Surveys

their response and not simply choose the middle option by default. However, including middle alternatives
on bipolar dimensions can be used to allow people to choose an option that is neither.

Figure 7.3 “Question” retrieved from
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/
question (CC-BY-NC 2.5). [Image
description]

Formatting the Survey

Writing effective items is only one part of constructing a survey. For one thing, every survey should have
a written or spoken introduction that serves two basic functions (Peterson, 2000)10. One is to encourage
respondents to participate in the survey. In many types of research, such encouragement is not necessary
either because participants do not know they are in a study (as in naturalistic observation) or because
they are part of a subject pool and have already shown their willingness to participate by signing up and
showing up for the study. Survey research usually catches respondents by surprise when they answer their
phone, go to their mailbox, or check their e-mail—and the researcher must make a good case for why they
should agree to participate. Thus the introduction should briefly explain the purpose of the survey and its
importance, provide information about the sponsor of the survey (university-based surveys tend to generate
higher response rates), acknowledge the importance of the respondent’s participation, and describe any
incentives for participating.

The second function of the introduction is to establish informed consent. Remember that this involves
describing to respondents everything that might affect their decision to participate. This includes the topics
covered by the survey, the amount of time it is likely to take, the respondent’s option to withdraw at any
time, confidentiality issues, and so on. Written consent forms are not always used in survey research (when
the research is of minimal risk and completion of the survey instrument is often accepted by the IRB as
evidence of consent to participate), so it is important that this part of the introduction be well documented
and presented clearly and in its entirety to every respondent.

The introduction should be followed by the substantive questionnaire items. But first, it is important to

Constructing Surveys | 195

present clear instructions for completing the questionnaire, including examples of how to use any unusual
response scales. Remember that the introduction is the point at which respondents are usually most
interested and least fatigued, so it is good practice to start with the most important items for purposes of
the research and proceed to less important items. Items should also be grouped by topic or by type. For
example, items using the same rating scale (e.g., a 5-point agreement scale) should be grouped together
if possible to make things faster and easier for respondents. Demographic items are often presented
last because they are least interesting to participants but also easy to answer in the event respondents
have become tired or bored. Of course, any survey should end with an expression of appreciation to the
respondent.

Image Descriptions

Figure 7.1 image description: Flowchart modelling the cognitive processes involved in responding to a
survey item. In order, these processes are:

• Question Interpretation
• Information Retrieval
• Judgment Formation
• Response Formatting
• Response Editing

[Return to Figure 7.1]

Figure 7.2 image description: Three different rating scales for survey questions. The first scale provides a
choice between “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.”
The second is a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “extremely unlikely” and 7 being “extremely likely.” The third
is a sliding scale, with one end marked “extremely unfriendly” and the other “extremely friendly.” [Return to
Figure 7.2]

Figure 7.3 image description: A note reads, “Dear Isaac. Do you like me?” with two check boxes reading “yes”
or “no.” Someone has added a third check box, which they’ve checked, that reads, “There is as yet insufficient
data for a meaningful answer.” [Return to Figure 7.3]

Media Attributions

• Question by XKCD license under CC BY-NC 2.5

196 | Constructing Surveys

https://xkcd.com/1448/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

Notes

1. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to
survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

2. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the ‘typical week’ to the
‘past week’. Sociological Methodology, 33, 55-80.

3. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. In W.
Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 31–50). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

4. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: The social determinants of information use
in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429–442.

5. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
6. Miller, J.M. & Krosnick, J.A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 62(3), 291-330.
7. Krosnick, J.A. & Berent, M.K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey

question format. American Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 941-964.
8. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,140, 1–55.
9. Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10. Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Constructing Surveys | 197

36. Conducting Surveys

Learning Objectives

1. Explain the difference between probability and non-probability sampling, and describe the major types of
probability sampling.

2. Define sampling bias in general and non-response bias in particular. List some techniques that can be
used to increase the response rate and reduce non-response bias.

3. List the four major ways to conduct a survey along with some pros and cons of each.

In this section, we consider how to go about conducting a survey. We first consider the issue of sampling,
followed by some different methods of actually collecting survey data.

Sampling

Essentially all psychological research involves sampling—selecting a sample to study from the population
of interest. Sampling falls into two broad categories. The first category, Probability sampling, occurs when
the researcher can specify the probability that each member of the population will be selected for the
sample. The second is Non-probability sampling, which occurs when the researcher cannot specify these
probabilities. Most psychological research involves non-probability sampling. For example, Convenience
sampling—studying individuals who happen to be nearby and willing to participate—is a very common
form of non-probability sampling used in psychological research. Other forms of non-probability sampling
include snowball sampling (in which existing research participants help recruit additional participants for
the study), quota sampling (in which subgroups in the sample are recruited to be proportional to those
subgroups in the population), and self-selection sampling (in which individuals choose to take part in the
research on their own accord, without being approached by the researcher directly).

Survey researchers, however, are much more likely to use some form of probability sampling.
This tendency is because the goal of most survey research is to make accurate estimates about what is true
in a particular population, and these estimates are most accurate when based on a probability sample. For
example, it is important for survey researchers to base their estimates of election outcomes—which are
often decided by only a few percentage points—on probability samples of likely registered voters.

Compared with non-probability sampling, probability sampling requires a very clear specification of the
population, which of course depends on the research questions to be answered. The population might
be all registered voters in Washington State, all American consumers who have purchased a car in the

198 | Conducting Surveys

past year, women in the Seattle over 40 years old who have received a mammogram in the past decade,
or all the alumni of a particular university. Once the population has been specified, probability sampling
requires a sampling frame. This sampling frame is essentially a list of all the members of the population from
which to select the respondents. Sampling frames can come from a variety of sources, including telephone
directories, lists of registered voters, and hospital or insurance records. In some cases, a map can serve as a
sampling frame, allowing for the selection of cities, streets, or households.

There are a variety of different probability sampling methods. Simple random sampling is done in such
a way that each individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected for the sample.
This type of sampling could involve putting the names of all individuals in the sampling frame into a hat,
mixing them up, and then drawing out the number needed for the sample. Given that most sampling frames
take the form of computer files, random sampling is more likely to involve computerized sorting or selection
of respondents. A common approach in telephone surveys is random-digit dialing, in which a computer
randomly generates phone numbers from among the possible phone numbers within a given geographic
area.

A common alternative to simple random sampling is stratified random sampling, in which the population
is divided into different subgroups or “strata” (usually based on demographic characteristics) and then a
random sample is taken from each “stratum.” Proportionate stratified random sampling can be used to
select a sample in which the proportion of respondents in each of various subgroups matches the proportion
in the population. For example, because about 12.6% of the American population is African American,
stratified random sampling can be used to ensure that a survey of 1,000 American adults includes about 126
African-American respondents. Disproportionate stratified random sampling can also be used to sample
extra respondents from particularly small subgroups—allowing valid conclusions to be drawn about those
subgroups. For example, because Asian Americans make up a relatively small percentage of the American
population (about 5.6%), a simple random sample of 1,000 American adults might include too few Asian
Americans to draw any conclusions about them as distinct from any other subgroup. If representation
is important to the research question, however, then disproportionate stratified random sampling could
be used to ensure that enough Asian-American respondents are included in the sample to draw valid
conclusions about Asian Americans a whole.

Yet another type of probability sampling is cluster sampling, in which larger clusters of individuals are
randomly sampled and then individuals within each cluster are randomly sampled. This is the only
probability sampling method that does not require a sampling frame. For example, to select a sample of
small-town residents in Washington, a researcher might randomly select several small towns and then
randomly select several individuals within each town. Cluster sampling is especially useful for surveys that
involve face-to-face interviewing because it minimizes the amount of traveling that the interviewers must
do. For example, instead of traveling to 200 small towns to interview 200 residents, a research team could
travel to 10 small towns and interview 20 residents of each. The National Comorbidity Survey was done using
a form of cluster sampling.

How large does a survey sample need to be? In general, this estimate depends on two factors. One is the
level of confidence in the result that the researcher wants. The larger the sample, the closer any statistic
based on that sample will tend to be to the corresponding value in the population. The other factor is a
practical constraint in the form of the budget of the study. Larger samples provide greater confidence,

Conducting Surveys | 199

but they take more time, effort, and money to obtain. Taking these two factors into account, most survey
research uses sample sizes that range from about 100 to about 1,000. Conducting a power analysis prior to
launching the survey helps to guide the researcher in making this trade-off.

Sample Size and Population Size

Why is a sample of about 1,000 considered to be adequate for most survey research—even when the population
is much larger than that? Consider, for example, that a sample of only 1,000 American adults is generally
considered a good sample of the roughly 252 million adults in the American population—even though it
includes only about 0.000004% of the population! The answer is a bit surprising.

One part of the answer is that a statistic based on a larger sample will tend to be closer to the population value
and that this can be characterized mathematically. Imagine, for example, that in a sample of registered voters,
exactly 50% say they intend to vote for the incumbent. If there are 100 voters in this sample, then there is a
95% chance that the true percentage in the population is between 40 and 60. But if there are 1,000 voters in
the sample, then there is a 95% chance that the true percentage in the population is between 47 and 53.
Although this “95% confidence interval” continues to shrink as the sample size increases, it does so at a slower
rate. For example, if there are 2,000 voters in the sample, then this reduction only reduces the 95% confidence
interval to 48 to 52. In many situations, the small increase in confidence beyond a sample size of 1,000 is not
considered to be worth the additional time, effort, and money.

Another part of the answer—and perhaps the more surprising part—is that confidence intervals depend only on
the size of the sample and not on the size of the population. So a sample of 1,000 would produce a 95%
confidence interval of 47 to 53 regardless of whether the population size was a hundred thousand, a million, or
a hundred million.

Sampling Bias

Probability sampling was developed in large part to address the issue of sampling bias. Sampling bias occurs
when a sample is selected in such a way that it is not representative of the entire population and therefore
produces inaccurate results. This bias was the reason that the Literary Digest straw poll was so far off in its
prediction of the 1936 presidential election. The mailing lists used came largely from telephone directories
and lists of registered automobile owners, which over-represented wealthier people, who were more likely
to vote for Landon. Gallup was successful because he knew about this bias and found ways to sample less
wealthy people as well.

There is one form of sampling bias that even careful random sampling is subject to. It is almost never
the case that everyone selected for the sample actually responds to the survey. Some may have died or
moved away, and others may decline to participate because they are too busy, are not interested in the

200 | Conducting Surveys

survey topic, or do not participate in surveys on principle. If these survey non-responders differ from survey
responders in systematic ways, then this difference can produce non-response bias. For example, in a mail
survey on alcohol consumption, researcher Vivienne Lahaut and colleagues found that only about half the
sample responded after the initial contact and two follow-up reminders (Lahaut, Jansen, van de Mheen, &
Garretsen, 2002)1. The danger here is that the half who responded might have different patterns of alcohol
consumption than the half who did not, which could lead to inaccurate conclusions on the part of the
researchers. So to test for non-response bias, the researchers later made unannounced visits to the homes
of a subset of the non-responders—coming back up to five times if they did not find them at home. They
found that the original non-responders included an especially high proportion of abstainers (nondrinkers),
which meant that their estimates of alcohol consumption based only on the original responders were too
high.

Although there are methods for statistically correcting for non-response bias, they are based on
assumptions about the non-responders—for example, that they are more similar to late responders than
to early responders—which may not be correct. For this reason, the best approach to minimizing non-
response bias is to minimize the number of non-responders—that is, to maximize the response rate. There is
a large research literature on the factors that affect survey response rates (Groves et al., 2004)2. In general,
in-person interviews have the highest response rates, followed by telephone surveys, and then mail and
Internet surveys. Among the other factors that increase response rates are sending potential respondents
a short pre-notification message informing them that they will be asked to participate in a survey in the
near future and sending simple follow-up reminders to non-responders after a few weeks. The perceived
length and complexity of the survey can also make a difference, which is why it is important to keep survey
questionnaires as short, simple, and on topic as possible. Finally, offering an incentive—especially cash—is a
reliable way to increase response rates. However, ethically, there are limits to offering incentives that may
be so large as to be considered coercive.

Conducting the Survey

The four main ways to conduct surveys are through in-person interviews, by telephone, through the mail,
and over the internet. As with other aspects of survey design, the choice depends on both the researcher’s
goals and the budget. In-person interviews have the highest response rates and provide the closest personal
contact with respondents. Personal contact can be important, for example, when the interviewer must
see and make judgments about respondents, as is the case with some mental health interviews. But in-
person interviewing is by far the most costly approach. Telephone surveys have lower response rates and
still provide some personal contact with respondents. They can also be costly but are generally less so
than in-person interviews. Traditionally, telephone directories have provided fairly comprehensive sampling
frames. However, this trend is less true today as more people choose to only have cell phones and do
not install land lines that would be included in telephone directories. Mail surveys are less costly still but
generally have even lower response rates—making them most susceptible to non-response bias.

Not surprisingly, internet surveys are becoming more common. They are increasingly easy to construct and
use (see “Online Survey Creation”). Although initial contact can be made by mail with a link provided to the

Conducting Surveys | 201

survey, this approach does not necessarily produce higher response rates than an ordinary mail survey. A
better approach is to make initial contact by email with a link directly to the survey. This approach can work
well when the population consists of the members of an organization who have known email addresses and
regularly use them (e.g., a university community). For other populations, it can be difficult or impossible
to find a comprehensive list of email addresses to serve as a sampling frame. Alternatively, a request to
participate in the survey with a link to it can be posted on websites known to be visited by members of the
population. But again it is very difficult to get anything approaching a random sample this way because the
members of the population who visit the websites are likely to be different from the population as a whole.
However, internet survey methods are in rapid development. Because of their low cost, and because more
people are online than ever before, internet surveys are likely to become the dominant approach to survey
data collection in the near future.

Finally, it is important to note that some of the concerns that people have about collecting data online (e.g.,
that internet-based findings differ from those obtained with other methods) have been found to be myths.
Table 7.3 (adapted from Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004)3 addresses three such preconceptions
about data collected in web-based studies:

Table 7.3 Some Preconceptions and Findings Pertaining to Web-based Studies

Preconception Finding

Internet samples are not
demographically diverse

Internet samples are more diverse than traditional samples in many domains,
although they are not completely representative of the population

Internet samples are
maladjusted, socially isolated, or
depressed

Internet users do not differs from nonusers on markers of adjustment and
depression

Internet-based findings differ
from those obtained with other
methods

Evidence so far suggests that internet-based findings are consistent with findings
based on traditional methods (e.g., on self-esteem, personality), but more data are
needed.

Online Survey Creation

There are now several online tools for creating online questionnaires. After a questionnaire is created, a link to
it can then be emailed to potential respondents or embedded in a web page. The following websites are among
those that offer free accounts. Although the free accounts limit the number of questionnaire items and the
number of respondents, they can be useful for doing small-scale surveys and for practicing the principles of
good questionnaire construction. Here are some commonly used online survey tools:

• SurveyMonkey—https://surveymonkey.com
• PsyToolkit—https://www.psytoolkit.org/ (free, noncommercial, and does many experimental paradigms)
• Qualtrics—https://www.qualtrics.com/

202 | Conducting Surveys

https://surveymonkey.com/

https://www.psytoolkit.org/

https://www.qualtrics.com/

• PsycData—https://www.psychdata.com/

A small note of caution: the data from US survey software are held on US servers, and are subject to be seized
as granted through the Patriot Act. To avoid infringing on any rights, the following is a list of online survey sites
that are hosted in Canada:

• Fluid Surveys—http://fluidsurveys.com/
• Simple Survey—http://www.simplesurvey.com/
• Lime Survey—https://www.limesurvey.org

There are also survey sites hosted in other countries outside of North America.

Another new tool for survey researchers is Mechanical Turk (MTurk) created by Amazon.com
https://www.mturk.com Originally created for simple usability testing, MTurk has a database of over 500,000
workers from over 190 countries4. You can put simple tasks (for example, different question wording to test
your survey items), set parameters as your sample frame dictates and deploy your experiment at a very low
cost (for example, a few cents for less than 5 minutes). MTurk has been lauded as an inexpensive way to gather
high-quality data (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011)5.

Notes

1. Lahaut, V. M. H. C. J., Jansen, H. A. M., van de Mheen, D., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2002). Non-response bias in a sample
survey on alcohol consumption. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 37, 256–260.

2. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

3. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis
of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93-104.

4. Natala@aws. (2011, January 26). Re: MTurk CENSUS: About how many workers were on Mechanical Turk in 2010?
Message posted to Amazon Web Services Discussion Forums. Retrieved from https://forums.aws.amazon.com/
thread.jspa?threadID=58891

5. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S.D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high
quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.

Conducting Surveys | 203

https://www.psychdata.com/

http://fluidsurveys.com/

http://www.simplesurvey.com/

https://www.limesurvey.org/

https://www.mturk.com/

https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=58891

37. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Survey research features the use of self-report measures on carefully selected samples. It is a flexible
approach that can be used to study a wide variety of basic and applied research questions.

• Survey research has its roots in applied social research, market research, and election polling. It has since
become an important approach in many academic disciplines, including political science, sociology,
public health, and, of course, psychology.

• Survey research involves asking respondents to self-report on their own thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors.

• Most survey research is non-experimental in nature (it is used to describe variables or measure statistical
relationships between variables) but surveys can also be used to measure dependent variables in true
experiments.

• Responding to a survey item is itself a complex cognitive process that involves interpreting the question,
retrieving information, making a tentative judgment, putting that judgment into the required response
format, and editing the response.

• Survey responses are subject to numerous context effects due to question wording, item order, response
options, and other factors. Researchers should be sensitive to such effects when constructing surveys
and interpreting survey results.

• Survey items are either open-ended or closed-ended. Open-ended items simply ask a question and allow
respondents to answer in whatever way they want. Closed-ended items ask a question and provide
several response options that respondents must choose from.

• Use verbal labels instead of numerical labels although the responses can be converted to numerical data
in the analyses.

• According to the BRUSO model, questionnaire items should be brief, relevant, unambiguous, specific, and
objective.

• Survey research usually involves probability sampling, in which each member of the population has a
known probability of being selected for the sample. Types of probability sampling include simple random
sampling, stratified random sampling, and cluster sampling.

• Sampling bias occurs when a sample is selected in such a way that it is not representative of the
population and therefore produces inaccurate results. The most pervasive form of sampling bias is non-
response bias, which occurs when people who do not respond to the survey differ in important ways
from people who do respond. The best way to minimize non-response bias is to maximize the response
rate by prenotifying respondents, sending them reminders, constructing questionnaires that are short
and easy to complete, and offering incentives.

• Surveys can be conducted in person, by telephone, through the mail, and on the internet. In-person
interviewing has the highest response rates but is the most expensive. Mail and internet surveys are less
expensive but have much lower response rates. Internet surveys are likely to become the dominant
approach because of their low cost.

204 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

Exercises

• Discussion: Think of a question that each of the following professionals might try to answer using survey
research.

◦ a social psychologist
◦ an educational researcher
◦ a market researcher who works for a supermarket chain
◦ the mayor of a large city
◦ the head of a university police force

• Discussion: Write a survey item and then write a short description of how someone might respond to
that item based on the cognitive model of survey responding (or choose any item on the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/research/rosenberg.htm).

• Practice: Write survey items for each of the following general questions. In some cases, a series of items,
rather than a single item, might be necessary.

◦ How much does the respondent use Facebook?
◦ How much exercise does the respondent get?
◦ How likely does the respondent think it is that the incumbent will be re-elected in the next

presidential election?
◦ To what extent does the respondent experience “road rage”?

• Discussion: If possible, identify an appropriate sampling frame for each of the following populations. If
there is no appropriate sampling frame, explain why.

◦ students at a particular university
◦ adults living in the state of Washington
◦ households in Pullman, Washington
◦ people with low self-esteem

• Practice: Use one of the online survey creation tools to create a 10-item survey questionnaire on a topic
of your choice.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 205

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/research/rosenberg.htm&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNGCrrHpjMR6Tv2WWk5ss02pdszRig

CHAPTER VIII

QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles
experimental research but is not true experimental research. Recall with a true between-groups
experiment, random assignment to conditions is used to ensure the groups are equivalent and with a
true within-subjects design counterbalancing is used to guard against order effects. Quasi-experiments are
missing one of these safeguards. Although an independent variable is manipulated, either a control group is
missing or participants are not randomly assigned to conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979)1.

Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-
experimental research eliminates the directionality problem associated with non-experimental research.
But because either counterbalancing techniques are not used or participants are not randomly assigned
to conditions—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental
research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore,
quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between non-experimental studies and true experiments.

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult
or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of
psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we
will discuss just a few of the most common ones in this chapter.

Notes

1. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.

Quasi-Experimental Research | 207

38. One-Group Designs

Learning Objectives

1. Explain what quasi-experimental research is and distinguish it clearly from both experimental and
correlational research.

2. Describe three different types of one-group quasi-experimental designs.
3. Identify the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs.

One-Group Posttest Only Design

In a one-group posttest only design, a treatment is implemented (or an independent variable is
manipulated) and then a dependent variable is measured once after the treatment is implemented. Imagine,
for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an anti-drug education program on
elementary school students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could implement the anti-drug
program, and then immediately after the program ends, the researcher could measure students’ attitudes
toward illegal drugs.

This is the weakest type of quasi-experimental design. A major limitation to this design is the lack of a
control or comparison group. There is no way to determine what the attitudes of these students would have
been if they hadn’t completed the anti-drug program. Despite this major limitation, results from this design
are frequently reported in the media and are often misinterpreted by the general population. For instance,
advertisers might claim that 80% of women noticed their skin looked bright after using Brand X cleanser for
a month. If there is no comparison group, then this statistic means little to nothing.

One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

In a one-group pretest-posttest design, the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment
is implemented and once after it is implemented. Let’s return to the example of a researcher who is
interested in the effectiveness of an anti-drug education program on elementary school students’ attitudes
toward illegal drugs. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a particular elementary
school during one week, implement the anti-drug program during the next week, and finally, measure their
attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is much like a within-subjects experiment in
which each participant is tested first under the control condition and then under the treatment condition.
It is unlike a within-subjects experiment, however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced

One-Group Designs | 209

because it typically is not possible for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in
an “untreated” control condition.

If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score (e.g., attitudes toward illegal drugs
are more negative after the anti-drug educational program), then it makes sense to conclude that the
treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often cannot conclude this with
a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for why the posttest scores may have
changed. These alternative explanations pose threats to internal validity.

One alternative explanation goes under the name of history. Other things might have happened between
the pretest and the posttest that caused a change from pretest to posttest. Perhaps an anti-drug program
aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a celebrity died of a drug overdose and
many of the students heard about it.

Another alternative explanation goes under the name of maturation. Participants might have changed
between the pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing
and learning. If it were a year long anti-drug program, participants might become less impulsive or better
reasoners and this might be responsible for the change in their attitudes toward illegal drugs.

Another threat to the internal validity of one-group pretest-posttest designs is testing, which refers to
when the act of measuring the dependent variable during the pretest affects participants’ responses at
posttest. For instance, completing the measure of attitudes towards illegal drugs may have had an effect
on those attitudes. Simply completing this measure may have inspired further thinking and conversations
about illegal drugs that then produced a change in posttest scores.

Similarly, instrumentation can be a threat to the internal validity of studies using this design.
Instrumentation refers to when the basic characteristics of the measuring instrument change over
time. When human observers are used to measure behavior, they may over time gain skill, become fatigued,
or change the standards on which observations are based. So participants may have taken the measure of
attitudes toward illegal drugs very seriously during the pretest when it was novel but then they may have
become bored with the measure at posttest and been less careful in considering their responses.

Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design
is regression to the mean. This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely high
or extremely low on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion. For
example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost certainly score
lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150. Regression to the mean can
be a problem when participants are selected for further study because of their extreme scores. Imagine, for
example, that only students who scored especially high on the test of attitudes toward illegal drugs (those
with extremely favorable attitudes toward drugs) were given the anti-drug program and then were retested.
Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be lower at the posttest even if the training
program has no effect.

A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in psychological
research—is spontaneous remission. This is the tendency for many medical and psychological problems to
improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold is a good example. If one were to

210 | One-Group Designs

measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day,
and then measure their symptom severity again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This
does not mean that the chicken soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would
have been much improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A
group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months. In reviewing
the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael Posternak and Ivan Miller
found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an average of 10 to 15% before they received
any treatment at all (Posternak & Miller, 2001)1. Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring
causality from pretest-posttest designs.

A common approach to ruling out the threats to internal validity described above is by revisiting the
research design to include a control group, one that does not receive the treatment effect. A control group
would be subject to the same threats from history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression to the
mean, and spontaneous remission and so would allow the researcher to measure the actual effect of the
treatment (if any). Of course, including a control group would mean that this is no longer a one-group
design.

Does Psychotherapy Work?

Early studies on the effectiveness of psychotherapy tended to use pretest-posttest designs. In a classic 1952
article, researcher Hans Eysenck summarized the results of 24 such studies showing that about two thirds of
patients improved between the pretest and the posttest (Eysenck, 1952)2. But Eysenck also compared these
results with archival data from state hospital and insurance company records showing that similar patients
recovered at about the same rate without receiving psychotherapy. This parallel suggested to Eysenck that the
improvement that patients showed in the pretest-posttest studies might be no more than spontaneous
remission. Note that Eysenck did not conclude that psychotherapy was ineffective. He merely concluded that
there was no evidence that it was, and he wrote of “the necessity of properly planned and executed
experimental studies into this important field” (p. 323). You can read the entire article here:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm

Fortunately, many other researchers took up Eysenck’s challenge, and by 1980 hundreds of experiments had
been conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, and the
results were summarized in a classic book by Mary Lee Smith, Gene Glass, and Thomas Miller (Smith, Glass, &
Miller, 1980)3. They found that overall psychotherapy was quite effective, with about 80% of treatment
participants improving more than the average control participant. Subsequent research has focused more on
the conditions under which different types of psychotherapy are more or less effective.

One-Group Designs | 211

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNFXVw77wJFkcjzF7qKjD3LcGDsVpA

Interrupted Time Series Design

A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the interrupted time-series design. A time series is a set of
measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing company might
measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time series-design, a time series
like this one is “interrupted” by a treatment. In one classic example, the treatment was the reduction
of the work shifts in a factory from 10 hours to 8 hours (Cook & Campbell, 1979)4. Because productivity
increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts, and because it remained elevated for
many months afterward, the researcher concluded that the shortening of the shifts caused the increase
in productivity. Notice that the interrupted time-series design is like a pretest-posttest design in that it
includes measurements of the dependent variable both before and after the treatment. It is unlike the
pretest-posttest design, however, in that it includes multiple pretest and posttest measurements.

Figure 8.1 shows data from a hypothetical interrupted time-series study. The dependent variable is the
number of student absences per week in a research methods course. The treatment is that the instructor
begins publicly taking attendance each day so that students know that the instructor is aware of who is
present and who is absent. The top panel of Figure 8.1 shows how the data might look if this treatment
worked. There is a consistently high number of absences before the treatment, and there is an immediate
and sustained drop in absences after the treatment. The bottom panel of Figure 8.1 shows how the data
might look if this treatment did not work. On average, the number of absences after the treatment is about
the same as the number before. This figure also illustrates an advantage of the interrupted time-series
design over a simpler pretest-posttest design. If there had been only one measurement of absences before
the treatment at Week 7 and one afterward at Week 8, then it would have looked as though the treatment
were responsible for the reduction. The multiple measurements both before and after the treatment suggest
that the reduction between Weeks 7 and 8 is nothing more than normal week-to-week variation.

212 | One-Group Designs

Figure 8.1 A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design. The top panel shows data that suggest that the
treatment caused a reduction in absences. The bottom panel shows data that suggest that it did not. [Image
description]

Image Descriptions

Figure 8.1 image description: Two line graphs charting the number of absences per week over 14 weeks. The
first 7 weeks are without treatment and the last 7 weeks are with treatment. In the first line graph, there
are between 4 to 8 absences each week. After the treatment, the absences drop to 0 to 3 each week, which
suggests the treatment worked. In the second line graph, there is no noticeable change in the number of
absences per week after the treatment, which suggests the treatment did not work. [Return to Figure 8.1]

One-Group Designs | 213

Notes

1. Posternak, M. A., & Miller, I. (2001). Untreated short-term course of major depression: A meta-analysis of studies using
outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66, 139–146.

2. Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319–324.
3. Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.
4. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

214 | One-Group Designs

39. Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the different types of nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental designs.
2. Identify some of the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs.

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions,
the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent.
When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to
be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent.
A nonequivalent groups design, then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been
randomly assigned to conditions. There are several types of nonequivalent groups designs we will consider.

Posttest Only Nonequivalent Groups Design

The first nonequivalent groups design we will consider is the posttest only nonequivalent groups design. In
this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to
the treatment, and then the two groups are compared. Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to
evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a
treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another
class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students
are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences
between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been
more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have
assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the
teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might be very different and might cause different
levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in
the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching
methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a posttest only nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their
groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at
the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test
and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps

Non-Equivalent Groups Designs | 215

would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important
confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains
the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Groups Design

Another way to improve upon the posttest only nonequivalent groups design is to add a pretest. In
the pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design there is a treatment group that is given a pretest,
receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a nonequivalent control
group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question,
then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether they
improve more than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then
are exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given
the pretest, not exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Again, if students in
the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect
of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the
treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the
control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation
(e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of
change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however.
Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at
the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Returning to the example of evaluating a new measure of teaching third graders, this study could be
improved by adding a pretest of students’ knowledge of fractions. The changes in scores from pretest
to posttest would then be evaluated and compared across conditions to determine whether one group
demonstrated a bigger improvement in knowledge of fractions than another. Of course, the teachers’ styles,
and even the classroom environments might still be very different and might cause different levels of
achievement or motivation among the students that are independent of the teaching intervention. Once
again, differential history also represents a potential threat to internal validity. If asbestos is found in one
of the schools causing it to be shut down for a month then this interruption in teaching could produce a
difference across groups on posttest scores.

If participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true between-groups
experiment rather than a quasi-experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and
that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

216 | Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Interrupted Time-Series Design with Nonequivalent Groups

One way to improve upon the interrupted time-series design is to add a control group. The
interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent groups involves taking a set of measurements at
intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent
groups. Once again consider the manufacturing company that measures its workers’ productivity each week
for a year before and after reducing work shifts from 10 hours to 8 hours. This design could be improved
by locating another manufacturing company who does not plan to change their shift length and using them
as a nonequivalent control group. If productivity increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work
shifts in the treatment group but productivity remained consistent in the control group, then this provides
better evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment.

Similarly, in the example of examining the effects of taking attendance on student absences in a research
methods course, the design could be improved by using students in another section of the research
methods course as a control group. If a consistently higher number of absences was found in the treatment
group before the intervention, followed by a sustained drop in absences after the treatment, while the
nonequivalent control group showed consistently high absences across the semester then this would
provide superior evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing absences.

Pretest-Posttest Design With Switching Replication

Some of these nonequivalent control group designs can be further improved by adding a switching
replication. Using a pretest-posttest design with switching replication design, nonequivalent groups
are administered a pretest of the dependent variable, then one group receives a treatment while a
nonequivalent control group does not receive a treatment, the dependent variable is assessed again, and
then the treatment is added to the control group, and finally the dependent variable is assessed one last
time.

As a concrete example, let’s say we wanted to introduce an exercise intervention for the treatment of
depression. We recruit one group of patients experiencing depression and a nonequivalent control group of
students experiencing depression. We first measure depression levels in both groups, and then we introduce
the exercise intervention to the patients experiencing depression, but we hold off on introducing the
treatment to the students. We then measure depression levels in both groups. If the treatment is effective
we should see a reduction in the depression levels of the patients (who received the treatment) but not in
the students (who have not yet received the treatment). Finally, while the group of patients continues to
engage in the treatment, we would introduce the treatment to the students with depression. Now and only
now should we see the students’ levels of depression decrease.

One of the strengths of this design is that it includes a built in replication. In the example given, we would
get evidence for the efficacy of the treatment in two different samples (patients and students). Another
strength of this design is that it provides more control over history effects. It becomes rather unlikely that
some outside event would perfectly coincide with the introduction of the treatment in the first group and

Non-Equivalent Groups Designs | 217

with the delayed introduction of the treatment in the second group. For instance, if a change in the weather
occurred when we first introduced the treatment to the patients, and this explained their reductions in
depression the second time that depression was measured, then we would see depression levels decrease
in both the groups. Similarly, the switching replication helps to control for maturation and instrumentation.
Both groups would be expected to show the same rates of spontaneous remission of depression and if the
instrument for assessing depression happened to change at some point in the study the change would be
consistent across both of the groups. Of course, demand characteristics, placebo effects, and experimenter
expectancy effects can still be problems. But they can be controlled for using some of the methods described
in Chapter 5.

Switching Replication with Treatment Removal Design

In a basic pretest-posttest design with switching replication, the first group receives a treatment and the
second group receives the same treatment a little bit later on (while the initial group continues to receive
the treatment). In contrast, in a switching replication with treatment removal design, the treatment is
removed from the first group when it is added to the second group. Once again, let’s assume we first
measure the depression levels of patients with depression and students with depression. Then we introduce
the exercise intervention to only the patients. After they have been exposed to the exercise intervention
for a week we assess depression levels again in both groups. If the intervention is effective then we should
see depression levels decrease in the patient group but not the student group (because the students
haven’t received the treatment yet). Next, we would remove the treatment from the group of patients
with depression. So we would tell them to stop exercising. At the same time, we would tell the student
group to start exercising. After a week of the students exercising and the patients not exercising, we would
reassess depression levels. Now if the intervention is effective we should see that the depression levels have
decreased in the student group but that they have increased in the patient group (because they are no longer
exercising).

Demonstrating a treatment effect in two groups staggered over time and demonstrating the reversal of the
treatment effect after the treatment has been removed can provide strong evidence for the efficacy of the
treatment. In addition to providing evidence for the replicability of the findings, this design can also provide
evidence for whether the treatment continues to show effects after it has been withdrawn.

218 | Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

40. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random
assignment of participants to conditions or counterbalancing of orders of conditions.

• There are three types of quasi-experimental designs that are within-subjects in nature. These are the
one-group posttest only design, the one-group pretest-posttest design, and the interrupted time-series
design.

• There are five types of quasi-experimental designs that are between-subjects in nature. These are the
posttest only design with nonequivalent groups, the pretest-posttest design with nonequivalent groups,
the interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent groups, the pretest-posttest design with
switching replication, and the switching replication with treatment removal design.

• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation
of the independent variable. However, it does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables,
because it does not involve random assignment to conditions or counterbalancing. For these reasons,
quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than non-experimental studies but
lower than true experiments.

• Of all of the quasi-experimental designs, those that include a switching replication are highest in internal
validity.

Exercises

• Practice: Imagine that two professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student
performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not.
They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List
five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.

• Discussion: Imagine that a group of obese children is recruited for a study in which their weight is
measured, then they participate for 3 months in a program that encourages them to be more active, and
finally their weight is measured again. Explain how each of the following might affect the results:

◦ regression to the mean
◦ spontaneous remission
◦ history
◦ maturation

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 219

CHAPTER IX

FACTORIAL DESIGNS

In Chapter 1 we briefly described a study conducted by Simone Schnall and her colleagues, in which they
found that washing one’s hands leads people to view moral transgressions as less wrong (Schnall, Benton,
& Harvey, 2008)1. In a different but related study, Schnall and her colleagues investigated whether feeling
physically disgusted causes people to make harsher moral judgments (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008)2.
In this experiment, they manipulated participants’ feelings of disgust by testing them in either a clean room
or a messy room that contained dirty dishes, an overflowing wastebasket, and a chewed-up pen. They also
used a self-report questionnaire to measure the amount of attention that people pay to their own bodily
sensations. They called this “private body consciousness.” They measured their primary dependent variable,
the harshness of people’s moral judgments, by describing different behaviors (e.g., eating one’s dead dog,
failing to return a found wallet) and having participants rate the moral acceptability of each one on a scale
of 1 to 7. Finally, the researchers asked participants to rate their current level of disgust and other emotions.
The primary results of this study were that participants in the messy room were, in fact, more disgusted and
made harsher moral judgments than participants in the clean room—but only if they scored relatively high
in private body consciousness.

The research designs we have considered so far have been simple—focusing on a question about one variable
or about a relationship between two variables. But in many ways, the complex design of this experiment
undertaken by Schnall and her colleagues is more typical of research in psychology. Fortunately, we have
already covered the basic elements of such designs in previous chapters. In this chapter, we look closely
at how and why researchers use factorial designs, which are experiments that include more than one
independent variable.

Notes

1. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral
judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219-1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x

2. Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109.

Factorial Designs | 221

41. Setting Up a Factorial Experiment

Learning Objectives

1. Explain why researchers often include multiple independent variables in their studies.
2. Define factorial design, and use a factorial design table to represent and interpret simple factorial

designs.

Just as it is common for studies in psychology to include multiple levels of a single independent variable
(placebo, new drug, old drug), it is also common for them to include multiple independent variables. Schnall
and her colleagues studied the effect of both disgust and private body consciousness in the same study.
Researchers’ inclusion of multiple independent variables in one experiment is further illustrated by the
following actual titles from various professional journals:

• The Effects of Temporal Delay and Orientation on Haptic Object Recognition
• Opening Closed Minds: The Combined Effects of Intergroup Contact and Need for Closure on

Prejudice
• Effects of Expectancies and Coping on Pain-Induced Intentions to Smoke
• The Effect of Age and Divided Attention on Spontaneous Recognition
• The Effects of Reduced Food Size and Package Size on the Consumption Behavior of Restrained and

Unrestrained Eaters

Just as including multiple levels of a single independent variable allows one to answer more sophisticated
research questions, so too does including multiple independent variables in the same experiment. For
example, instead of conducting one study on the effect of disgust on moral judgment and another on
the effect of private body consciousness on moral judgment, Schnall and colleagues were able to conduct
one study that addressed both questions. But including multiple independent variables also allows the
researcher to answer questions about whether the effect of one independent variable depends on the
level of another. This is referred to as an interaction between the independent variables. Schnall and her
colleagues, for example, observed an interaction between disgust and private body consciousness because
the effect of disgust depended on whether participants were high or low in private body consciousness. As
we will see, interactions are often among the most interesting results in psychological research.

Setting Up a Factorial Experiment | 223

Factorial Designs

Overview

By far the most common approach to including multiple independent variables (which are often called
factors) in an experiment is the factorial design. In a factorial design, each level of one independent
variable is combined with each level of the others to produce all possible combinations. Each combination,
then, becomes a condition in the experiment. Imagine, for example, an experiment on the effect of cell
phone use (yes vs. no) and time of day (day vs. night) on driving ability. This is shown in
the factorial design table in Figure 9.1. The columns of the table represent cell phone use, and the rows
represent time of day. The four cells of the table represent the four possible combinations or conditions:
using a cell phone during the day, not using a cell phone during the day, using a cell phone at night, and
not using a cell phone at night. This particular design is referred to as a 2 × 2 (read “two-by-two”) factorial
design because it combines two variables, each of which has two levels.

If one of the independent variables had a third level (e.g., using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell
phone, and not using a cell phone), then it would be a 3 × 2 factorial design, and there would be six distinct
conditions. Notice that the number of possible conditions is the product of the numbers of levels. A 2 × 2
factorial design has four conditions, a 3 × 2 factorial design has six conditions, a 4 × 5 factorial design would
have 20 conditions, and so on. Also notice that each number in the notation represents one factor, one
independent variable. So by looking at how many numbers are in the notation, you can determine how many
independent variables there are in the experiment. 2 x 2, 3 x 3, and 2 x 3 designs all have two numbers in
the notation and therefore all have two independent variables. The numerical value of each of the numbers
represents the number of levels of each independent variable. A 2 means that the independent variable has
two levels, a 3 means that the independent variable has three levels, a 4 means it has four levels, etc. To
illustrate a 3 x 3 design has two independent variables, each with three levels, while a 2 x 2 x 2 design has
three independent variables, each with two levels.

224 | Setting Up a Factorial Experiment

Figure 9.1 Factorial Design Table Representing a 2 × 2 Factorial
Design

In principle, factorial designs can include any number of independent variables with any number of levels.
For example, an experiment could include the type of psychotherapy (cognitive vs. behavioral), the length of
the psychotherapy (2 weeks vs. 2 months), and the sex of the psychotherapist (female vs. male). This would
be a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design and would have eight conditions. Figure 9.2 shows one way to represent this
design. In practice, it is unusual for there to be more than three independent variables with more than
two or three levels each. This is for at least two reasons: For one, the number of conditions can quickly
become unmanageable. For example, adding a fourth independent variable with three levels (e.g., therapist
experience: low vs. medium vs. high) to the current example would make it a 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 factorial design
with 24 distinct conditions. Second, the number of participants required to populate all of these conditions
(while maintaining a reasonable ability to detect a real underlying effect) can render the design unfeasible
(for more information, see the discussion about the importance of adequate statistical power in Chapter 13).
As a result, in the remainder of this section, we will focus on designs with two independent variables. The
general principles discussed here extend in a straightforward way to more complex factorial designs.

Setting Up a Factorial Experiment | 225

Figure 9.2 Factorial Design Table Representing a 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial
Design

Assigning Participants to Conditions

Recall that in a simple between-subjects design, each participant is tested in only one condition. In a simple
within-subjects design, each participant is tested in all conditions. In a factorial experiment, the decision
to take the between-subjects or within-subjects approach must be made separately for each independent
variable. In a between-subjects factorial design, all of the independent variables are manipulated between
subjects. For example, all participants could be tested either while using a cell phone or while not using a
cell phone and either during the day or during the night. This would mean that each participant would be
tested in one and only one condition. In a within-subjects factorial design, all of the independent variables
are manipulated within subjects. All participants could be tested both while using a cell phone and while
not using a cell phone and both during the day and during the night. This would mean that each participant
would need to be tested in all four conditions. The advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches
are the same as those discussed in Chapter 5. The between-subjects design is conceptually simpler, avoids
order/carryover effects, and minimizes the time and effort of each participant. The within-subjects design
is more efficient for the researcher and controls extraneous participant variables.

Since factorial designs have more than one independent variable, it is also possible to manipulate one
independent variable between subjects and another within subjects. This is called a mixed factorial design.
For example, a researcher might choose to treat cell phone use as a within-subjects factor by testing the
same participants both while using a cell phone and while not using a cell phone (while counterbalancing

226 | Setting Up a Factorial Experiment

the order of these two conditions). But they might choose to treat time of day as a between-subjects factor
by testing each participant either during the day or during the night (perhaps because this only requires
them to come in for testing once). Thus each participant in this mixed design would be tested in two of the
four conditions.

Regardless of whether the design is between subjects, within subjects, or mixed, the actual assignment of
participants to conditions or orders of conditions is typically done randomly.

Non-Manipulated Independent Variables

In many factorial designs, one of the independent variables is a non-manipulated independent variable.
The researcher measures it but does not manipulate it. The study by Schnall and colleagues is a good
example. One independent variable was disgust, which the researchers manipulated by testing participants
in a clean room or a messy room. The other was private body consciousness, a participant variable which
the researchers simply measured. Another example is a study by Halle Brown and colleagues in which
participants were exposed to several words that they were later asked to recall (Brown, Kosslyn, Delamater,
Fama, & Barsky, 1999)1. The manipulated independent variable was the type of word. Some were negative
health-related words (e.g., tumor, coronary), and others were not health related (e.g., election, geometry).
The non-manipulated independent variable was whether participants were high or low in hypochondriasis
(excessive concern with ordinary bodily symptoms). The result of this study was that the participants high
in hypochondriasis were better than those low in hypochondriasis at recalling the health-related words, but
they were no better at recalling the non-health-related words.

Such studies are extremely common, and there are several points worth making about them. First, non-
manipulated independent variables are usually participant variables (private body consciousness,
hypochondriasis, self-esteem, gender, and so on), and as such, they are by definition between-subjects
factors. For example, people are either low in hypochondriasis or high in hypochondriasis; they cannot
be tested in both of these conditions. Second, such studies are generally considered to be experiments
as long as at least one independent variable is manipulated, regardless of how many non-manipulated
independent variables are included. Third, it is important to remember that causal conclusions can only be
drawn about the manipulated independent variable. For example, Schnall and her colleagues were justified
in concluding that disgust affected the harshness of their participants’ moral judgments because they
manipulated that variable and randomly assigned participants to the clean or messy room. But they would
not have been justified in concluding that participants’ private body consciousness affected the harshness of
their participants’ moral judgments because they did not manipulate that variable. It could be, for example,
that having a strict moral code and a heightened awareness of one’s body are both caused by some third
variable (e.g., neuroticism). Thus it is important to be aware of which variables in a study are manipulated
and which are not.

Setting Up a Factorial Experiment | 227

Non-Experimental Studies With Factorial Designs

Thus far we have seen that factorial experiments can include manipulated independent variables or a
combination of manipulated and non-manipulated independent variables. But factorial designs can also
include only non-manipulated independent variables, in which case they are no longer experiments but are
instead non-experimental in nature. Consider a hypothetical study in which a researcher simply measures
both the moods and the self-esteem of several participants—categorizing them as having either a positive
or negative mood and as being either high or low in self-esteem—along with their willingness to have
unprotected sexual intercourse. This can be conceptualized as a 2 × 2 factorial design with mood (positive vs.
negative) and self-esteem (high vs. low) as non-manipulated between-subjects factors. Willingness to have
unprotected sex is the dependent variable.

Again, because neither independent variable in this example was manipulated, it is a non-experimental study
rather than an experiment. (The similar study by MacDonald and Martineau [2002]2 was an experiment
because they manipulated their participants’ moods.) This is important because, as always, one must be
cautious about inferring causality from non-experimental studies because of the directionality and third-
variable problems. For example, an effect of participants’ moods on their willingness to have unprotected
sex might be caused by any other variable that happens to be correlated with their moods.

Notes

1. Brown, H. D., Kosslyn, S. M., Delamater, B., Fama, A., & Barsky, A. J. (1999). Perceptual and memory biases for health-
related information in hypochondriacal individuals. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 47, 67–78.

2. MacDonald, T. K., & Martineau, A. M. (2002). Self-esteem, mood, and intentions to use condoms: When does low self-
esteem lead to risky health behaviors? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 299–306.

228 | Setting Up a Factorial Experiment

42. Interpreting the Results of a Factorial
Experiment

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between main effects and interactions, and recognize and give examples of each.
2. Sketch and interpret bar graphs and line graphs showing the results of studies with simple factorial

designs.
3. Distinguish between main effects and simple effects, and recognize when an analysis of simple effects is

required.

Graphing the Results of Factorial Experiments

The results of factorial experiments with two independent variables can be graphed by representing one
independent variable on the x-axis and representing the other by using different colored bars or lines.
(The y-axis is always reserved for the dependent variable.) Figure 9.3 shows results for two hypothetical
factorial experiments. The top panel shows the results of a 2 × 2 design. Time of day (day vs. night) is
represented by different locations on the x-axis, and cell phone use (no vs. yes) is represented by different-
colored bars. (It would also be possible to represent cell phone use on the x-axis and time of day as
different-colored bars. The choice comes down to which way seems to communicate the results most
clearly.) The bottom panel of Figure 9.3 shows the results of a 4 × 2 design in which one of the variables
is quantitative. This variable, psychotherapy length, is represented along the x-axis, and the other variable
(psychotherapy type) is represented by differently formatted lines. This is a line graph rather than a bar
graph because the variable on the x-axis is quantitative with a small number of distinct levels. Line graphs
are also appropriate when representing measurements made over a time interval (also referred to as time
series information) on the x-axis.

Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment | 229

Figure 9.3 Two Ways to Plot the Results of a Factorial Experiment With Two
Independent Variables

Main Effects

In factorial designs, there are three kinds of results that are of interest: main effects, interaction effects, and
simple effects. A main effect is the effect of one independent variable on the dependent variable—averaging
across the levels of the other independent variable. Thus there is one main effect to consider for each
independent variable in the study. The top panel of Figure 9.3 shows a main effect of cell phone use because
driving performance was better, on average, when participants were not using cell phones than when they
were. The blue bars are, on average, higher than the red bars. It also shows a main effect of time of day
because driving performance was better during the day than during the night—both when participants were
using cell phones and when they were not. Main effects are independent of each other in the sense that
whether or not there is a main effect of one independent variable says nothing about whether or not there
is a main effect of the other. The bottom panel of Figure 9.3, for example, shows a clear main effect of
psychotherapy length. The longer the psychotherapy, the better it worked.

230 | Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment

Interactions

There is an interaction effect (or just “interaction”) when the effect of one independent variable depends on
the level of another. Although this might seem complicated, you already have an intuitive understanding of
interactions. As an everyday example, assume your friend asks you to go to a movie with another friend. Your
response to her is, “well it depends on which movie you are going to see and who else is coming.” You really
want to see the big blockbuster summer hit but have little interest in seeing the cheesy romantic comedy.
In other words, there is a main effect of type of movie on your decision. If your decision to go to see either
of these movies further depends on who she is bringing with her then there is an interaction. For instance,
if you will go to see the cheesy romantic comedy if she brings her hot friend you want to get to know better,
but you will not go to this movie if she brings anyone else, then there is an interaction. Drug interactions
are another good illustration of everyday interactions. Many older men take Viagara to assist them in the
bedroom, and many men take nitrates to treat angina or chest pain. So each of these drugs is beneficial on
its own (there are main effects of each on older men’s well-being). But the combination of these two drugs
can be lethal. In other words, there is a very important interaction between Viagara and heart medication
that older men need to be aware of to prevent their untimely demise.

Let’s now consider some examples of interactions from research. It probably would not surprise you to
hear that the effect of receiving psychotherapy is stronger among people who are highly motivated to
change than among people who are not motivated to change. This is an interaction because the effect of
one independent variable (whether or not one receives psychotherapy) depends on the level of another
(motivation to change). Schnall and her colleagues also demonstrated an interaction because the effect
of whether the room was clean or messy on participants’ moral judgments depended on whether the
participants were low or high in private body consciousness. If they were high in private body
consciousness, then those in the messy room made harsher judgments. If they were low in private body
consciousness, then whether the room was clean or messy did not matter.

In many studies, the primary research question is about an interaction. The study by Brown and her
colleagues was inspired by the idea that people with hypochondriasis are especially attentive to any negative
health-related information. This led to the hypothesis that people high in hypochondriasis would recall
negative health-related words more accurately than people low in hypochondriasis but recall non-health-
related words about the same as people low in hypochondriasis. And of course, this is exactly what happened
in this study.

Types of Interactions

The effect of one independent variable can depend on the level of the other in several different ways. First,
there can be spreading interactions. Examples of spreading interactions are shown in the top two panels
of Figure 9.4. In the top panel, independent variable “B” has an effect at level 1 of independent variable “A”
(there is a difference in the height of the blue and red bars on the left side of the graph) but no effect at
level 2 of independent variable “A.” (there is no difference in the height of the blue and red bars on the right

Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment | 231

side of the graph). This is much like the study of Schnall and her colleagues where there was an effect of
disgust for those high in private body consciousness but not for those low in private body consciousness. In
the middle panel, independent variable “B” has a stronger effect at level 1 of independent variable “A” than
at level 2 (there is a larger difference in the height of the blue and red bars on the left side of the graph and
a smaller difference in the height of the blue and red bars on the right side of the graph). This is like the
hypothetical driving example where there was a strong effect of using a cell phone at night and a weaker
effect of using a cell phone during the day. So to summarize, for spreading interactions there is an effect of
one independent variable at one level of the other independent variable and there is either a weak effect or
no effect of that independent variable at the other level of the other independent variable.

The second type of interaction that can be found is a cross-over interaction. A cross-over interaction is
depicted in the bottom panel of Figure 9.4, independent variable “B” again has an effect at both levels
of independent variable “A,” but the effects are in opposite directions. Another example of a crossover
interaction comes from a study by Kathy Gilliland on the effect of caffeine on the verbal test scores of
introverts and extraverts (Gilliland, 1980)1. Introverts perform better than extraverts when they have not
ingested any caffeine. But extraverts perform better than introverts when they have ingested 4 mg of
caffeine per kilogram of body weight.

232 | Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment

Figure 9.4 Bar Graphs Showing Three Types of Interactions. In the top panel,
one independent variable has an effect at one level of the second independent
variable but not at the other. In the middle panel, one independent variable
has a stronger effect at one level of the second independent variable than at
the other. In the bottom panel, one independent variable has the opposite
effect at one level of the second independent variable than at the other.

Figure 9.5 shows examples of these same kinds of interactions when one of the independent variables is

Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment | 233

quantitative and the results are plotted in a line graph. Note that the top two figures depict the two kinds
of spreading interactions that can be found while the bottom figure depicts a crossover interaction (the two
lines literally “cross over” each other).

234 | Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment

Figure 9.5 Line Graphs Showing Different Types of Interactions. In the top
panel, one independent variable has an effect at one level of the second
independent variable but not at the other. In the middle panel, one
independent variable has a stronger effect at one level of the second
independent variable than at the other. In the bottom panel, one
independent variable has the opposite effect at one level of the second

Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment | 235

independent variable than at the other. [Image description]

Simple Effects

When researchers find an interaction it suggests that the main effects may be a bit misleading. Think of
the example of a crossover interaction where introverts were found to perform better on a test of verbal
test performance than extraverts when they had not ingested any caffeine, but extraverts were found to
perform better than introverts when they had ingested 4 mg of caffeine per kilogram of body weight. To
examine the main effect of caffeine consumption, the researchers would have averaged across introversion
and extraversion and simply looked at whether overall those who ingested caffeine had better or worse
verbal memory test performance. Because the positive effect of caffeine on extraverts would be wiped
out by the negative effects of caffeine on the introverts, no main effect of caffeine consumption would
have been found. Similarly, to examine the main effect of personality, the researchers would have averaged
across the levels of the caffeine variable to look at the effects of personality (introversion vs. extraversion)
independent of caffeine. In this case, the positive effects extraversion in the caffeine condition would be
wiped out by the negative effects of extraversion in the no caffeine condition. Does the absence of any main
effects mean that there is no effect of caffeine and no effect of personality? No of course not. The presence
of the interaction indicates that the story is more complicated, that the effects of caffeine on verbal test
performance depend on personality. This is where simple effects come into play. Simple effects are a way
of breaking down the interaction to figure out precisely what is going on. An interaction simply informs us
that the effects of at least one independent variable depend on the level of another independent variable.
Whenever an interaction is detected, researchers need to conduct additional analyses to determine where
that interaction is coming from. Of course one may be able to visualize and interpret the interaction on
a graph but a simple effects analysis provides researchers with a more sophisticated means of breaking
down the interaction. Specifically, a simple effects analysis allows researchers to determine the effects of
each independent variable at each level of the other independent variable. So while the researchers would
average across the two levels of the personality variable to examine the effects of caffeine on verbal test
performance in a main effects analysis, for a simple effects analysis the researchers would examine the
effects of caffeine in introverts and then examine the effects of caffeine in extraverts. As we saw previously,
the researchers also examined the effects of personality in the no caffeine condition and found that in this
condition introverts performed better than extraverts. Finally, they examined the effects of personality in
the caffeine condition and found that extraverts performed better than introverts in this condition. For a 2
x 2 design like this, there will be two main effects the researchers can explore and four simple effects.

Schnall and colleagues found a main effect of disgust on moral judgments (those in a messy room made
harsher moral judgments). However, they also discovered an interaction between private body
consciousness and disgust. In other words, the effect of disgust depended on private body consciousness.
The presence of this interaction suggests the main effect may be a bit misleading. That is, it is not entirely

236 | Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment

accurate to say that those in a messy room made harsher moral judgments because this was only true for
half of the participants. Using simple effects analyses, they were able to further demonstrate that for people
high in private body consciousness, there was an effect of disgust on moral judgments. Further, they found
that for those low in private body consciousness there was no effect of disgust on moral judgments. By
examining the effect of disgust at each level of body consciousness using simple effects analyses, Schnall
and colleagues were able to better understand the nature of the interaction.

As described previously, Brown and colleagues found an interaction between type of words (health related
or not health related) and hypochondriasis (high or low) on word recall. To break down this interaction using
simple effects analyses they examined the effect of hypochondriasis at each level of word type. Specifically,
they examined the effect of hypochondriasis on recall of health-related words and then they subsequently
examined the effect of hypochondriasis on recall of non-health related words. They found that people high
in hypochondriasis were able to recall more health-related words than people low in hypochondriasis. In
contrast, there was no effect of hypochondriasis on the recall of non-health related words.

Once again examining simple effects provides a means of breaking down the interaction and therefore it is
only necessary to conduct these analyses when an interaction is present. When there is no interaction then
the main effects will tell the complete and accurate story. To summarize, rather than averaging across the
levels of the other independent variable, as is done in a main effects analysis, simple effects analyses are
used to examine the effects of each independent variable at each level of the other independent variable(s).
So a researcher using a 2×2 design with four conditions would need to look at 2 main effects and 4 simple
effects. A researcher using a 2×3 design with six conditions would need to look at 2 main effects and 5 simple
effects, while a researcher using a 3×3 design with nine conditions would need to look at 2 main effects
and 6 simple effects. As you can see, while the number of main effects depends simply on the number of
independent variables included (one main effect can be explored for each independent variable), the number
of simple effects analyses depends on the number of levels of the independent variables (because a separate
analysis of each independent variable is conducted at each level of the other independent variable).

Image Descriptions

Figure 9.5 image description: Three panels, each showing a different line graph pattern. In the top panel,
one line remains constant while the other goes up. In the middle panel, both lines go up but at different
rates. In the bottom panel, one line goes down and the other goes up so they cross. [Return to Figure 9.5]

Notes

1. Gilliland, K. (1980). The interactive effect of introversion-extraversion with caffeine induced arousal on verbal
performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 482–492.

Interpreting the Results of a Factorial Experiment | 237

43. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Researchers often include multiple independent variables in their experiments. The most common
approach is the factorial design, in which each level of one independent variable is combined with each
level of the others to create all possible conditions.

• Each independent variable can be manipulated between-subjects or within-subjects.
• Non-manipulated independent variables (gender) can be included in factorial designs, however, they limit

the causal conclusions that can be made about the effects of the non-manipulated variable on the
dependent variable.

• In a factorial design, the main effect of an independent variable is its overall effect averaged across all
other independent variables. There is one main effect for each independent variable.

• There is an interaction between two independent variables when the effect of one depends on the level
of the other. Some of the most interesting research questions and results in psychology are specifically
about interactions.

• A simple effects analysis provides a means for researchers to break down interactions by examining the
effect of each independent variable at each level of the other independent variable.

Exercises

• Practice: Return to the five article titles presented at the beginning of this section. For each one, identify
the independent variables and the dependent variable.

• Practice: Create a factorial design table for an experiment on the effects of room temperature and noise
level on performance on the MCAT. Be sure to indicate whether each independent variable will be
manipulated between-subjects or within-subjects and explain why.

• Practice: Sketch 8 different bar graphs to depict each of the following possible results in a 2 x 2 factorial
experiment:

◦ No main effect of A; no main effect of B; no interaction
◦ Main effect of A; no main effect of B; no interaction
◦ No main effect of A; main effect of B; no interaction
◦ Main effect of A; main effect of B; no interaction
◦ Main effect of A; main effect of B; interaction
◦ Main effect of A; no main effect of B; interaction
◦ No main effect of A; main effect of B; interaction
◦ No main effect of A; no main effect of B; interaction

238 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

CHAPTER X

SINGLE-SUBJECT RESEARCH

Researcher Vance Hall and his colleagues were faced with the challenge of increasing the extent to which six
disruptive elementary school students stayed focused on their schoolwork (Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968)1. For
each of several days, the researchers carefully recorded whether or not each student was doing schoolwork
every 10 seconds during a 30-minute period. Once they had established this baseline, they introduced a
treatment. The treatment was that when the student was doing schoolwork, the teacher gave him or her
positive attention in the form of a comment like “good work” or a pat on the shoulder. The result was that
all of the students dramatically increased their time spent on schoolwork and decreased their disruptive
behavior during this treatment phase. For example, a student named Robbie originally spent 25% of his time
on schoolwork and the other 75% “snapping rubber bands, playing with toys from his pocket, and talking and
laughing with peers” (p. 3). During the treatment phase, however, he spent 71% of his time on schoolwork and
only 29% on other activities. Finally, when the researchers had the teacher stop giving positive attention, the
students all decreased their studying and increased their disruptive behavior. This confirmed that it was, in
fact, the positive attention that was responsible for the increase in studying. This was one of the first studies
to show that attending to positive behavior—and ignoring negative behavior—could be a quick and effective
way to deal with problem behavior in an applied setting.

Most of this textbook is about what can be called group research, which typically involves studying a large
number of participants and combining their data to draw general conclusions about human behavior. The
study by Hall and his colleagues, in contrast, is an example of single-subject research, which typically
involves studying a small number of participants and focusing closely on each individual. In this chapter, we
consider this alternative approach. We begin with an overview of single-subject research, including some
assumptions on which it is based, who conducts it, and why they do. We then look at some basic single-
subject research designs and how the data from those designs are analyzed. Finally, we consider some of the
strengths and weaknesses of single-subject research as compared with group research and see how these
two approaches can complement each other.

Notes

1. Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 1, 1–12.

Single-Subject Research | 239

44. Overview of Single-Subject Research

Learning Objectives

1. Explain what single-subject research is, including how it differs from other types of psychological
research.

2. Explain who uses single-subject research and why.

What Is Single-Subject Research?

Single-subject research is a type of quantitative research that involves studying in detail the behavior of
each of a small number of participants. Note that the term single-subject does not mean that only one
participant is studied; it is more typical for there to be somewhere between two and 10 participants.
(This is why single-subject research designs are sometimes called small-n designs, where n is the statistical
symbol for the sample size.) Single-subject research can be contrasted with group research, which typically
involves studying large numbers of participants and examining their behavior primarily in terms of group
means, standard deviations, and so on. The majority of this textbook is devoted to understanding group
research, which is the most common approach in psychology. But single-subject research is an important
alternative, and it is the primary approach in some more applied areas of psychology.

Before continuing, it is important to distinguish single-subject research from case studies and other more
qualitative approaches that involve studying in detail a small number of participants. As described in Chapter
6, case studies involve an in-depth analysis and description of an individual, which is typically primarily
qualitative in nature. More broadly speaking, qualitative research focuses on understanding people’s
subjective experience by observing behavior and collecting relatively unstructured data (e.g., detailed
interviews) and analyzing those data using narrative rather than quantitative techniques. Single-subject
research, in contrast, focuses on understanding objective behavior through experimental manipulation and
control, collecting highly structured data, and analyzing those data quantitatively.

Assumptions of Single-Subject Research

Again, single-subject research involves studying a small number of participants and focusing intensively on
the behavior of each one. But why take this approach instead of the group approach? There are several
important assumptions underlying single-subject research, and it will help to consider them now.

Overview of Single-Subject Research | 241

First and foremost is the assumption that it is important to focus intensively on the behavior of individual
participants. One reason for this is that group research can hide individual differences and generate results
that do not represent the behavior of any individual. For example, a treatment that has a positive effect
for half the people exposed to it but a negative effect for the other half would, on average, appear to have
no effect at all. Single-subject research, however, would likely reveal these individual differences. A second
reason to focus intensively on individuals is that sometimes it is the behavior of a particular individual that
is primarily of interest. A school psychologist, for example, might be interested in changing the behavior
of a particular disruptive student. Although previous published research (both single-subject and group
research) is likely to provide some guidance on how to do this, conducting a study on this student would be
more direct and probably more effective.

A second assumption of single-subject research is that it is important to discover causal relationships
through the manipulation of an independent variable, the careful measurement of a dependent variable, and
the control of extraneous variables. For this reason, single-subject research is often considered a type of
experimental research with good internal validity. Recall, for example, that Hall and his colleagues measured
their dependent variable (studying) many times—first under a no-treatment control condition, then under a
treatment condition (positive teacher attention), and then again under the control condition. Because there
was a clear increase in studying when the treatment was introduced, a decrease when it was removed,
and an increase when it was reintroduced, there is little doubt that the treatment was the cause of the
improvement.

A third assumption of single-subject research is that it is important to study strong and consistent effects
that have biological or social importance. Applied researchers, in particular, are interested in treatments
that have substantial effects on important behaviors and that can be implemented reliably in the real-world
contexts in which they occur. This is sometimes referred to as social validity (Wolf, 1976)1. The study by Hall
and his colleagues, for example, had good social validity because it showed strong and consistent effects of
positive teacher attention on a behavior that is of obvious importance to teachers, parents, and students.
Furthermore, the teachers found the treatment easy to implement, even in their often-chaotic elementary
school classrooms.

Who Uses Single-Subject Research?

Single-subject research has been around as long as the field of psychology itself. In the late 1800s, one
of psychology’s founders, Wilhelm Wundt, studied sensation and consciousness by focusing intensively
on each of a small number of research participants. Herman Ebbinghaus’s research on memory and Ivan
Pavlov’s research on classical conditioning are other early examples, both of which are still described in
almost every introductory psychology textbook.

In the middle of the 20th century, B. F. Skinner clarified many of the assumptions underlying single-subject
research and refined many of its techniques (Skinner, 1938)2. He and other researchers then used it to
describe how rewards, punishments, and other external factors affect behavior over time. This work was
carried out primarily using nonhuman subjects—mostly rats and pigeons. This approach, which Skinner

242 | Overview of Single-Subject Research

called the experimental analysis of behavior—remains an important subfield of psychology and continues
to rely almost exclusively on single-subject research. For excellent examples of this work, look at any issue
of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. By the 1960s, many researchers were interested
in using this approach to conduct applied research primarily with humans—a subfield now called applied
behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968)3. Applied behavior analysis plays an especially important role
in contemporary research on developmental disabilities, education, organizational behavior, and health,
among many other areas. Excellent examples of this work (including the study by Hall and his colleagues)
can be found in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Although most contemporary single-subject research is conducted from the behavioral perspective, it can
in principle be used to address questions framed in terms of any theoretical perspective. For example, a
studying technique based on cognitive principles of learning and memory could be evaluated by testing
it on individual high school students using the single-subject approach. The single-subject approach can
also be used by clinicians who take any theoretical perspective—behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, or
humanistic—to study processes of therapeutic change with individual clients and to document their clients’
improvement (Kazdin, 1982)4.

Notes

1. Wolf, M. (1976). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its
heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.

2. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
4. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Overview of Single-Subject Research | 243

45. Single-Subject Research Designs

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the basic elements of a single-subject research design.
2. Design simple single-subject studies using reversal and multiple-baseline designs.
3. Explain how single-subject research designs address the issue of internal validity.
4. Interpret the results of simple single-subject studies based on the visual inspection of graphed data.

General Features of Single-Subject Designs

Before looking at any specific single-subject research designs, it will be helpful to consider some features
that are common to most of them. Many of these features are illustrated in Figure 10.1, which shows the
results of a generic single-subject study. First, the dependent variable (represented on the y-axis of the
graph) is measured repeatedly over time (represented by the x-axis) at regular intervals. Second, the study
is divided into distinct phases, and the participant is tested under one condition per phase. The conditions
are often designated by capital letters: A, B, C, and so on. Thus Figure 10.1 represents a design in which the
participant was tested first in one condition (A), then tested in another condition (B), and finally retested in
the original condition (A). (This is called a reversal design and will be discussed in more detail shortly.)

Figure 10.1 Results of a Generic Single-Subject Study Illustrating Several Principles of Single-Subject Research

244 | Single-Subject Research Designs

Another important aspect of single-subject research is that the change from one condition to the next
does not usually occur after a fixed amount of time or number of observations. Instead, it depends on the
participant’s behavior. Specifically, the researcher waits until the participant’s behavior in one condition
becomes fairly consistent from observation to observation before changing conditions. This is sometimes
referred to as the steady state strategy (Sidman, 1960)1. The idea is that when the dependent variable has
reached a steady state, then any change across conditions will be relatively easy to detect. Recall that we
encountered this same principle when discussing experimental research more generally. The effect of an
independent variable is easier to detect when the “noise” in the data is minimized.

Reversal Designs

The most basic single-subject research design is the reversal design, also called the ABA design. During the
first phase, A, a baseline is established for the dependent variable. This is the level of responding before any
treatment is introduced, and therefore the baseline phase is a kind of control condition. When steady state
responding is reached, phase B begins as the researcher introduces the treatment. There may be a period
of adjustment to the treatment during which the behavior of interest becomes more variable and begins to
increase or decrease. Again, the researcher waits until that dependent variable reaches a steady state so that
it is clear whether and how much it has changed. Finally, the researcher removes the treatment and again
waits until the dependent variable reaches a steady state. This basic reversal design can also be extended
with the reintroduction of the treatment (ABAB), another return to baseline (ABABA), and so on.

The study by Hall and his colleagues employed an ABAB reversal design. Figure 10.2 approximates the data
for Robbie. The percentage of time he spent studying (the dependent variable) was low during the first
baseline phase, increased during the first treatment phase until it leveled off, decreased during the second
baseline phase, and again increased during the second treatment phase.

Single-Subject Research Designs | 245

Figure 10.2 An Approximation of the Results for Hall and Colleagues’ Participant Robbie in Their ABAB Reversal Design.
[Image description]

Why is the reversal—the removal of the treatment—considered to be necessary in this type of design? Why
use an ABA design, for example, rather than a simpler AB design? Notice that an AB design is essentially an
interrupted time-series design applied to an individual participant. Recall that one problem with that design
is that if the dependent variable changes after the treatment is introduced, it is not always clear that the
treatment was responsible for the change. It is possible that something else changed at around the same
time and that this extraneous variable is responsible for the change in the dependent variable. But if the
dependent variable changes with the introduction of the treatment and then changes back with the removal
of the treatment (assuming that the treatment does not create a permanent effect), it is much clearer that
the treatment (and removal of the treatment) is the cause. In other words, the reversal greatly increases the
internal validity of the study.

There are close relatives of the basic reversal design that allow for the evaluation of more than one
treatment. In a multiple-treatment reversal design, a baseline phase is followed by separate phases in
which different treatments are introduced. For example, a researcher might establish a baseline of studying
behavior for a disruptive student (A), then introduce a treatment involving positive attention from the
teacher (B), and then switch to a treatment involving mild punishment for not studying (C). The participant
could then be returned to a baseline phase before reintroducing each treatment—perhaps in the reverse
order as a way of controlling for carryover effects. This particular multiple-treatment reversal design could
also be referred to as an ABCACB design.

In an alternating treatments design, two or more treatments are alternated relatively quickly on a regular
schedule. For example, positive attention for studying could be used one day and mild punishment for not
studying the next, and so on. Or one treatment could be implemented in the morning and another in the

246 | Single-Subject Research Designs

afternoon. The alternating treatments design can be a quick and effective way of comparing treatments, but
only when the treatments are fast acting.

Multiple-Baseline Designs

There are two potential problems with the reversal design—both of which have to do with the removal of the
treatment. One is that if a treatment is working, it may be unethical to remove it. For example, if a treatment
seemed to reduce the incidence of self-injury in a child with an intellectual delay, it would be unethical
to remove that treatment just to show that the incidence of self-injury increases. The second problem is
that the dependent variable may not return to baseline when the treatment is removed. For example, when
positive attention for studying is removed, a student might continue to study at an increased rate. This could
mean that the positive attention had a lasting effect on the student’s studying, which of course would be
good. But it could also mean that the positive attention was not really the cause of the increased studying
in the first place. Perhaps something else happened at about the same time as the treatment—for example,
the student’s parents might have started rewarding him for good grades. One solution to these problems
is to use a multiple-baseline design, which is represented in Figure 10.3. There are three different types of
multiple-baseline designs which we will now consider.

Multiple-Baseline Design Across Participants

In one version of the design, a baseline is established for each of several participants, and the treatment
is then introduced for each one. In essence, each participant is tested in an AB design. The key to this
design is that the treatment is introduced at a different time for each participant. The idea is that if the
dependent variable changes when the treatment is introduced for one participant, it might be a coincidence.
But if the dependent variable changes when the treatment is introduced for multiple participants—especially
when the treatment is introduced at different times for the different participants—then it is unlikely to be a
coincidence.

Single-Subject Research Designs | 247

Figure 10.3 Results of a Generic Multiple-Baseline Study. The multiple baselines can be for different participants,
dependent variables, or settings. The treatment is introduced at a different time on each baseline. [Image description]

248 | Single-Subject Research Designs

As an example, consider a study by Scott Ross and Robert Horner (Ross & Horner, 2009)2. They were
interested in how a school-wide bullying prevention program affected the bullying behavior of particular
problem students. At each of three different schools, the researchers studied two students who had
regularly engaged in bullying. During the baseline phase, they observed the students for 10-minute periods
each day during lunch recess and counted the number of aggressive behaviors they exhibited toward their
peers. After 2 weeks, they implemented the program at one school. After 2 more weeks, they implemented
it at the second school. And after 2 more weeks, they implemented it at the third school. They found
that the number of aggressive behaviors exhibited by each student dropped shortly after the program was
implemented at the student’s school. Notice that if the researchers had only studied one school or if they
had introduced the treatment at the same time at all three schools, then it would be unclear whether the
reduction in aggressive behaviors was due to the bullying program or something else that happened at about
the same time it was introduced (e.g., a holiday, a television program, a change in the weather). But with
their multiple-baseline design, this kind of coincidence would have to happen three separate times—a very
unlikely occurrence—to explain their results.

Multiple-Baseline Design Across Behaviors

In another version of the multiple-baseline design, multiple baselines are established for the same
participant but for different dependent variables, and the treatment is introduced at a different time
for each dependent variable. Imagine, for example, a study on the effect of setting clear goals on the
productivity of an office worker who has two primary tasks: making sales calls and writing reports. Baselines
for both tasks could be established. For example, the researcher could measure the number of sales calls
made and reports written by the worker each week for several weeks. Then the goal-setting treatment
could be introduced for one of these tasks, and at a later time the same treatment could be introduced for
the other task. The logic is the same as before. If productivity increases on one task after the treatment
is introduced, it is unclear whether the treatment caused the increase. But if productivity increases on
both tasks after the treatment is introduced—especially when the treatment is introduced at two different
times—then it seems much clearer that the treatment was responsible.

Multiple-Baseline Design Across Settings

In yet a third version of the multiple-baseline design, multiple baselines are established for the same
participant but in different settings. For example, a baseline might be established for the amount of time a
child spends reading during his free time at school and during his free time at home. Then a treatment such
as positive attention might be introduced first at school and later at home. Again, if the dependent variable
changes after the treatment is introduced in each setting, then this gives the researcher confidence that the
treatment is, in fact, responsible for the change.

Single-Subject Research Designs | 249

Data Analysis in Single-Subject Research

In addition to its focus on individual participants, single-subject research differs from group research in
the way the data are typically analyzed. As we have seen throughout the book, group research involves
combining data across participants. Group data are described using statistics such as means, standard
deviations, correlation coefficients, and so on to detect general patterns. Finally, inferential statistics are
used to help decide whether the result for the sample is likely to generalize to the population. Single-
subject research, by contrast, relies heavily on a very different approach called visual inspection. This
means plotting individual participants’ data as shown throughout this chapter, looking carefully at those
data, and making judgments about whether and to what extent the independent variable had an effect on
the dependent variable. Inferential statistics are typically not used.

In visually inspecting their data, single-subject researchers take several factors into account. One of them
is changes in the level of the dependent variable from condition to condition. If the dependent variable is
much higher or much lower in one condition than another, this suggests that the treatment had an effect.
A second factor is trend, which refers to gradual increases or decreases in the dependent variable across
observations. If the dependent variable begins increasing or decreasing with a change in conditions, then
again this suggests that the treatment had an effect. It can be especially telling when a trend changes
directions—for example, when an unwanted behavior is increasing during baseline but then begins to
decrease with the introduction of the treatment. A third factor is latency, which is the time it takes for the
dependent variable to begin changing after a change in conditions. In general, if a change in the dependent
variable begins shortly after a change in conditions, this suggests that the treatment was responsible.

In the top panel of Figure 10.4, there are fairly obvious changes in the level and trend of the dependent
variable from condition to condition. Furthermore, the latencies of these changes are short; the change
happens immediately. This pattern of results strongly suggests that the treatment was responsible for the
changes in the dependent variable. In the bottom panel of Figure 10.4, however, the changes in level are fairly
small. And although there appears to be an increasing trend in the treatment condition, it looks as though it
might be a continuation of a trend that had already begun during baseline. This pattern of results strongly
suggests that the treatment was not responsible for any changes in the dependent variable—at least not to
the extent that single-subject researchers typically hope to see.

250 | Single-Subject Research Designs

Figure 10.4 Results of a Generic Single-Subject Study Illustrating Level, Trend, and Latency. Visual inspection of the data
suggests an effective treatment in the top panel but an ineffective treatment in the bottom panel. [Image description]

The results of single-subject research can also be analyzed using statistical procedures—and this is
becoming more common. There are many different approaches, and single-subject researchers continue
to debate which are the most useful. One approach parallels what is typically done in group research.
The mean and standard deviation of each participant’s responses under each condition are computed and

Single-Subject Research Designs | 251

compared, and inferential statistical tests such as the t test or analysis of variance are applied (Fisch, 2001)3.
(Note that averaging across participants is less common.) Another approach is to compute the percentage of
non-overlapping data (PND) for each participant (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2001)4. This is the percentage of
responses in the treatment condition that are more extreme than the most extreme response in a relevant
control condition. In the study of Hall and his colleagues, for example, all measures of Robbie’s study time
in the first treatment condition were greater than the highest measure in the first baseline, for a PND of
100%. The greater the percentage of non-overlapping data, the stronger the treatment effect. Still, formal
statistical approaches to data analysis in single-subject research are generally considered a supplement to
visual inspection, not a replacement for it.

Image Description

Figure 10.2 long description: Line graph showing the results of a study with an ABAB reversal design. The
dependent variable was low during first baseline phase; increased during the first treatment; decreased
during the second baseline, but was still higher than during the first baseline; and was highest during the
second treatment phase. [Return to Figure 10.2]

Figure 10.3 long description: Three line graphs showing the results of a generic multiple-baseline study, in
which different baselines are established and treatment is introduced to participants at different times.

For Baseline 1, treatment is introduced one-quarter of the way into the study. The dependent variable ranges
between 12 and 16 units during the baseline, but drops down to 10 units with treatment and mostly decreases
until the end of the study, ranging between 4 and 10 units.

For Baseline 2, treatment is introduced halfway through the study. The dependent variable ranges between
10 and 15 units during the baseline, then has a sharp decrease to 7 units when treatment is introduced.
However, the dependent variable increases to 12 units soon after the drop and ranges between 8 and 10 units
until the end of the study.

For Baseline 3, treatment is introduced three-quarters of the way into the study. The dependent variable
ranges between 12 and 16 units for the most part during the baseline, with one drop down to 10 units. When
treatment is introduced, the dependent variable drops down to 10 units and then ranges between 8 and 9
units until the end of the study. [Return to Figure 10.3]

Figure 10.4 long description: Two graphs showing the results of a generic single-subject study with an ABA
design. In the first graph, under condition A, level is high and the trend is increasing. Under condition B,
level is much lower than under condition A and the trend is decreasing. Under condition A again, level is
about as high as the first time and the trend is increasing. For each change, latency is short, suggesting that
the treatment is the reason for the change.

In the second graph, under condition A, level is relatively low and the trend is increasing. Under condition B,
level is a little higher than during condition A and the trend is increasing slightly. Under condition A again,
level is a little lower than during condition B and the trend is decreasing slightly. It is difficult to determine

252 | Single-Subject Research Designs

the latency of these changes, since each change is rather minute, which suggests that the treatment is
ineffective. [Return to Figure 10.4]

Notes

1. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Boston, MA: Authors
Cooperative.

2. Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42, 747–759.

3. Fisch, G. S. (2001). Evaluating data from behavioral analysis: Visual inspection or statistical models. Behavioral
Processes, 54, 137–154.

4. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). How to summarize single-participant research: Ideas and
applications. Exceptionality, 9, 227–244.

Single-Subject Research Designs | 253

46. The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

Learning Objectives

1. Explain some of the points of disagreement between advocates of single-subject research and advocates
of group research.

2. Identify several situations in which single-subject research would be appropriate and several others in
which group research would be appropriate.

Single-subject research is similar to group research—especially experimental group research—in many
ways. They are both quantitative approaches that try to establish causal relationships by manipulating
an independent variable, measuring a dependent variable, and controlling extraneous variables. But there
are important differences between these approaches too, and these differences sometimes lead to
disagreements. It is worth addressing the most common points of disagreement between single-subject
researchers and group researchers and how these disagreements can be resolved. As we will see, single-
subject research and group research are probably best conceptualized as complementary approaches.

Data Analysis

One set of disagreements revolves around the issue of data analysis. Some advocates of group research
worry that visual inspection is inadequate for deciding whether and to what extent a treatment has affected
a dependent variable. One specific concern is that visual inspection is not sensitive enough to detect
weak effects. A second is that visual inspection can be unreliable, with different researchers reaching
different conclusions about the same set of data (Danov & Symons, 2008)1. A third is that the results of
visual inspection—an overall judgment of whether or not a treatment was effective—cannot be clearly and
efficiently summarized or compared across studies (unlike the measures of relationship strength typically
used in group research).

In general, single-subject researchers share these concerns. However, they also argue that their use of
the steady state strategy, combined with their focus on strong and consistent effects, minimizes most of
them. If the effect of a treatment is difficult to detect by visual inspection because the effect is weak or
the data are noisy, then single-subject researchers look for ways to increase the strength of the effect
or reduce the noise in the data by controlling extraneous variables (e.g., by administering the treatment
more consistently). If the effect is still difficult to detect, then they are likely to consider it neither strong
enough nor consistent enough to be of further interest. Many single-subject researchers also point out that

254 | The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

statistical analysis is becoming increasingly common and that many of them are using this as a supplement
to visual inspection—especially for the purpose of comparing results across studies (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
2001)2.

Turning the tables, some advocates of single-subject research worry about the way that group researchers
analyze their data. Specifically, they point out that focusing on group means can be highly misleading. Again,
imagine that a treatment has a strong positive effect on half the people exposed to it and an equally strong
negative effect on the other half. In a traditional between-subjects experiment, the positive effect on half
the participants in the treatment condition would be statistically cancelled out by the negative effect on the
other half. The mean for the treatment group would then be the same as the mean for the control group,
making it seem as though the treatment had no effect when in fact it had a strong effect on every single
participant!

But again, group researchers share this concern. Although they do focus on group statistics, they also
emphasize the importance of examining distributions of individual scores. For example, if some participants
were positively affected by a treatment and others negatively affected by it, this would produce a bimodal
distribution of scores and could be detected by looking at a histogram of the data. The use of within-subjects
designs is another strategy that allows group researchers to observe effects at the individual level and even
to specify what percentage of individuals exhibit strong, medium, weak, and even negative effects. Finally,
factorial designs can be used to examine whether the effects of an independent variable on a dependent
variable differ in different groups of participants (introverts vs. extraverts).

External Validity

The second issue about which single-subject and group researchers sometimes disagree has to do with
external validity—the ability to generalize the results of a study beyond the people and specific situation
actually studied. In particular, advocates of group research point out the difficulty in knowing whether
results for just a few participants are likely to generalize to others in the population. Imagine, for example,
that in a single-subject study, a treatment has been shown to reduce self-injury for each of two children
with intellectual disabilities. Even if the effect is strong for these two children, how can one know whether
this treatment is likely to work for other children with intellectual delays?

Again, single-subject researchers share this concern. In response, they note that the strong and consistent
effects they are typically interested in—even when observed in small samples—are likely to generalize
to others in the population. Single-subject researchers also note that they place a strong emphasis on
replicating their research results. When they observe an effect with a small sample of participants, they
typically try to replicate it with another small sample—perhaps with a slightly different type of participant
or under slightly different conditions. Each time they observe similar results, they rightfully become more
confident in the generality of those results. Single-subject researchers can also point to the fact that the
principles of classical and operant conditioning—most of which were discovered using the single-subject
approach—have been successfully generalized across an incredibly wide range of species and situations.

And, once again turning the tables, single-subject researchers have concerns of their own about the external

The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate” | 255

validity of group research. One extremely important point they make is that studying large groups of
participants does not entirely solve the problem of generalizing to other individuals. Imagine, for example,
a treatment that has been shown to have a small positive effect on average in a large group study. It is
likely that although many participants exhibited a small positive effect, others exhibited a large positive
effect, and still others exhibited a small negative effect. When it comes to applying this treatment to another
large group, we can be fairly sure that it will have a small effect on average. But when it comes to applying
this treatment to another individual, we cannot be sure whether it will have a small, a large, or even a
negative effect. Another point that single-subject researchers make is that group researchers also face a
similar problem when they study a single situation and then generalize their results to other situations. For
example, researchers who conduct a study on the effect of cell phone use on drivers on a closed oval track
probably want to apply their results to drivers in many other real-world driving situations. But notice that
this requires generalizing from a single situation to a population of situations. Thus the ability to generalize
is based on much more than just the sheer number of participants one has studied. It requires a careful
consideration of the similarity of the participants and situations studied to the population of participants
and situations to which one wants to generalize (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)3.

Single-Subject and Group Research as Complementary Methods

As with quantitative and qualitative research, it is probably best to conceptualize single-subject research
and group research as complementary methods that have different strengths and weaknesses and that are
appropriate for answering different kinds of research questions (Kazdin, 1982)4. Single-subject research is
particularly good for testing the effectiveness of treatments on individuals when the focus is on strong,
consistent, and biologically or socially important effects. It is also especially useful when the behavior of
particular individuals is of interest. Clinicians who work with only one individual at a time may find that it is
their only option for doing systematic quantitative research.

Group research, on the other hand, is ideal for testing the effectiveness of treatments at the group level.
Among the advantages of this approach is that it allows researchers to detect weak effects, which can be
of interest for many reasons. For example, finding a weak treatment effect might lead to refinements of
the treatment that eventually produce a larger and more meaningful effect. Group research is also good
for studying interactions between treatments and participant characteristics. For example, if a treatment is
effective for those who are high in motivation to change and ineffective for those who are low in motivation
to change, then a group design can detect this much more efficiently than a single-subject design. Group
research is also necessary to answer questions that cannot be addressed using the single-subject approach,
including questions about independent variables that cannot be manipulated (e.g., number of siblings,
extraversion, culture).

Finally, it is important to understand that the single-subject and group approaches represent different
research traditions. This factor is probably the most important one affecting which approach a researcher
uses. Researchers in the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis learn to
conceptualize their research questions in ways that are amenable to the single-subject approach.
Researchers in most other areas of psychology learn to conceptualize their research questions in ways

256 | The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

that are amenable to the group approach. At the same time, there are many topics in psychology in which
research from the two traditions have informed each other and been successfully integrated. One example
is research suggesting that both animals and humans have an innate “number sense”—an awareness of how
many objects or events of a particular type have they have experienced without actually having to count
them (Dehaene, 2011)5. Single-subject research with rats and birds and group research with human infants
have shown strikingly similar abilities in those populations to discriminate small numbers of objects and
events. This number sense—which probably evolved long before humans did—may even be the foundation
of humans’ advanced mathematical abilities.

The Principle of Converging Evidence

Now that you have been introduced to many of the most commonly used research methods in psychology
it should be readily apparent that no design is perfect. Every research design has strengths and weakness.
True experiments typically have high internal validity but may have problems with external validity, while
non-experimental research (e.g., correlational research) often has good external validity but poor internal
validity. Each study brings us closer to the truth but no single study can ever be considered definitive. This is
one reason why, in science, we say there is no such thing as scientific proof, there is only scientific evidence.

While the media will often try to reach strong conclusions on the basis of the findings of one study, scientists
focus on evaluating a body of research. Scientists evaluate theories not by waiting for the perfect experiment
but by looking at the overall trends in a number of partially flawed studies. The idea of converging evidence
tells us to examine the pattern of flaws running through the research literature because the nature of this
pattern can either support or undermine the conclusions we wish to draw. Suppose the findings from a
number of different studies were largely consistent in supporting a particular conclusion. If all of the studies
were flawed in a similar way, for example, if all of the studies were correlational and contained the third
variable problem and the directionality problem, this would undermine confidence in the conclusions drawn
because the consistency of the outcome may simply have resulted from a particular flaw that all of the
studies shared. On the other hand, if all of the studies were flawed in different ways and the weakness of
some of the studies were the strength of others (the low external validity of a true experiment was balanced
by the high external validity of a correlational study), then we could be more confident in our conclusions.

While there are fundamental tradeoffs in different research methods, the diverse set of approaches used by
psychologists have complementary strengths that allow us to search for converging evidence. We can reach
meaningful conclusions and come closer to understanding truth by examining a large number of different
studies each with different strengths and weakness. If the result of a large number of studies all conducted
using different designs converge on the same conclusion then our confidence in that conclusion can be
increased dramatically. In science, we strive for progress, not perfection.

The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate” | 257

Notes

1. Danov, S. E., & Symons, F. E. (2008). A survey evaluation of the reliability of visual inspection and functional analysis
graphs. Behavior Modification, 32, 828–839.

2. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). How to summarize single-participant research: Ideas and
applications. Exceptionality, 9, 227–244.

3. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized
causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

4. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

5. Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford.

258 | The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

47. Key Takeaways and Exercises

Key Takeaways

• Single-subject research—which involves testing a small number of participants and focusing intensively
on the behavior of each individual—is an important alternative to group research in psychology.

• Single-subject studies must be distinguished from qualitative research on a single person or small
number of individuals. Unlike more qualitative research, single-subject research focuses on
understanding objective behavior through experimental manipulation and control, collecting highly
structured data, and analyzing those data quantitatively.

• Single-subject research has been around since the beginning of the field of psychology. Today it is most
strongly associated with the behavioral theoretical perspective, but it can in principle be used to study
behavior from any perspective.

• Single-subject research designs typically involve measuring the dependent variable repeatedly over time
and changing conditions (e.g., from baseline to treatment) when the dependent variable has reached a
steady state. This approach allows the researcher to see whether changes in the independent variable are
causing changes in the dependent variable.

• In a reversal design, the participant is tested in a baseline condition, then tested in a treatment condition,
and then returned to baseline. If the dependent variable changes with the introduction of the treatment
and then changes back with the return to baseline, this provides strong evidence of a treatment effect.

• In a multiple-baseline design, baselines are established for different participants, different dependent
variables, or different settings—and the treatment is introduced at a different time on each baseline. If
the introduction of the treatment is followed by a change in the dependent variable on each baseline, this
provides strong evidence of a treatment effect.

• Single-subject researchers typically analyze their data by graphing them and making judgments about
whether the independent variable is affecting the dependent variable based on level, trend, and latency.

• Differences between single-subject research and group research sometimes lead to disagreements
between single-subject and group researchers. These disagreements center on the issues of data analysis
and external validity (especially generalization to other people).

• Single-subject research and group research are probably best seen as complementary methods, with
different strengths and weaknesses, that are appropriate for answering different kinds of research
questions.

Exercises

• Practice: Find and read a published article in psychology that reports new single-subject research. (An
archive of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis can be found at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/309/) Write a short summary of the study.

Key Takeaways and Exercises | 259

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/309/

• Practice: Design a simple single-subject study (using either a reversal or multiple-baseline design) to
answer the following questions. Be sure to specify the treatment, operationally define the dependent
variable, decide when and where the observations will be made, and so on.

◦ Does positive attention from a parent increase a child’s tooth-brushing behavior?
◦ Does self-testing while studying improve a student’s performance on weekly spelling tests?
◦ Does regular exercise help relieve depression?

• Practice: Create a graph that displays the hypothetical results for the study you designed in Exercise 1.
Write a paragraph in which you describe what the results show. Be sure to comment on level, trend, and
latency.

• Discussion: Imagine you have conducted a single-subject study showing a positive effect of a treatment
on the behavior of a man with social anxiety disorder. Your research has been criticized on the grounds
that it cannot be generalized to others. How could you respond to this criticism?

• Discussion: Imagine you have conducted a group study showing a positive effect of a treatment on the
behavior of a group of people with social anxiety disorder, but your research has been criticized on the
grounds that “average” effects cannot be generalized to individuals. How could you respond to this
criticism?

• Practice: Redesign as a group study the study by Hall and his colleagues described at the beginning of this
chapter, and list the strengths and weaknesses of your new study compared with the original study.

• Practice: The generation effect refers to the fact that people who generate information as they are
learning it (e.g., by self-testing) recall it better later than do people who simply review information.
Design a single-subject study on the generation effect applied to university students learning brain
anatomy.

260 | Key Takeaways and Exercises

CHAPTER XI

PRESENTING YOUR RESEARCH

Research is complete only when the results are shared with the scientific community.
-American Psychological Association

Imagine that you have identified an interesting research question, reviewed the relevant literature, designed
and conducted an empirical study, analyzed the data, and drawn your conclusions. There is still one more
step in the process of conducting scientific research. It is time to add your research to the literature so that
others can learn from it and build on it. Remember that science is a social and cumulative process—a large-
scale collaboration among many researchers distributed across space and time. For this reason, it could be
argued that unless you make your research public in some form, you are not really engaged in science at all.

In this chapter, we look at how to present your research effectively. We begin with a discussion of American
Psychological Association (APA) style—the primary approach to writing taken by researchers in psychology
and related fields. Then we consider how to write an APA-style empirical research report. Finally, we look
at some of the many other ways in which researchers present their work, including review and theoretical
articles, theses and other student papers, and talks and posters at professional meetings.

Presenting Your Research | 261

48. American Psychological Association (APA)
Style

Learning Objectives

1. Define APA style and list several of its most important characteristics.
2. Identify three levels of APA style and give examples of each.
3. Identify multiple sources of information about APA style.

What Is APA Style?

APA style is a set of guidelines for writing in psychology and related fields. These guidelines are set
down in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010)1. The Publication
Manual originated in 1929 as a short journal article that provided basic standards for preparing manuscripts
to be submitted for publication (Bentley et al., 1929)2. It was later expanded and published as a book by
the association and is now in its sixth edition. The primary purpose of APA style is to facilitate scientific
communication by promoting clarity of expression and by standardizing the organization and content of
research articles and book chapters. It is easier to write about research when you know what information
to present, the order in which to present it, and even the style in which to present it. Likewise, it is easier to
read about research when it is presented in familiar and expected ways.

APA style is best thought of as a “genre” of writing that is appropriate for presenting the results of
psychological research—especially in academic and professional contexts. It is not synonymous with “good
writing” in general. You would not write a literary analysis for an English class, even if it were based on
psychoanalytic concepts, in APA style. You would write it in Modern Language Association (MLA) style
instead. And you would not write a newspaper article, even if it were about a new breakthrough in behavioral
neuroscience, in APA style. You would write it in Associated Press (AP) style instead. At the same time, you
would not write an empirical research report in MLA style, in AP style, or in the style of a romance novel, an
email to a friend, or a shopping list. You would write it in APA style. Part of being a good writer in general is
adopting a style that is appropriate to the writing task at hand, and for writing about psychological research,
this is APA style.

American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 263

The Levels of APA Style

Because APA style consists of a large number and variety of guidelines—the Publication Manual is nearly
300 pages long—it can be useful to think about it in terms of three basic levels. The first is the overall
organization of an article (which is covered in Chapter 2 “Manuscript Structure and Content” of
the Publication Manual). Empirical research reports, in particular, have several distinct sections that always
appear in the same order:

• Title page. Presents the article title and author names and affiliations.
• Abstract. Summarizes the research.
• Introduction. Describes previous research and the rationale for the current study.
• Method. Describes how the study was conducted.
• Results. Describes the results of the study.
• Discussion. Summarizes the study and discusses its implications.
• References. Lists the references cited throughout the article.

The second level of APA style can be referred to as high-level style (covered in Chapter 3 “Writing Clearly
and Concisely” of the Publication Manual), which includes guidelines for the clear expression of ideas.
There are two important themes here. One is that APA-style writing is formal rather than informal. It
adopts a tone that is appropriate for communicating with professional colleagues—other researchers and
practitioners—who share an interest in the topic. Beyond this shared interest, however, these colleagues
are not necessarily similar to the writer or to each other. A graduate student in British Columbia might
be writing an article that will be read by a young psychotherapist in Toronto and a respected professor of
psychology in Tokyo. Thus formal writing avoids slang, contractions, pop culture references, humor, and
other elements that would be acceptable in talking with a friend or in writing informally.

The second theme of high-level APA style is that it is straightforward. This means that it communicates
ideas as simply and clearly as possible, putting the focus on the ideas themselves and not on how they
are communicated. Thus APA-style writing minimizes literary devices such as metaphor, imagery, irony,
suspense, and so on. Again, humor is kept to a minimum. Sentences are short and direct. Technical terms
must be used, but they are used to improve communication, not simply to make the writing sound more
“scientific.” For example, if participants immersed their hands in a bucket of ice water, it is better just
to write this than to write that they “were subjected to a pain-inducement apparatus.” At the same time,
however, there is no better way to communicate that a between-subjects design was used than to use the
term “between-subjects design.”

264 | American Psychological Association (APA) Style

APA Style and the Values of Psychology

Robert Madigan and his colleagues have argued that APA style has a purpose that often goes unrecognized
(Madigan, Johnson, & Linton, 1995)3. Specifically, it promotes psychologists’ scientific values and assumptions.
From this perspective, many features of APA style that at first seem arbitrary actually make good sense.
Following are several features of APA-style writing and the scientific values or assumptions they reflect.

APA style feature Scientific value or assumption

There are very few direct quotations of
other researchers.

The phenomena and theories of psychology are objective and do not depend
on the specific words a particular researcher used to describe them.

Criticisms are directed at other
researchers’ work but not at them
personally.

The focus of scientific research is on drawing general conclusions about the
world, not on the personalities of particular researchers.

There are many references and reference
citations. Scientific research is a large-scale collaboration among many researchers.

Empirical research reports are organized
with specific sections in a fixed order.

There is an ideal approach to conducting empirical research in psychology
(even if this ideal is not always achieved in actual research).

Researchers tend to “hedge” their
conclusions, e.g., “The
results suggest that…”

Scientific knowledge is tentative and always subject to revision based on new
empirical results.

Another important element of high-level APA style is the avoidance of language that is biased against
particular groups. This is not only to avoid offending people—why would you want to offend people who
are interested in your work?—but also for the sake of scientific objectivity and accuracy. For example,
the term sexual orientation should be used instead of sexual preference because people do not generally
experience their orientation as a “preference,” nor is it as easily changeable as this term suggests (APA
Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on Guidelines for Psychotherapy With
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, 2000)4.

The general principles for avoiding biased language are fairly simple. First, be sensitive to labels by avoiding
terms that are offensive or have negative connotations. This includes avoiding terms that identify people
with a disorder or other problem they happen to have. Instead, refer to the individual, what the APA
Publication Manual refers to as putting the “person first.” For example, people diagnosed with
schizophrenia is better than schizophrenics. Second, use more specific terms rather than more general ones.
For example, Chinese Americans is better than Asian Americans if everyone in the group is, in fact, Chinese
American. Third, avoid objectifying research participants. Instead, acknowledge their active contribution
to the research. For example, “The students completed the questionnaire” is better than “The subjects were
administered the questionnaire.” Note that this principle also makes for clearer, more engaging
writing. Table 11.1 shows several more examples that follow these general principles.

American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 265

Table 11.1 Examples of Avoiding Biased Language

Instead of… Use…

man, men men and women, people

firemen firefighters

homosexuals, gays, bisexuals lesbians, gay men, bisexual men, bisexual women

minority specific group label (e.g., African American)

neurotics people scoring high in neuroticism

special children children with learning disabilities

The previous edition of the Publication Manual strongly discouraged the use of the term subjects (except
for nonhumans) and strongly encouraged the use of participants instead. The current edition, however,
acknowledges that subjects can still be appropriate in referring to human participants in areas in which it
has traditionally been used (e.g., basic memory research). But it also encourages the use of more specific
terms when possible: university students, children, respondents, and so on.

The third level of APA style can be referred to as low-level style (which is covered in Chapter 4 “The
Mechanics of Style” through Chapter 7 “Reference Examples” of the Publication Manual). Low-level style
includes all the specific guidelines pertaining to spelling, grammar, references and reference citations,
numbers and statistics, figures and tables, and so on. There are so many low-level guidelines that even
experienced professionals need to consult the Publication Manual from time to time. Table 11.2 contains
some of the most common types of APA style errors based on an analysis of manuscripts submitted to one
professional journal over a 6-year period (Onwuegbuzie, Combs, Slate, & Frels, 2010)5. These errors were
committed by professional researchers but are probably similar to those that students commit the most too.
See also Note 11.8 “Online APA Style Resources” in this section and, of course, the Publication Manual itself.

266 | American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Table 11.2 Top 10 APA Style Errors

Error type Example

1. Use of numbers Failing to use numerals for 10 and above

2. Hyphenation Failing to hyphenate compound adjectives that precede a noun (e.g., “role playing technique”
should be “role-playing technique”)

3. Use of et al. Failing to use it after a reference is cited for the first time

4. Headings Not capitalizing headings correctly

5. Use of since Using since to mean because

6. Tables and
figures Not formatting them in APA style; repeating information that is already given in the text

7. Use of commas Failing to use a comma before and or or in a series of three or more elements

8. Use of
abbreviations Failing to spell out a term completely before introducing an abbreviation for it

9. Spacing Not consistently double-spacing between lines

10. Use of “&” in
references Using & in the text or and in parentheses

Online APA Style Resources

The best source of information on APA style is the Publication Manual itself. However, there are also many good
websites on APA style, which do an excellent job of presenting the basics for beginning researchers. Here are a
few of them.

APA Style

http://www.apastyle.org

Purdue Online Writing Lab

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01

Douglas Degelman’s APA Style Essentials

http://www.vanguard.edu/psychology/faculty/douglas-degelman/apa-style/

Doc Scribe’s APA Style Lite

http://people.cs.ksu.edu/~huichen/APA%20Lite%20Writing%20Guidelines

APA-Style References and Citations

Because science is a large-scale collaboration among researchers, references to the work of other

American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 267

http://www.apastyle.org/

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01

http://www.vanguard.edu/psychology/faculty/douglas-degelman/apa-style/

http://people.cs.ksu.edu/~huichen/APA%20Lite%20Writing%20Guidelines

researchers are extremely important. Their importance is reflected in the extensive and detailed set of rules
for formatting and using them.

References

At the end of an APA-style article or book chapter is a list that contains references to all the works cited in
the text (and only the works cited in the text). The reference list begins on its own page, with the heading
“References,” centered in upper and lower case. The references themselves are then listed alphabetically
according to the last names of the first named author for each citation. (As in the rest of an APA-style
manuscript, everything is double-spaced.) Many different kinds of works might be cited in APA-style articles
and book chapters, including magazine articles, websites, government documents, and even television
shows. Of course, you should consult the Publication Manual or Online APA Style Resources for details on
how to format them. Here we will focus on formatting references for the three most common kinds of works
cited in APA style: journal articles, books, and book chapters.

Journal Articles

For journal articles, the generic format for a reference is as follows:

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume(issue), pp–pp.
doi:xx.xxxxxxxxxx

Here is a concrete example:

Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique
response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58(1), 15–23. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.15

There are several things to notice here. The reference includes a hanging indent. That is, the first line of the
reference is not indented but all subsequent lines are. The authors’ names appear in the same order as on
the article, which reflects the authors’ relative contributions to the research. Only the authors’ last names
and initials appear, and the names are separated by commas with an ampersand (&) between the last two.
This is true even when there are only two authors. Only the first word of the article title is capitalized. The
only exceptions are for words that are proper nouns or adjectives (e.g., “Freudian”) or if there is a subtitle,
in which case the first word of the subtitle is also capitalized. In the journal title, however, all the important

268 | American Psychological Association (APA) Style

words are capitalized. The journal title and volume number are italicized; however, the issue number (listed
within parentheses) is not. At the very end of the reference is the digital object identifier (DOI), which
provides a permanent link to the location of the article on the Internet. Include this if it is available. It
can generally be found in the record for the item on an electronic database (e.g., PsycINFO) and is usually
displayed on the first page of the published article.

Books

For a book, the generic format and a concrete example are as follows:

Author, A. A. (year). Title of book. Location: Publisher.

Kashdan, T., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2014). The upside of your dark side. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.

Book Chapters

For a chapter in an edited book, the generic format and a concrete example are as follows:

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Title of chapter. In A. A. Editor, B. B. Editor, & C. C. Editor
(Eds.), Title of book (pp. xxx–xxx). Location: Publisher.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Lynn, S. J. (2003). Dissociative identity disorder: Multiple personalities, multiple
controversies. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical
psychology (pp. 109–142). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Notice that references for books and book chapters are similar to those for journal articles, but there are
several differences too. For an edited book, the names of the editors appear with their first and middle
initials followed by their last names (not the other way around)—with the abbreviation “Eds.” (or “Ed.,” if
there is only one) appearing in parentheses immediately after the final editor’s name. Only the first word of
a book title is capitalized (with the exceptions noted for article titles), and the entire title is italicized. For a
chapter in an edited book, the page numbers of the chapter appear in parentheses after the book title with
the abbreviation “pp.” Finally, both formats end with the location of publication and the publisher, separated
by a colon.

American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 269

Reference Citations

When you refer to another researcher’s idea, you must include a reference citation (in the text) to the
work in which that idea originally appeared and a full reference to that work in the reference list. What
counts as an idea that must be cited? In general, this includes phenomena discovered by other researchers,
theories they have developed, hypotheses they have derived, and specific methods they have used (e.g.,
specific questionnaires or stimulus materials). Citations should also appear for factual information that is
not common knowledge so that other researchers can check that information for themselves. For example,
in an article on the effect of cell phone usage on driving ability, the writer might cite official statistics on the
number of cell phone–related accidents that occur each year. Among the ideas that do not need citations are
widely shared methodological and statistical concepts (e.g., between-subjects design, t test) and statements
that are so broad that they would be difficult for anyone to argue with (e.g., “Working memory plays a
role in many daily activities.”). Be careful, though, because “common knowledge” about human behavior is
often incorrect. Therefore, when in doubt, find an appropriate reference to cite or remove the questionable
assertion.

When you cite a work in the text of your manuscript, there are two ways to do it. Both include only the
last names of the authors and the year of publication. The first method is to use the authors’ last names in
the sentence (with no first names or initials) followed immediately by the year of publication in parentheses.
Here are some examples:

Burger (2008) conducted a replication of Milgram’s (1963) original obedience study.

Although many people believe that women are more talkative than men, Mehl, Vazire, Ramirez-Esparza,
Slatcher, and Pennebaker (2007) found essentially no difference in the number of words spoken by male and
female college students.

Notice several things. First, the authors’ names are treated grammatically as names of people, not as things.
It is better to write “a replication of Milgram’s (1963) study” than “a replication of Milgram (1963).” Second,
when there are two authors the names are not separated by commas, but when there are three or more
authors they are. Third, the word and (rather than an ampersand) is used to join the authors’ names. Fourth,
the year follows immediately after the final author’s name. An additional point, which is not illustrated in
these examples but is illustrated in the sample paper in Section 11.2 “Writing a Research Report in American
Psychological Association (APA) Style”, is that the year only needs to be included the first time a particular
work is cited in the same paragraph.

The second way to cite an article or a book chapter is parenthetically—including the authors’ last names and
the year of publication in parentheses following the idea that is being credited. Here are some examples:

People can be surprisingly obedient to authority figures (Burger, 2008; Milgram, 1963).

Recent evidence suggests that men and women are similarly talkative (Mehl, Vazire, Ramirez-Esparza,
Slatcher, & Pennebaker, 2007).

One thing to notice about such parenthetical citations is that they are often placed at the end of the

270 | American Psychological Association (APA) Style

sentence, which minimizes their disruption to the flow of that sentence. In contrast to the first way of
citing a work, this way always includes the year—even when the citation is given multiple times in the
same paragraph. Notice also that when there are multiple citations in the same set of parentheses, they are
organized alphabetically by the name of the first author and separated by semicolons.

There are no strict rules for deciding which of the two citation styles to use. Most articles and book
chapters contain a mixture of the two. In general, however, the first approach works well when you want
to emphasize the person who conducted the research—for example, if you were comparing the theories
of two prominent researchers. It also works well when you are describing a particular study in detail. The
second approach works well when you are discussing a general idea and especially when you want to include
multiple citations for the same idea.

The third most common error in Table 11.2 has to do with the use of et al. This is an abbreviation for the Latin
term et alia, which means “and others.” In APA style, if an article or a book chapter has more than two authors
but fewer than six, you should include all their names when you first cite that work. After that, however, you
should use the first author’s name followed by “et al.” If the article has only two authors then both should
be included in every citation. If an article has six or more authors then you should only list the name of the
first author followed by et al. each and every time you cite that work (even the first time). Here are some
examples:

Recall that Mehl et al. (2007) found that women and men spoke about the same number of words per day on
average.

There is a strong positive correlation between the number of daily hassles and the number of symptoms
people experience (Kanner et al., 1981).

Notice that there is no comma between the first author’s name and “et al.” Notice also that there is no period
after “et” but there is one after “al.” This is because “et” is a complete word and “al.” is an abbreviation for the
word alia.

Notes

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

2. Bentley, M., Peerenboom, C. A., Hodge, F. W., Passano, E. B., Warren, H. C., & Washburn, M. F. (1929). Instructions in
regard to preparation of manuscript. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 57–63.

3. Madigan, R., Johnson, S., & Linton, P. (1995). The language of psychology: APA style as epistemology. American
Psychologist, 50, 428–436.

4. American Psychological Association, Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on
Guidelines for Psychotherapy With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. (2000). Guidelines for psychotherapy with
lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines

5. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Combs, J. P., Slate, J. R., & Frels, R. K. (2010). Editorial: Evidence-based guidelines for avoiding the
most common APA errors in journal article submissions. Research in the Schools, 16, ix–xxxvi.

American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 271

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines

49. Writing a Research Report in American
Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

1. Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
2. Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report, an article that presents the
results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide
a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains,
how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section
is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title Page and Abstract

An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centered in the upper half of the page,
with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer)
communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed
by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated
by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American
Psychological Association.

• Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
• Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
• Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical

Trial
• Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and

Behavior?

272 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological
Association (APA) Style

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or
other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen,
the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors
have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly
determined order.

It’s Soooo Cute! How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps
best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates
to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science.

• “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
• “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
• “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
• “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
• “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can

(and Should) Be Distinguished”
• “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while
others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists
the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that
funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For
student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally
not necessary.

The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the
word Abstract. The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the
method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to
about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 273

title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes
three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening
introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant
previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to
answer it.

The Opening

The opening, which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains
why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with
general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical
jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research;
Bem, 20031). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to
begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the
20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For
example, the person who knows that they enjoy smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience
discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This
feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who
suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and
explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important
theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and
why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help
them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can
seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially
pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humorous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her

274 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting
at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room.
The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The
absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the
quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s
mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I
tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a
highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example
of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review, which describes relevant previous research on
the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature
review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research
question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the
research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research
process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might
begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then
describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test
one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon
that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally
present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory,
then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally
suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start
with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make
them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is
important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the
literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will
describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve
the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to
open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the
preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have
difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as
“Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this
particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 275

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting
and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your
literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of
course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that
have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of
course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings
that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of
the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the
best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence.
Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important
elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question and hypothesis. This statement tends
to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions
of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness.
Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968)2 concluded the introduction to their classic article on
the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely,
or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would
be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject
should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their
behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of
the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below
attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

Method

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for
writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could

276 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements
of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether
they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how
counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as
the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the
questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not
“Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and
in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women
and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they
were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method. [Image description]

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In
the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the
rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately
in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 277

procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated
and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What
were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was
it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure
is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the
participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed
consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test
trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials
subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated
materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read
and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its
content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on. The materials subsection is
also a good place to refer to the reliability and/or validity of the measures. This is where you would present
test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across
time and across items and that they accurately measure what they are intended to measure.

Results

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical
analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or
scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request
them. Many journals encourage the open sharing of raw data online, and some now require open data and
materials before publication.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically
organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses
were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so
that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple
responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants
rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the
mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study
list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or
perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the
manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should
be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed
to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer

278 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003)3 suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new
result:

• Remind the reader of the research question.
• Give the answer to the research question in words.
• Present the relevant statistics.
• Qualify the answer if necessary.
• Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research
question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips
over the numbers.

Discussion

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some
combination of the following elements:

• Summary of the research
• Theoretical implications
• Practical implications
• Limitations
• Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research
question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer
report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by
a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing
theories? If not, how can they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or
detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied
research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the
research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations.
Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very
effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully
understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to
discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have
limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have
produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no
reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 279

influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with
them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer
the original research question, what will it take to do so? What new research questions has the study raised?
This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of
the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some
alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking
conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968)4, for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing
the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities.
Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to
intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off.
It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is
often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and
clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

References

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page.
All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically
by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by
the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the
year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental
material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major
sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed
descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are
included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is
“Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,”
“Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results.
Figures can also be used to display graphs, illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli,
outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own
page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and

280 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with
the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption,
where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details
on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report
originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main
purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical
research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 281

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract. This student paper does not include the author note on
the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

282 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method. Note that the introduction is headed with the full title,
and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 283

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion The discussion begins immediately after the results
section ends.

284 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Figure 11.5 References and Figure. If there were appendices or tables, they would come
before the figure.

Image Description

Figure 11.1 image description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style | 285

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants
were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design”
(“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer
screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials”
(“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed
each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

Notes

1. Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The
complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

2. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 377–383.

3. Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The
complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

4. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 377–383.

286 | Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

50. Other Presentation Formats

Learning Objectives

1. List several ways that researchers in psychology can present their research and the situations in which
they might use them.

2. Describe how final manuscripts differ from copy manuscripts in American Psychological Association
(APA) style.

3. Describe the purpose of talks and posters at professional conferences.
4. Prepare a short conference-style talk and simple poster presentation.

Writing an empirical research report in American Psychological Association (APA) style is only one way to
present new research in psychology. In this section, we look at several other important ways.

Other Types of Manuscripts

The previous section focused on writing empirical research reports to be submitted for publication in a
professional journal. However, there are other kinds of manuscripts that are written in APA style, many of
which will not be submitted for publication elsewhere. Here we look at a few of them.

Review and Theoretical Articles

Recall that review articles summarize research on a particular topic without presenting new empirical
results. When these articles present a new theory, they are often called theoretical articles. Review and
theoretical articles are structured much like empirical research reports, with a title page, an abstract,
references, appendixes, tables, and figures, and they are written in the same high-level and low-level style.
Because they do not report the results of new empirical research, however, there is no method or results
section. Of course, the body of the manuscript should still have a logical organization and include an opening
that identifies the topic and explains its importance, a literature review that organizes previous research
(identifying important relationships among concepts or gaps in the literature), and a closing or conclusion
that summarizes the main conclusions and suggests directions for further research or discusses theoretical
and practical implications. In a theoretical article, of course, much of the body of the manuscript is devoted
to presenting the new theory. Theoretical and review articles are usually divided into sections, each with

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00