 explain the scientific approach and the role of quantitative research in psychology

 identify the different kinds of data, effects and research questions that psychologists
examine in research
 explain how psychologists measure variables in research studies and the purpose
that this serves.

1.2 The Scientific Method

LO2Identify and describe the steps of the scientific method.

LO3Define induction and deduction and explain the role of each in the scientific method.

LO4Distinguish between a hypothesis and a prediction.

LO5Explain what it means to say that the scientific method is empirical, public and objective.

LO6Distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

The scientific method is an approach to acquiring knowledge that involves formulating

specific questions and then systematically finding answers. The scientific method contains
many elements of the methods previously discussed. By combining several different
methods of acquiring knowledge, we hope to avoid the pitfalls of any individual method
when used by itself. The scientific method is a carefully developed system for asking and
answering questions so that the answers we discover are as trustworthy as possible. In the
following section, we describe the series of steps that define the scientific method. To help
illustrate the steps of the scientific method, we will use a research study investigating the
common response of swearing in response to a painful stimulus (Stephens, Atkins &
Kingston, 2009).

The steps of the scientific method

Step 1: Observe behaviour or other phenomena

The scientific method often begins with observation (i.e., using the empirical method). Often
these are casual or informal observations. For example, the authors of the swearing study
observed (themselves or others) swearing in response to pain. Based on their observations,
they began to wonder whether swearing has any effect on the experience of pain. It is also
possible that your attention is caught by someone else’s observations. For example, you
might read a report of someone’s research findings (the method of authority), or you might
hear others talking about things they have seen or noticed. These observations suggest
questions that warrant investigation.

At this stage in the process, people tend to generalize beyond the actual observations. The
process of generalization is known as induction, or inductive reasoning. In simple terms,
inductive reasoning involves reaching a general conclusion based on specific examples. For
example, suppose that you taste a green apple and discover that it is sour. A second green
apple is also sour and so is the third. Soon, you reach the general conclusion that all green
apples are sour. Notice that inductive reasoning reaches far beyond the actual observations.
In this example, you tasted only three apples, and yet you reached a conclusion about the
millions of other green apples that exist in the world. The researchers in the swearing study
probably witnessed only a small number of people swearing but quickly generalized their
observations into the proposal that swearing is a common, almost universal, response to
pain.

DEFINITION

Induction, or inductive reasoning, involves using a relatively small set of specific

observations as the basis for forming a general statement about a larger set of possible
observations.

Step 2: Form a tentative answer or explanation (a hypothesis)

This step in the process usually begins by identifying other factors, or variables, that are
associated with your observation. For example, what other variables are associated with
pain and swearing? The authors of the study began by reviewing other research examining
the act of swearing and the experience of pain. (The process of conducting background
research is presented in Chapter 2.)

DEFINITION

Variables are characteristics or conditions that change or have different values for different
individuals. For example, the weather, the economy and your state of health can change
from day to day. Also, two people can be different in terms of personality, intelligence, age,
gender, self-esteem, height, weight and so on.

The observed relationship between pain and swearing might be related to a variety of other
variables. For example, pain can be sharp and temporary like a pinprick or long lasting like
holding your hand in ice-cold water, and it can come from different sources (self-inflicted or
from outside). Similarly, swearing can depend on the social environment (alone or in a
crowded shopping mall) and probably is related to gender and personality. It also is possible
that there is nothing unique about using obscenities; it may be that the simple act of yelling
(anything) is enough to reduce the experience of pain. Any of these variables could influence
the relationship between pain and swearing and could be part of an explanation for the
relationship. Consider the following possibilities:

1. Swearing in response to pain is more common when the pain is self-inflicted than
when it comes from an external source.
2. Swearing in response to pain is more acceptable and, therefore, more common when
you are alone than when you are in a social environment.
3. Swearing in response to pain is directly related to the intensity of the pain.

Next, you must select one of the explanations to be evaluated in a scientific research study.
Choose the explanation that you consider to be most plausible, or simply pick the one that
you find most interesting. Remember, the other explanations are not discarded. If necessary,
they can be evaluated in later studies. The researchers in the actual study, however, were
simply interested in the effect of swearing on the experience of pain and posed the general
explanation:

Swearing is a common response to pain because the act of swearing alters the experience
and decreases the perceived intensity of pain.

At this point, you have a hypothesis, or a possible explanation, for your observation. Note
that your hypothesis is not considered to be a final answer. Instead, the hypothesis is a
proposal that is intended to be tested and critically evaluated.

DEFINITION

In the context of science, a hypothesis is a statement that describes or explains a

relationship between or among variables. A hypothesis is not a final answer but rather a
proposal to be tested and evaluated. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that there
is a relationship between personality characteristics and cigarette smoking. Or another
researcher might hypothesize that a dark and dreary environment causes winter depression‫۔‬

Step 3: Use your hypothesis to generate a testable prediction

Usually, this step involves taking the hypothesis and applying it to a specific, observable,
situation. Often, the researcher creates this situation in order that this specific application of
the hypothesis (a ‘prediction’) can be examined. For a hypothesis stating that swearing
reduces the experience of pain, one specific prediction is that participants should be less
responsive to occasional painful stimuli (pinpricks or mild shocks) when they are swearing
than when they are not swearing. An alternative prediction is that participants should have
an increased tolerance for pain when they are swearing than when they are not swearing.

Notice that a single hypothesis can lead to several different predictions and that each
prediction refers to a specific situation or an event that can be observed and measured.
Figure 1.2 shows our original hypothesis and the two predictions that we derived from it.
Notice that we are using logic (rational method) to make the prediction. This time, the
logical process is known as deduction or deductive reasoning. We begin with a general
(universal) statement and then make specific deductions. In particular, we use our
hypothesis as a universal premise statement and then determine the conclusions or
predictions that must logically follow if the hypothesis is true.

Note that induction involves an increase from a few to many, and deduction involves a
decrease from many to a specific few: induction = increase deduction = decrease

DEFINITION

Deduction, or deductive reasoning, uses a general statement as the basis for reaching a
conclusion about specific examples.
Induction and deduction are complementary processes. Induction uses specific examples to
generate general conclusions or hypotheses, and deduction uses general statements to
generate specific predictions. This relationship is depicted in Figure 1.3.

Also notice that the predictions generated from a hypothesis must be testable – that is, it
must be possible to demonstrate that the prediction is either correct or incorrect by direct
observation. Either the observations will provide support for the hypothesis or they will
refute the hypothesis. For a prediction to be truly testable, both outcomes must be possible.

Step 4: Evaluate the prediction by making systematic, planned observations

After a specific, testable prediction has been made (the rational method), the next step is to
evaluate the prediction using direct observation (the empirical method). This is the actual
research or data collection phase of the scientific method. The goal is to provide a fair and
unbiased test of the research hypothesis by observing whether the prediction is correct. The
researcher must be careful to observe and record exactly what happens, free of any
subjective interpretation or personal expectations. In the swearing study, for example, the
researchers created a painful experience by having participants plunge one hand into ice-
cold water and then measured pain tolerance by measuring how long each participant was
able to withstand the pain. In one condition, participants repeated a swear word during the
experience and in a second condition they repeated a neutral word. The researchers
compared the amount of time that the pain was tolerated in the two conditions. Notice that
the research study is an empirical test of the research hypothesis.

Step 5: Use the observations to support, refute or refine the original hypothesis

The final step of the scientific method is to compare the actual observations with the
predictions that were made from the hypothesis. To what extent do the observations agree,
or disagree, with the predictions? Some agreement indicates support for the original
hypothesis and suggests that you consider making new predictions and testing them. Lack of
agreement indicates that the original hypothesis was wrong or that the hypothesis was used
incorrectly, producing faulty predictions. In this case, you might want to revise the
hypothesis or reconsider how it was used to generate predictions. In either case, notice that
you have circled back to Step 2; that is, you are forming a new hypothesis and preparing to
make new predictions. In the swearing study, for example, the researchers found greater
pain tolerance (longer times) in the swearing condition than in the neutral-word condition,
which supports the original hypothesis that swearing reduces the perceived intensity of
pain. However, not all of the participants showed the same level of pain reduction. Some
individuals were able to tolerate the ice-cold water for twice as long while swearing than
while repeating a neutral word. For others, swearing resulted in little or no increase in pain
tolerance. This result indicates that swearing is not the entire answer and other questions
must be asked. For example, it is possible that people who swear routinely in their everyday
lives do not get the same relief as people for whom swearing is a novel and emotionally
stimulating act. Finally, we should note that if the results showed no difference in pain
tolerance between the two conditions, then we would have to conclude that swearing does
not affect the experience of pain. In this case, other factors must be considered, and other
hypotheses must be tested.

Notice that the scientific method repeats the same series of steps over and over again.
Observations lead to a hypothesis and a prediction, which lead to more observations, which
lead to another hypothesis, and so on. Thus, the scientific method is not a linear process
that moves directly from a beginning to an end but rather is a circular process, or a spiral,
that repeats over and over, moving higher with each cycle as new knowledge is gained
(Figure 1.4).

DEFINITION

The scientific method is a method of acquiring knowledge that develops a hypothesis

(usually using prior observations to do so), and then uses the hypothesis to make logical
predictions that can be empirically tested by making additional, systematic observations.
Typically, the new observations lead to a new hypothesis, and the cycle continues.

Other elements of the scientific method

In addition to the basic process that makes up the scientific method, a set of overriding
principles governs scientific investigation. Three important principles of the scientific
method are as follows: it is empirical, it is public and it is objective.

Science is empirical

As you know, when we say that science is empirical, we mean that answers are obtained by
making observations. Although preliminary answers or hypotheses may be obtained by
other means, science requires empirical verification. An answer may be ‘obvious’ by
common sense, it might be perfectly logical, and experts in the field might support it, but it
is not scientifically accepted until it has been empirically demonstrated.
However, unlike the method of empiricism we previously examined, the scientific method
involves structured or systematic observation. The structure of the observations is
determined by the procedures and techniques that are used in the research study. More
specifically, the purpose of the observations is to provide an empirical test of a hypothesis.
Therefore, the observations are structured so that the results either will provide clear
support for the hypothesis or will clearly refute the hypothesis. Consider the following
question: do large doses of vitamin C prevent the common cold?

To answer this question, it would not be sufficient simply to ask people if they take vitamin C
routinely and how many colds they get in a typical season. These observations are not
structured, and no matter what responses are obtained, the results will not necessarily
provide an accurate answer to the question. In particular, we have made no attempt to
determine the dosage levels of vitamin C that individuals have taken. No attempt was made
to verify that the illnesses reported were, in fact, the common cold and not some type of
influenza, pneumonia or other illness. No attempt was made to take into account the age,
general health or lifestyle of the people questioned (maybe people who take vitamin C tend
to lead generally healthy lives). We have made no attempt to reduce the possible biasing
effect of people’s beliefs about vitamins and colds on the answers they gave us. We have
made no attempt to compare people who are receiving a specified daily dose of the vitamin
with those who are not taking vitamin C or are getting a phony pill (a placebo). We could
elaborate further, but you get the general idea.

In the scientific method, the observations are systematic in that they are performed under a
specified set of conditions so that we can accurately answer the question we are addressing.
That is, the observations – and indeed the entire study – are structured to test a hypothesis
about the way the world works. If you want to know if vitamin C can prevent colds, there is a
way to structure your observations to get the answer. Much of this book deals with this
aspect of research and how to structure studies to rule out competing and alternative
explanations.

Science is public

The scientific method is public. By this we mean that the scientific method makes
observations available for evaluation by others, especially other scientists. In particular,
other individuals should be able to repeat the same step-by-step process that led to the
observations so that they can replicate the observations for themselves. Replication, or
repetition of observation, allows verification of the findings (i.e., determining whether
similar results are found in new studies). Note that only public observations can be
repeated, and thus only public observations are verifiable.

The scientific community makes observations public by publishing reports in scientific

journals or presenting their results at conferences and meetings. This activity is important
because events that are private cannot be replicated or evaluated by others. Research
reports that appear in most journals have been evaluated by the researcher’s peers (other
scientists in the same field) for the rigour and appropriateness of methodology and the
absence of flaws in the study. The report must meet a variety of standards for it to be
published. When you read a journal article, one thing you will note is the level of detail used
in describing the methodology of the study. Typically, the report has a separate ‘method
section’ that describes in great detail the people or animals that were studied (the
participants or subjects of the study, respectively), the instruments and apparatus used to
conduct the study, the procedures used in applying treatments and making measurements,
and so on. Enough detail should be provided so that anyone can replicate the same study
exactly in order to verify (i.e., check) the findings for themselves. The notions of replication
and verification are important. They provide the checks and balances for research.

As we shall see, there is a multitude of ways – by error or chance – in which a study can
result in an erroneous conclusion. Researchers can also commit fraud and deliberately falsify
or misrepresent the outcome of research studies. As scientists, it is important that we
scrutinize and evaluate research reports carefully and maintain some scepticism about the
results until more studies confirm the findings. By replicating studies and subjecting them to
peer review, we have checks and balances against errors and fraud.

Open Science

Promoting Replication and Verification

While the Method section of a research report should provide researchers with the
information necessary to conduct an exact replication of a study, this goal is sometimes
difficult to attain. For example, some features of the study may be difficult to describe, or
word limits may force the researcher to omit ‘minor’ details. To get around such difficulties,
it has become increasingly common for researchers to post their study materials (e.g.,
stimuli) and task instructions online for any researcher to access. In some cases, the code for
running a computer-controlled research task may also made available. Such practices make
it much easier to replicate research.

Another way to make science public is to make the data from a study available for others to
analyze; this is now commonly done by posting the datafile online. This allows anyone to
verify the findings reported in a piece of research: by checking that mistakes were not made
in the analyses that were reported in an article, or checking whether changing the way data
are analyzed makes a difference to the conclusions that are drawn. Note that this form of
verification is not the same as verifying findings in a new study: both forms of verification
(checking existing analyses and running new studies) are valuable for ensuring that science is
public.

Science is objective

The scientific method aims to be objective. That is, the observations are structured so that
the researcher’s biases and beliefs do not influence the outcome of the study. Science has
been understood by many to be ‘a dispassionate search for knowledge’, meaning that the
researcher does not let personal feelings contaminate the observations. What kind of biases
and beliefs are likely to be involved? Often, bias comes from belief in a particular theory. A
researcher might try to find evidence to support a specific theory and may have expectations
about the outcome of the study. In some cases, expectations can subtly influence the
findings.

One way to reduce the likelihood of the influence of experimenter expectation is to keep the
people who are making the observations uninformed about the details of the study. In this
case, we sometimes say the researcher is blind to the details of the study. We discuss this
type of procedure in detail later (see Chapter 3, Experimenter Bias).

Peer review is a process that occurs before an article is published in a journal. Researchers,
who are experts in the research topic but were not involved in the research, read and
comment on the article’s methods and conclusions. These reviewers make suggestions and
recommendations about the work (e.g., whether it meets the standards required for
publication).

Science versus pseudoscience

By now it should be clear that science is intended to provide a carefully developed system
for answering questions so that the answers we get are as accurate and complete as
possible. Note that scientific research is based on gathering evidence from careful,
systematic and objective observations. This is one of the primary features that differentiates
science from other, less rigorous disciplines known as pseudosciences. Pseudoscience is a
system of ideas often presented as science but actually lacking some of the key components
that are essential to scientific research. Although there is no universally accepted definition
of pseudoscience, there is a common set of features that differentiates science and
pseudoscience (Herbert et al., 2000; Lilienfeld, Lynn & Lohr, 2004). The following list
presents some of the more important differences.

1. [Link] primary distinction between science and pseudoscience is based on the notion
of testable and refutable hypotheses. Specifically, a theory is scientific only if it can
specify how it could be refuted. That is, the theory must be able to describe exactly
what observable findings would demonstrate that it is wrong. If a research study
produces results that do not support a theory, the theory is either abandoned or,
more commonly, modified to accommodate the new results. In either case, however,
the negative results are acknowledged and accepted. In pseudoscience, on the other
hand, the typical response to negative results is to discount them entirely or to
explain them away without altering the original theory. For example, if research
demonstrates that a particular therapy is not effective, the proponents of the
therapy often claim that the failure was caused by a lack of conviction or skill on the
part of the therapist – the therapy is fine; it was simply the application that was
flawed.
 2. [Link] demands an objective and unbiased evaluation of all the available
evidence. Unless a treatment shows consistent success that cannot be explained by
other outside factors, the treatment is not considered to be effective. Pseudoscience,
on the other hand, tends to rely on subjective evidence such as testimonials and
anecdotal reports of success. Pseudoscience also tends to focus on a few selected
examples of success and to ignore instances of failure. In clinical practice, nearly any
treatment shows occasional success, but handpicking reports that demonstrate
success does not provide convincing evidence for an effective treatment.
3. [Link] actively tests and challenges its own theories and adapts the theories
when new evidence appears. As a result, scientific theories are constantly evolving.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, tends to ignore non-supporting evidence and
treats criticism as a personal attack. As a result, pseudoscientific theories tend to be
stagnant and remain unchanged year after year.
4. [Link], scientific theories are grounded in past science. A scientific system for
teaching communication skills to autistic children is based on established theories of
learning and uses principles that have solid empirical support. Pseudoscience tends
to create entirely new disciplines and techniques that are unconnected to
established theories and empirical evidence. Proponents of such theories often
develop their own vaguely scientific jargon or describe links to science that suggest
scientific legitimacy without any real substance. Aromatherapy, for example, is
sometimes explained by noting that smells activate olfactory nerves, which stimulate
the limbic system, which releases endorphins and neurotransmitters. Thus, smells
affect your mind and emotions. Note that a similar argument could be used to justify
a claim that clinical benefits are produced by looking at coloured lights or listening to
a bouncing tennis ball.

LEARNING CHECK

[Link] of the following is the best description of the scientific method?

a.A circular process that leads to a final answer

b.A linear process that moves directly to a final answer

c.A circular process that leads to a tentative answer

d.A linear process that leads to a tentative answer

[Link] kind of reasoning uses some specific observations to produce a general hypothesis?

[Link] reasoning

[Link] reasoning

[Link] reasoning

[Link] reasoning

3.A hypothesis is a ___________ statement and a prediction is a ___________ statement.

[Link]; general

[Link]; specific

[Link]; specific

[Link]; general

[Link] is meant by saying that ‘science aims to be objective’?

[Link] seeks answers that are based on direct observation.

[Link] answers are based on logical reasoning.

[Link] seeks to obtain answers without influence from the researcher’s biases or beliefs.

[Link] answers are made available for evaluation by others.

[Link] of the following is a distinction between science and pseudoscience?

[Link] tends to dismiss or refuse to accept negative results.

[Link] tends to rely on testimonials and selected results.

[Link] tends to treat criticism as a personal attack.

[Link] of the other options are differences between science and pseudoscience.