Psychological Statistics w/ Computer Application

Module 1:
Introduction to Psychological Research

Lesson 1: Areas in Psychological Research

Importance and relevance of psychological research is well recognised almost in every sphere of
human life. Notable progress has been reported in many fields. Psychological research attempts to understand
why people and animals behave as they do. Although thoughts and feelings are not directly observable, they
influence many aspects in life. In the following sections, we will briefly discuss some of the more popular
research areas in the discipline of psychology.

Psychobiology

According to the Jackson (2015), one of the most popular research areas in psychology today is
psychobiology. As the name implies, this research area combines biology and psychology. Researchers in this
area typically study brain organization or the chemicals within the brain (neurotransmitters). Using the
appropriate research methods, psycho-biologists have discovered links between illnesses such as
schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease and various neurotransmitters in the brain—leading, in turn, to
research on possible drug therapies for these illnesses.

Cognition

Researchers who study cognition are interested in how humans process, store, and retrieve
information; solve problems; use reasoning and logic; make decisions; and use language. Understanding and
employing the appropriate research methods have enabled scientists in these areas to develop models of how
memory works, ways to improve memory, methods to improve problem solving and intelligence, and theories
of language acquisition. Whereas psychobiology researchers study the brain, cognitive scientists study the
mind.

Human Development

Psychologists in this area conduct research on the physical, social, and cognitive development of
humans. This might involve research from the prenatal development period throughout the life span to
research on the elderly (gerontology). Research on human development has led, for example, to better
understanding of prenatal development and hence better prenatal care, knowledge of cognitive development
and cognitive limitations in children, and greater awareness of the effects of peer pressure on adolescents.

Social Psychology

Social psychologists are interested in how we view and affect one another. Research in this area
combines the disciplines of psychology and sociology, in that social psychologists are typically interested in
how being part of a group affects the individual. Some of the best-known studies in psychology represent work
by social psychologists. For example, Milgram’s (1963, 1974) classic experiments on obedience to authority
and Zimbardo’s (1972) classic prison simulation are social psychology studies.

Psychotherapy

Psychologists also conduct research that attempts to evaluate psychotherapies. Research on

psychotherapies is designed to assess whether a therapy is effective in helping individuals. Might patients
have improved without the therapy, or did they improve simply because they thought the therapy was
supposed to help? Given the widespread use of various therapies, it is important to have an estimate of their
effectiveness.
Lesson 2: Sources of Knowledge
There are many ways to gain knowledge, and some are better than others. As scientists, psychologists
must be aware of each of these methods. Let’s look at several ways of acquiring knowledge, beginning with
sources that may not be as reliable or accurate as scientists might desire. We will then consider sources that
offer greater reliability and will ultimately discuss using science as a means of gaining knowledge.

Superstition and Intuition

Gaining knowledge via superstition means acquiring knowledge that is based on subjective feelings,

interpreting random events as nonrandom events, or believing in magical events. For example, you may have
heard someone say, “Bad things happen in threes.” Where does this idea come from? Is there a scientific
bases for this idea? Once again, these are examples of superstitious beliefs that are not based on observation
or hypothesis testing. As such, they represent a means of gaining knowledge that is neither reliable nor valid.
When we gain knowledge via intuition, it means that we have knowledge of something without being
consciously aware of where the knowledge came from. You have probably heard people say things like “I don’t
know, it’s just a gut feeling” or “I don’t know, it just came to me, and I know it’s true.” These statements
represent examples of intuition. However, sometimes we intuit something based not on a “gut feeling” but on
events we have observed. The problem is that the events may be misinterpreted and not representative of all
events in that category.

Authority

When we accept what a respected or famous person tells us, we are gaining knowledge via authority.
You may have gained much of your own knowledge through authority figures. As you were growing up, your
parents provided you with information that, for the most part, you did not question, especially when you were
very young. You believed that they knew what they were talking about, and thus you accepted the answers
they gave you. You have probably also gained knowledge from teachers whom you viewed as authority
figures, at times blindly accepting what they said as truth. Most people tend to accept information imparted by
those they view as authority figures.

Tenacity

Gaining knowledge via tenacity involves hearing a piece of information so often that you begin to
believe it is true, and then, despite evidence to the contrary, you cling stubbornly to the belief. This method is
often used in political campaigns, where a slogan is repeated so often that we begin to believe it. Advertisers
also use the method of tenacity by repeating their slogan for a certain product over and over until people begin
to associate the slogan with the product and believe that the product meets its claims. The problem with
gaining knowledge through tenacity is that we do not know whether the claims are true. As far as we know, the
accuracy of such knowledge may not have been evaluated in any valid way.

Rationalism

Gaining knowledge via rationalism involves logical reasoning. With this approach, ideas are precisely
stated, and logical rules are applied to arrive at logically sound conclusion. Rational ideas are often presented
in the form of a syllogism. For example:

All humans are mortal;

I am a human;
Therefore, I am mortal.
This conclusion is logically derived from the major and minor premises in the syllogism. Consider, however, the
following syllogism:
Attractive people are good;
Nellie is attractive;
Therefore, Nellie is good.
 This syllogism should identify for you the problem with gaining knowledge by logic. Although the
syllogism is logically sound, the content of both premises is not necessarily true. If the content of the premises
were true, then the conclusion would be true in addition to being logically sound. However, if the content of
either of the premises is false (as is the premise “Attractive people are good”), then the conclusion is logically
valid but empirically false and therefore of no use to a scientist. Logic deals with only the form of the syllogism
and not its content. Obviously, researchers are interested in both form and content.

Empiricism

Knowledge via empiricism involves gaining knowledge through objective observation and the
experiences of your senses. An individual who says “I believe nothing until I see it with my own eyes” is an
empiricist. The empiricist gains knowledge by seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching. Empiricism
alone is not enough, however. Empiricism represents a collection of facts. If, as scientists, we relied solely on
empiricism, we would have nothing more than a long list of observations or facts. For these facts to be useful,
we need to organize them, think about them, draw meaning from them, and use them to make predictions.

Science

Gaining knowledge via science, then, involves a merger of rationalism and empiricism. Scientists
collect data (make empirical observations) and test hypotheses with these data (assess them using
rationalism). A hypothesis is a prediction regarding the outcome of a study. This prediction concerns the
potential relationship between at least two variables (a variable is an event or behavior that has at least two
values). Hypotheses are stated in such a way that they are testable. By merging rationalism and empiricism,
we have the advantage of using a logical argument based on observation. We may find that our hypothesis is
not supported, and thus we must reevaluate our position. On the other hand, our observations may support the
hypothesis being tested. In science, the goal of testing hypotheses is to arrive at or test a theory—an
organized system of assumptions and principles that attempts to explain certain phenomena and how they are
related. Theories help us to organize and explain the data gathered in research studies. In other words,
theories allow us to develop a framework regarding the facts in a certain area.

Lesson 3: The Scientific Approach and Psychology

The scientific method involves invoking an attitude of skepticism. A skeptic is a person who questions
the validity, authenticity, or truth of something purporting to be factual. In our society, being described as a
skeptic is not typically thought of as a compliment. However, for a scientist, it is a compliment. It means that
you do not blindly accept any new idea that comes along. Instead, the skeptic needs data to support an idea
and insists on proper testing procedures when the data were collected. Being a skeptic and using the scientific
method involve applying three important criteria that help define science: systematic empiricism, publicly
verifiable knowledge, and empirically solvable problems (Stanovich, as cited in the study of Jackson, 2015).

Systematic Empiricism

As you have discussed earlier, empiricism is the practice of relying on observation to draw conclusions.
Most people today probably agree that the best way to learn about something is to observe it. However,
empiricism alone is not enough, according to Jackson (2015), it must be systematic empiricism. In other words,
simply observing a series of events does not lead to scientific knowledge. The observations must be made in a
systematic manner to test a hypothesis and develop or refute a theory (in other words, empiricism, and
rationalism). By using systematic empiricism, researchers can draw more reliable and valid conclusions than
they can from observation alone.

Publicly Verifiable Knowledge

This means that the research is presented to the public in such a way that it can be observed,
replicated, criticized, and tested for veracity by others. Most commonly, this involves submitting the research to
a scientific journal for possible publication. Most journals are peer-reviewed—other scientists critique the
research to decide whether it meets the standards for publication. If a study is published, other researchers
can read about the findings, attempt to replicate them, and through this process demonstrate that the results
are reliable. You should be suspicious of any claims made without the support of public verification.

Empirically Solvable Problems

Science always investigates empirically solvable problems—questions that are potentially answerable
by means of currently available research techniques. If a theory cannot be tested using empirical techniques,
then scientists are not interested in it. For example, the question “Is there life after death?” is not an empirical
question and thus cannot be tested scientifically. However, the question “Does an intervention program
minimize rearrests in juvenile delinquents?” can be empirically studied and thus is within the realm of science.
When empirically solvable problems are studied, they are always open to the principle of falsifiability—the idea
that a scientific theory must be stated in such a way that it is possible to refute or disconfirm it. In other words,
the theory must predict not only what will happen but also what will not happen. A theory is not scientific if it is
irrefutable. This may sound counterintuitive, and you may be thinking that if a theory is irrefutable, it must be
really good.

            Pseudoscience (claims that appear to be scientific but that actually violate the criteria of science) is
usually irrefutable and is also often confused with science. For example, those who believe in extrasensory
perception (ESP, a pseudoscience) often argue with the fact that no publicly verifiable example of ESP has
ever been documented through systematic empiricism. The reason they offer is that the conditions necessary
for ESP to occur are violated under controlled laboratory conditions. This means that they have an answer for
every situation. If ESP were ever demonstrated under empirical conditions, then they would say their belief is
supported. However, when ESP repeatedly fails to be demonstrated in controlled laboratory conditions, they
say their belief is not falsified because the conditions were not “right” for ESP to be demonstrated. Thus,
because those who believe in ESP have set up a situation in which they claim falsifying data are not valid, the
theory of ESP violates the principle of falsifiability.

Lesson 4: Goals of Science

Every science has goals. The goals of psychologist conducting basic research are to describe, explain,
and predict and control behavior. Most psychologist can conduct their own basic research, scientifically
studying problem to solve them. The process of accomplishing one goal and moving on to the next is ideally a
natural, flowing, experience, energized, by the psychologist’s interest in the question being studied.

Description: What is happening?

The first step in understanding anything is to give it a name. Description involves observing a behavior
and noting everything about it, as for example, what is happening, where it happens, to whom it happens, and
under what circumstances it happens. For example, a teacher might notice that a young girl in second grade
classroom is not behaving properly. She’s not turning in her homework, her grades are slipping badly, and she
seems to have a very negative attitude toward school. The teacher here describes the student’s behavior, and
this description of what she is doing gives a starting place for the next goal: why is she doing it?

Explanation: Why is it happening?

To find out why the girl is not behaving properly, the teacher would most likely ask the school counselor
to administer some assessments. Her parents might be asked to take her to a pediatrician to make sure that
there is no physical illness, such as an allergy. They might also take here to a psychologist to be assessed. In
other words, the teacher and others are looking for an explanation for the young girl’s behavior. Explanation
allows us to identify the causes that determine when and why a behavior occurs. To explain a behavior, we
need to demonstrate that we can manipulate the factors needed to produce or eliminate the behavior. The goal
of description provides the observations, and the goal of explanation helps to build the theory.
Prediction: When it will happen again?

Determining what will happen in the future is a prediction. In the example, the psychologist or counselor
would predict (based on previous research into similar situations), that this little girl will probably continue to do
poorly in her schoolwork and may never to be able to reach her full learning potential. Clearly, something
needs to be done to change this prediction, and that is the point of the last of the four goals of psychology:
changing or modifying behavior.

Control: How can it be changed?

Control, or the modification of some behavior, has been somewhat controversial in the past. Some
people hear the word control and think it is brainwashing, but that is not the focus of this goal. The goal is to
change a behavior from an undesirable one (such as failing in school) to a desirable one (such as academic
success). Such efforts also include attempts at improving the quality of life. In the example of the young girl,
there are certain learning strategies that can be used to help a child (or an adult) who has dyslexia. She can be
helped to improve her reading skills. The psychologist and educators would work together to find a training
strategy that works best for this particular girl.

Lesson 5: Reviewing the Literature

In this module, we discussed the nature of science and how to think critically like a scientist. We will
discuss some issues related to getting started on a research project, beginning with library research and
moving on to conducting research ethically. We will discuss how to use some of the resources available
through most libraries, and we will cover the guidelines set forth by the APA (American Psychological
Association) for the ethical treatment of both humans and animals used in research. APA has very specific
ethical guidelines for the treatment of humans used in research. These guidelines are set forth in the APA’s
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002). In discussing these guidelines, we will pay
particular attention to several issues: how to obtain approval for a research project, the meaning of informed
consent, how to minimize risk to subjects, when it may be acceptable to use deception in a research study,
debriefing your subjects, and special considerations when using children as subjects.

Selecting the Problem

According to Jackson (2015), Getting started on a research project begins with selecting a problem.
Some students find selecting a problem the most daunting task of the whole research process, whereas other
students have so many ideas for research projects that they do not know where to begin. If you fall into the first
category and are not sure what topic you might want to research, you can get an idea for a research project
from a few different places. If you are one of the people who have trouble generating research ideas, it is best
to start with what others have already done. One place to start is with past research on a topic rather than just
jumping in with a completely new idea of your own.

A second place from which to generate ideas is past theories on a topic. A good place to find a cursory
review of theories on a topic is in your psychology textbooks. The students can then narrow it down to which
topic within the chapter was most interesting, and the topical coverage within the chapter will usually provide
details on several theories.

A third source of ideas for a research project is observation. We are all capable of observing behavior
and based on these observations, questions may arise. For example, you may have observed that some
students at your institution cheat on exams or papers, whereas most students would never consider doing
such a thing. Or maybe you believe, based on observation, that the type of music listened to affects a person’s
mood. Any of these observations may lead to a future research project.

Last, ideas for research projects are often generated from practical problems encountered in daily life.
Many students easily develop research ideas because they base them on practical problems that they or
someone they know have encountered.
Literature Review

After selecting a problem to work on, the next task is to conduct a literature review. This involves
searching of many related studies on your topic to ensure that you have grasp of all the research that has been
conducted in that area that might be relevant to your topic. This process is not simple, it takes time, and
requires a lot of effort and time to search for published studies.

Library Research

Usually, the best place to begin your research is at the library. Several resources available through
most libraries are invaluable when conducting a literature review.

Journals

Most published research in psychology appears in the form of journal articles. The difference is that
each paper published in these journals is first submitted to the editor of the journal, who sends the paper out
for review by other scientists (specialists) in that area. This process is called peer review, and based on the
reviews, the editor then decides whether to accept the paper for publication. Because of the limited space
available in each journal, most papers that are submitted are ultimately rejected for publication. Thus, the
research published in journals represents a fraction of the research conducted in an area, and, because of the
review process, it should be the best research in that area.

Lesson 6: Reading Journal Articles: What to expect?

Your search for information in the library will undoubtedly provide you with many journal articles.
Research articles have a very specific format that includes five main sections: Abstract, Introduction, Method,
Results, and Discussion. Following is a brief description of what to expect from each of these sections.

Abstract

The Abstract is a brief description of the entire paper that typically discusses each section of the paper
(Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). It should be between 150 and 250 words. The Abstract
describes the problem under investigation and the purpose of the study; the subjects and general
methodology; the findings, including statistical significance levels; and the conclusions and implications or
applications of the study.

Introduction

The Introduction has three basic components: an introduction to the problem under study; a review of
relevant previous research, which cites works that are pertinent to the issue but not works of marginal or
peripheral significance; and the purpose and rationale for the study.

Method

The Method section describes exactly how the study was conducted, in sufficient detail that a person
who reads the Method section could replicate the study. The Method section is generally divided into Subjects
(or Participants), Materials (or Apparatus), and Procedure subsections. The Subjects subsection includes a
description of the subjects and how they were obtained. The Materials subsection usually describes any testing
materials that were used, such as a test or inventory or a type of problem that participants were asked to solve.
An Apparatus subsection describes any specific equipment that was used. The Procedure subsection
summarizes each step in the execution of the research, including the groups used in the study, instructions
given to the subjects, the experimental manipulation, and specific control features in the design.

Results

The Results section summarizes the data collected and the type of statistic(s) used to analyze the data.
In addition, the results of the statistical tests used are reported with respect to the variables measured and/or
manipulated. This section should include a description of the results only, not an explanation of the results. In
addition, the results are often depicted in tables and graphs or figures.
Discussion

The results are evaluated and interpreted in the Discussion section. Typically, this section begins with a
restatement of the predictions of the study and tells whether the predictions were supported. It also typically
includes a discussion of the relationship between the results and past research and theories. Last, criticisms of
the study (such as possible confounds) and implications for future research are presented.

Lesson 7: Ethical Standards in Human Participants

When conducting research with human (or nonhuman) subjects, the researcher is ultimately
responsible for the welfare of the subjects. Thus, the researcher is responsible for protecting the participants
from harm. What harm, you may be wondering, could a participant suffer in a simple research study?

The ethical guidelines we use today have their basis in the Nuremberg Code. This code lists 10
principles, developed in 1948, for the Nazi war crimes trials following World War II. The Nazis killed and
abused millions of Jewish people, many of whom died in the name of “research.” For example, Nazi doctors
used many Jewish people for inhumane medical research projects that involved determining the effects on
humans of viruses, poisons, toxins, and drugs.

In 1963, Stanley Milgram’s paper detailing some of his research on obedience to authority brought
ethical considerations to the forefront once again. In Milgram’s study, each participant was assigned the role of
“teacher” and given the responsibility of teaching a series of words to another individual, called the “learner.”
What the teachers did not realize was that the learner was really an accomplice of the experimenter. The
teachers were told that the study was designed to investigate the effects of punishment on learning. Thus, they
were instructed to deliver an electric shock each time the learner made a mistake. The shocks were not of a
constant voltage level but increased in voltage for each mistake made. Because the learner (who was located
in a separate room from the teacher) was working for the experimenter, he purposely made mistakes. Milgram
was interested in whether the teachers would continue to deliver stronger and stronger electric shocks given
that (1) the learner appeared to be in moderate to extreme discomfort, depending on the level of shock
administered, and (2) the experimenter repeatedly ordered the teachers to continue administering the electric
shocks. In reality, the learner was not receiving electric shocks; however, the teachers believed that he was.
Milgram found that nearly two-thirds of the teachers obeyed the experimenter and continued to deliver the
supposed electric shocks up to the maximum level available.

Institutional Review Boards

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is typically made up of several faculty members, usually from
diverse backgrounds, and members of the community who are charged with evaluating research projects in
which human subjects are used. IRBs oversee all federally funded research involving human subjects. The
evaluation process involves completing an application form in which the researcher details the method to be
used in the study, the risks or benefits related to participating in the study, and the means of maintaining
subjects’ confidentiality. The purpose of the IRB is not necessarily to evaluate the scientific merit of the
research study but rather to evaluate the treatment of subjects to ensure that the study meets established
ethical guidelines.

Informed Consent

In studies where subjects are at risk, an informed consent form is needed. Informed consent form is
given to individuals before they participate in a research study to inform them of the general nature of the study
and to obtain their consent to participate in the study. The informed consent form typically describes the nature
and purpose of the study. However, to avoid compromising the outcome of the study, the researcher obviously
cannot inform subjects about the expected results. Thus, informed consent forms often offer only broad,
general statements about the nature and purpose of a study. In cases where deception is used in the study,
the informed consent form, for obvious reasons, tells subjects nothing about the true nature and purpose of the
study. The subjects are also informed about what they will be asked to do as part of the study and that the
researchers will make every effort to maintain confidentiality with respect to their performance in the study.
Subjects are told that they have the right to refuse to participate in the study and the right to change their mind
about participation at any point during the study. Subjects sign the form, indicating that they have given their
informed consent to participate in the study. Typically, the form is also signed by a witness. Researchers
should keep informed consent forms on file for 2 to 3 years after completion of a study and should also give a
copy of the form to each subject. If subjects in a study are under 18 years of age, then informed consent must
be given by a parent or legal guardian.
Risk

Typically, subjects in a study are classified as being either “at risk” or “at minimal risk.” Those at
minimal risk are placed under no more physical or emotional risk than would be encountered in daily life or in
routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. In what types of studies might a subject be classified
as being at minimal risk? Studies in which subjects are asked to fill out paper-and-pencil tests, such as
personality inventories or depression inventories, are classified as minimal risk. Other examples of studies in
which subjects are classified as at minimal risk include most research on memory processes, problem-solving
abilities, and reasoning. If the subjects in a study are classified as at minimal risk, then an informed consent is
not always mandatory. However, it is probably best to obtain informed consent anyway.

In contrast, the subjects in the Tuskegee study and in Milgram’s (1963) obedience study would be
classified as at risk. Studies in which the subjects are at risk for physical or emotional harm fit the definition of
subjects being at risk. When proposing a study in which subjects are classified as at risk, the researcher and
the members of the IRB must determine whether the benefits of the knowledge to be gained from the study
outweigh the risk to subjects. Clearly, Milgram believed that this was the case; members of IRBs today might
not agree.

Deception

Besides the risk of emotional harm, you may be wondering about another aspect of Milgram’s (1963)
study. Milgram deceived his subjects by telling them that the experiment was about the effects of punishment
on learning, not about obedience to authority. Deception in research involves lying to subjects about the true
nature of a study because knowing the true nature of the study might affect their performance. How, then, do
researchers obtain informed consent when deception is necessary? They give subjects a general description
of the study—not a detailed description of the hypothesis being tested. Remember that subjects are also
informed that they do not have to participate, that a refusal to participate will incur no penalties, and that they
can stop participating in the study at any time. Given these precautions, deception can be used, when
necessary, without violating ethical standards. After the study is completed, however, researchers should
debrief (discussed next) the subjects, informing them of the deception and the true intent of the study.

Debriefing

One final ethical consideration concerns the debriefing of subjects. Debriefing means providing
information about the true purpose of the study as soon after the completion of data collection as possible. In
the Milgram study, for example, debriefing entailed informing subjects of the true nature of the study
(obedience to authority) as soon after completion of the study as possible. Debriefing is necessary in all
research studies, not just those that involve deception. Through debriefing, subjects learn more about the
benefits of the research to them and to society in general, and the researcher can alleviate any discomfort the
subjects may be experiencing. During debriefing, the researcher should try to bring subjects back to the same
state of mind they were in before they participated in the study.