Psychology Report Writing Guide

Writing a Psychology Report: Section by Section

Title

“A title should summarize the main idea of the paper simply and, if possible, with style. It should be a
concise statement of the main topic and should identify the actual variables or theoretical issues
under investigation and the relationship between them. An example of a good title is “Effect of
Transformed Letters on Reading Speed.”” (APA Publication Manual, 2009, p.23)

Titles should be short, and contain implicit information about the dependent variable, independent
variable, and key terms.

A title page precedes the report. It is the first thing people read and forms the basis of most literature
searches. Its importance cannot be understated. A good title will encourage people to read the article,
whereas a bad title will put them off. It forms the first impression of the paper, and first impressions
last!

 The title should be concise: as a guideline keep it to between 10 and 12 words.

 Avoid redundant phrases such as "A study of..." or "An investigation into..." and avoid
redundant words such as “results” or “method.” Likewise, avoid stating explicitly what the
independent and dependent variables were. Do not say, "The independent variable was...and
the dependent variable was..."
 The title must occupy a page by itself. The title should be written in the same size and type of
font as the rest of the article and may be bold but not underlined.
 The title should convey to the reader the overall content of the report. The title should state
the independent variable and the dependent variable implicitly. You should also try to include
other important keywords in your title, such as those you would search for in a literature
search.

Tips for coming up with a good title:

 Look at published titles for ideas.
 Sum up the results of the study in one sentence of 10 words or less.
Abstract

“An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to
survey the contents of an article quickly, and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the
document to retrieve it from abstracting and information databases.” (APA Publication Manual, 2009,
p. 25)

Abstracts should provide a concise general summary of the entire report with as many key words and
phrases embedded within it

Many readers decide whether to read a journal based on the abstract. It represents a sort of halfway
house between the title and the report as a whole. Therefore, a good abstract will elaborate on the
title, and condense the full contents of the report. The abstract should be accurate, concise, self-
contained, specific, non-evaluative, and coherent.

 The abstract should contain statement about the question addressed by the experiment in
only one sentence. The statement should be specific to the experiment and should grab the
readers’ attention. The hypothesis should not be stated in the abstract. Thus, the most
specific and relevant background literature should be summarised rather than the broad area.
Avoid using the phrase “Previous research...”
 The abstract should contain a brief summary of the method including the number of
participants and details of specialist materials. The variables should be clearly described. This
should be done in one or two sentences. The focus should be on the most novel and critical
aspects of the method.
 The abstract should contain a one sentence synopsis of the major results. This synopsis
should give details of the direction of any effect. It is not appropriate to say “the results were
significant.”
 The statistical result should not be reported. It may be appropriate to state the alpha level of
significant results. The hypothesis and aims should not be stated in the abstract.
 The abstract should state the major conclusions, implications, and/or applications drawn from
the reported findings in only one sentence. This should be specific to the manuscript and not
a generic comment.
 The abstract should be one paragraph only. The abstract should be concise, with a
maximum of 120 words. Only include what is absolutely relevant.

Tips for writing better abstracts:

 Write it last.
Introduction

“The body of a paper opens with an introduction that presents the specific problem under study and
describes the research strategy.” (APA Publication Manual, 2009, p. 27)

The function of the introduction is to make clear the object of the research reported. You should move
from general background and definitions to specific details.

The introduction should firstly introduce the problem, develop the background, and state the purpose
and the rationale of the study.

 The first paragraph should introduce the reader to the general topic. It should demonstrate
that the problem is important to study by explaining its implications to wider fields. Often this
will summarise the structure of the introduction. It can also be used to summarise the aims of
the study. Ensure that key concepts are clearly defined in the opening of the introduction or at
their first use.
 The next few paragraphs should summarise the background reading. The background
reading should be relevant to the research question under investigation.
 Clearly motivate your experimental hypotheses. Your research question will lead to a set of
hypotheses which your experiment will be testing. The job of the introduction is to tell the
reader how you have arrived at your research question and hypotheses. The structure of the
introduction should be broad, then more specific, and finally focus on the hypotheses. Each
bit should be motivated by the hypothesis. The introduction should lead naturally to the
hypothesis.
 The final paragraph/s should explain your approach to solving the problem. The IVs and the
DVs should be clearly defined and related back to the problem. Methodological choices
should be justified here. Variables need to be described here.
 Every aspect of the introduction should relate to the hypotheses. The background work must
be relevant. The structure of the introduction should lead directly onto the hypothesis.
 Everything you mention in your hypotheses needs to be covered in the introduction. A
common mistake is to only focus on one part of the problem – if your study is about the
effects of birth order and personality type on binge drinking behaviour, you need to cover all
of these topics in your introduction.

Tips to improve
 A good test of whether you have succeeded in reviewing the literature properly is to ask
yourself whether the reader could predict what your hypotheses are going to be after reading
your review but not the last paragraph. That is, the purpose of the review is to raise in your
reader’s mind the research question(s) that are addressed by your research.
Method

“The Method section describes in detail how the study was conducted, including conceptual and
operational definitions of the variables used in the study... a complete description of the methods used
enables the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and the reliability and the validity
of your results. It also permits experienced investigators to replicate the study if they so desire.” (APA
Publication Manual, 2009, p. 29)

Remember that the Method section should tell the reader what you did and how you did it in sufficient
detail so that a reader could reasonably replicate your study.

The Method allows the reader to replicate your study exactly. Additionally, it allows the reader to
make generalisations about your results and compare across different samples. It must contain
sufficient detail to allow this.

 The Method should be divided into subsections. These subsections are usually: Participants,
Apparatus, Design, & Procedure, however this does not have to be the case.
 Ensure that the information is appropriate for the relevant section. Specific guidelines on each
subsection are provided here.
 Participants section should include the number of participants, how they were sampled, where
they were sampled from (population) and why they took part (payment).
 Participants section should include the age (range and mode) and gender of participants.
 Where appropriate and possible, participants section may also include information on the
major demographics (race, socioeconomic status, disability statues, and sexual orientation.
 When a particular participant characteristic (e.g., learning disability, normal vision) is vital to a
study, it should also be mentioned.
 Participants section should also contain information of the number of participants assigned to
each experimental condition and how this was done.
 Ethical principles may also be reported in the participant section.
 Specialist equipment should be mentioned, with details of the commercial supplier’s name,
location, and the equipment’s model number. However, standard laboratory equipment (e.g.,
furniture, stopwatches) should not be reported unless specialised.
 Questionnaires/stimuli (e.g., word lists, faces) used should be mentioned, with a reference
(e.g., “The EPQ (Eysenck, 1956) was used”. They should not be in the Appendix unless they
were created for the purpose of the report.
 Validity and reliability of the questionnaires/stimuli should be reported (based on previous
work).
 The design type should be mentioned (e.g., within-subjects), without defining it.
 The conceptual independent variable and dependent variables should be mentioned.
 Conceptual variables are those described and discussed in the introduction. These are the
variables that have been hypothesised about and are often intangible concepts.
 You must tell the reader how you measured (operationalised) your variables. That is, the
conceptual variables often need to be classified in some way to be measured. For example,
personality is the conceptual variable, but it is operationalised as a score on the EPQ. Self-
esteem is a conceptual variable, but this was measured (operationalised) using a score on
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Ensure you clearly describe the levels of each IV (that is
the separate conditions for each IV).
 Any controls (such as counterbalancing and randomisation) should be mentioned specifically.
What is randomised and what is counterbalanced needs to be described clearly.
 The procedure should be a step-by-step account in chronological order of what happened but
not in bullet points. Procedure should contain details of how stimuli were presented, the
number of trials, and the duration of each trial and the whole experiment. This information
should be very detailed down the gap between each stimulus on screen (if it is a computer
based experiment). Details of a specific trial should be presented in chronological order.
Sometimes a figure can be useful to explain the details of each trial (i.e., type of stimulus and
duration).
 Procedure should contain a summary of instructions given to participants (unusual
instructions should be given verbatim). Instructions should not be given in the Appendix
unless they are unusual and long. Any deception needs to be explained here and an
explanation of the debriefing needs to be given.

Tips for improvement

 A good test of whether or not the information you provide is adequate is to ask yourself
whether you have said enough to allow someone to replicate your study exactly.
Results

“In the Results section, summarize the collected data and the analysis performed on those data
relevant to the discourse that is to follow. Report the data in sufficient detail to justify your
conclusions. Mention all relevant results, including those that run counter to expectation.” (APA
Publication Manual, 2009, p. 32).

In the results section you must fulfil two task: It must present and summarise the data; and it must
analyse the data to allow inferences to be made about the hypothesis.

This is where you make your own contribution to the research literature. The Results Section is where
you begin to answer the research questions you set in your introduction, and evaluate your
experimental hypotheses. You will have found something in your experiment, even if not quite what
you expected at the start. Results sections should directly test the hypothesis.

 Begin the results section with a verbal description of any data treatment (i.e., changing raw
scores into IQ or recognition responses in d’).
 Briefly describe the patterns of the results. This includes the direction of the effect (i.e., which
condition was higher than the other). You should refer to tables and figures.
 Report inferential statistics in APA format. Check APA guidelines for reporting statistics.
Statistical symbols such as t, F and p should be italicised.
 Summary results should be presented as labelled tables/figures and you should refer to
these in the text (for example, “Figure 1 shows..”). Tables and figures should be formatted
according to APA style (see examples table 1 and figure 1). Be aware, tables only have
horizontal lines. Figures should have the IV on the X axis and the DV on the Y axis.
 Tables and figures need captions in the appropriate positions (notice they are different for
tables and figures). Table and figure captions need to explain the contents of the table clearly.
All labels and captions need to be specific to the experiment and precise (i.e., describing what
the conditions were rather than calling them “groups”).
 Do not repeat data in figures and in tables and in text.
 Do not include raw data. Do not include SPSS output tables.
 Report the alpha level chosen if it is different to p < .05 (for example, if a Bonferoni correction
is applied). Report whether differences or relationships are significant using the appropriate
format (see examples below). Effect size should be reported.
 Do not discuss the results in the results section.
 The textual description of the results should appear before the figures and tables. Figures and
tables often should be the last item of the results section.
 Ensure that all results (descriptive and inferential) do actually test the hypothesis.
Table 1.
Mean (standard deviations in parentheses) reaction time to the probe task split by gender of
participant and probe position.
Gender of participant
Male Female
Probe position Congruent 896 (123) 986 (143)
Incongruent 1241 (167) 1171 (187)

Words Non-Words

30
Mean peak amplitude

25
20
15
10
5
0
Novel stimuli Old Stimuli
Stimulus Type

Figure 1. Mean peak amplitude of the ERP N400 for old and new words and non-words. Error bars
show standard error.

Examples of reporting results:

The mean RT produced by the left handed group was significantly faster than that produced by the
right handed group, t(12) = 2.24, p = .02. There was no significant difference in reaction time between
the left handed and right handed participants, t(12) = 1.34, p = .14.

There was a significant main effect of handedness, F(1, 14) = 5.02, MSE = 1.32, p = .02, η2P = .18,
whereby left handed participants were faster than right handed participants. The main effect of
handedness was not significant, F(1, 14) = 0.94, MSE = 1.16, p = .46, η2P = .03.

There was a significant correlation between stress and cortisol production, r(22) = .32, p = .04. The
correlation between stress and cortisol production was not significant, r(22) = .09, p = .36.

For other stats test, please see the accompanying website.

Discussion

“After presenting your results, you are in a position to evaluate and interpret their implications,
especially with respect to the original hypothesis. Here you will examine, interpret, and qualify the
results and draw inferences and conclusions from them. Emphasise any theoretical or practical
consequences of the results.” (APA Publication Manual, 2009, p. 35)

The discussion must convince the reader that the study was worthwhile and adds to the body of
literature on this topic.

This is the last major section of your report. It may be useful to look upon this section as the inverse of
the introduction: you should start the discussion by restating the main results of the experiment, and
then discuss these in relation to your hypotheses. Are your hypotheses supported? If so how; if not
why not?, and then widen the area of discussion to include the earlier research (e.g., does it add
anything to the previous literature; does it agree with/contradict the earlier work, etc.).

 Always start a discussion by restating the results in words. Do not report numerical values.
 State whether the results are consistent with or offer support for your hypothesis and previous
research. Relate your findings to the theoretical framework you presented in the Introduction.
Relate your findings to relevant previous work. Additionally, relate the work to the results that
you observed. Refer to specific results when making claims (without mentioning numbers).
Avoid introducing work in the discussion that has not been mentioned in the introduction.
 Deviations from predicted results should be discussed and further hypotheses derived.
 Do not dwell on methodological shortcomings. Discussion of methodological short comings
should be kept to one or two key points. Do not over-criticise. Methodological shortcomings
should be discussed in terms of future work addressing them. Do not say “ways to improve.”
 You must justify any methodological criticisms. Only mention methodological shortcomings if
they can account for the pattern of results. You must show how the problems you identify
could actually lead to the anomalous result. Use citations and research evidence to back up
these claims. Do not criticise the sample size or who makes it up unless you have evidence.
 Suggest future research directions. This can be based upon unexpected results,
methodological shortcomings, or on novel ideas. All suggestions must be backed up with
research evidence.
 The best discussions consider novel approaches to the problem posed in the research. Wider
issues can be drawn into the discussion, provided they are based on research evidence. Do
not criticise the sample size or the make-up of the sample without evidence.
 You are encouraged to end the discussion with a commentary on importance of the findings.
You could describe why the problem is important, how the results could link to other
phenomena, and any applications of the results. This could be incorporated into a concluding
remark.
  Ensure that every aspect of the discussion is relevant to the problem. Do not introduce new
theories if they are not relevant to your topic.
 Avoid over-interpretation of the results. If your result is not significant, do not discuss it as
though it were. If the result is not significant, there is no difference between your conditions.
The discussion must be limited to what the data shows and not beyond. Wild speculations
should be avoided where possible.

Tips to improve:
 Discussions of results consistent with your hypothesis will often be short.
 Remove any overt criticism of your experiment
References

“All citations in the manuscript must appear in the reference list, and all references must be cited in
the text.” (APA Publication Manual, 2001, p. 28).

Choose references carefully: ensure they are relevant. All citations should be accurate.

References are there to support any argument you make. Every argument made must be based on a
reference. See the referencing and citation guide for more details on how to reference properly.

 Provide a supporting citation for every argument.

 Use quotations sparingly. These should be cited with page numbers. Page numbers should
be quoted in this format (“p. 83” for single page quotations and “pp. 83 – 96” for multiple page
quotations).
 Use “et al.” appropriately. The first citation involving three or more names should have all the
names written out in full. The second citation should have the first author’s surname followed
by “et al.”
 Read more widely. You should have more references in your reference list. Read more
original journals. Rather than reading books, you should be reading journal articles.
 Use “as cited in” appropriately. When you have not read the original work, the citation should
be “Addams (1894, as cited in Verstraten, 1999)”. This is only for work you have not read.
This needs to be done for every citation of the work.
 All citations need to be referenced in the reference list. The reference list should contain only
work cited in the text.
 Reference in APA format. Please see the accompanying Referencing Guide for more details.
 Use appendices only when necessary. Unpublished questionnaires, stimuli, equipment and
programs should be included in the appendices.

Appendix

“Sometimes, material that supplements article content would be distracting, or inappropriate to, the
body of the paper. Material of this type can often be included in an appendix.” (APA Publication
Manual, 2009, p. 38).

Use Appendices only when necessary.

Examples of what should go in the appendices are: a new computer program specifically designed for
the study; an unpublished test or questionnaire and its validation; a complicated mathematical proof; a
list of stimulus materials (e.g., word lists); and where relevant a detailed description of complex
equipment. Much of this can now be provided online for journals.
Style

“The prime objective of scientific reporting is clear communication. You can achieve this by presenting
ideas in an orderly manner and by expressing yourself smoothly and precisely.” (APA Publication
Manual, 2009, p. 65).

The essential purpose of a report is communication. A good report should be written in a manner
which ensures that it clearly communicates the same message to everyone who reads it.

Report writing is different from literature writing. Report writing must be objective, free of bias, factual,
simplicity, and grammatically correct. Expression of writing should be orderly, smooth, and economic.

 Use the past tense where appropriate (the experiment took place in the past).
 Be careful with your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
o Proof read your work and use spell and grammatical checkers.
o Phrases using comparators (such as “something was higher”) must include the item
being compared to (such as “than something else”).
 Ensure you use paragraphs: Paragraphs are at least 3 sentences long and usually not more
than 8 sentences long. They should contain one distinct idea only.
 Avoid colloquialisms and chattiness.
o Phrases should be precise and objective: For example, use “conversely” instead of
“on the other hand” and use “explores” instead of “looks at.”
o Do not say “ways to improve this study…”
o Writing should be objective and factual.
o Your own unsubstantiated opinions are not appropriate.
o Bias must be removed from language. Avoid using sexist, racist, or homophobic
language. Use “they” instead of “he” or “she”, even in the singular.
 Be economical with text.
o Be as brief as possible whilst maintaining clarity.
o Do not repeat yourself.
o The active voice is generally better and shorter than the passive voice. For example,
use “Participants watched.,,” rather than “Participants had to watch…”
 Use simple language that clearly expresses what you mean. That is, avoid using jargon and
overly technical language.
Each sentence should contain only one clause.
Dense paragraphs (those with lots of ideas and information) need to be unpacked. That is,
they need to be broken up and each idea explained clearly.
 Use technical language appropriately.
o Never use the word prove. Nothing is proven in science. There is evidence and
support but no proof.
 o Non-significant results are not “negative” results. They simply mean that no
difference was found in this study.
o Nothing can be concluded from non-significant effects.
o Results are never significant – there is either a significant difference or not.
o Results are not “insignificant” – they are “non-significant.”
o The word “increase” suggests there was a change during the study – often the phrase
“greater than” is more accurate.
o An “effect” is not a test – it is the result of an event happening.
o We use figures in academic writing and not graphs (so the word “graph” should never
be present).
o A “trial” is the sequence of events or screens that lead to a participant’s single
response. Many trials make up an experiment, typically.
o An “interview” is a structured (or semi-structured) planned discussion where the
experimenter asks questions of a participant.
o A “review” is an extensive discussion on a particular topic and does not contain
experimental data.
 Be specific and precise with your descriptions.
o State clearly what differences were found and in what direction.
o Do not use vague descriptions.
o Do not say “Psychologists have been interested in memory…” You should be precise:
state which psychologists (providing a citation) and what they have been interested
in.
o Avoid using the word “some” as it is vague. Provide exact numbers where possible
(and relevant). For example, instead of using “majority female participants” you
should provide the exact number or percentage of female participants.
o The word “the” refers to a specific case of something. Check that you don’t mean “a”
referring to generic somethings.
 There should be a logical procession of ideas.
o Concepts should be defined before they are used.
o The word “this” refers to something immediately preceding it, thus what precedes it
must be what you are discussing.
o Define a concept at its first use or before using it.
 Avoid bullet points.
 Explain abbreviations. First use of an abbreviation needs to be explained fully (written out in
full, with the abbreviation in brackets).
 Numbers should be written in the correct format:
o Numbers below eleven should be written in words (e.g., “four”).
o Numbers 11 and above should be in numerals (e.g., “13”), unless the number is at
the start of a sentence.
o Numbers at the start of a sentence should be written out full in words.
  Apart from the title, abstract, and references sections should not be on separate pages.
o Pages should be numbered using Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, etc) starting at the
introduction.
o The title page is never numbered and any subsequent pages preceding the
introduction are numbered in Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.).
o Work should be printed on A4 size paper, printed on one side only in black ink on
white paper.
o No colour should be used anywhere in a report.
o Text should 1.5 or double spaced, left justification with a 1.3 cm indent.
o The font size used must be size 12 and should be a readable font (such as Times
New Roman).
o Formatting should be consistent throughout (there should be no font size of colour
changes anywhere).
o The Abstract should appear on a separate page following the title and should be
written in the same font as the rest of the work (that is not italic or bold). It should be
left justified.
o The Abstract, Method, Results, Discussion, and References should have the title.
There should not be a title on the Introduction.

Tips for improvement:

 Linking statements (such as, “in addition” and “therefore”) can be useful for creating a logical
progression of ideas.
 Proof read thoroughly (often friends and family could help).
 Use the spelling and grammar checker function in Word (or an equivalent).
 You can often discover problems by putting writing aside for some time and returning to it.
 Use Grammar guides (e.g., Strunk Jr., W. & White, E. B. (1999). The Elements of Style. New
York: Longman.
 Use Writing guides for scientific work (American Psychological Association (2009).
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6 th Edition). Washington, DC:
APA
 Read lots of published journal articles.
 Do not ever plagiarise.