The Scientific Method

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

The Scientific Method “Birds of a feather flock together”. . . or “Opposites attract”?

“Two heads
are better than one”. . . or “If you want a thing done well, do it yourself”? “The more the
merrier”. . . or “Two’s company, three’s a crowd”? If we were to rely on common sense to
understand behavior, we’d have considerable difficulty—especially because commonsense
views are often contradictory. In fact, one of the major undertakings for the fi eld of psychology
is to develop suppositions about behavior and to determine which of those suppositions are
accurate. Psychologists—as well as scientists in other disciplines—meet the challenge of posing
appropriate questions and properly answering them by relying on the scientific method. The
scientific method is the approach used by psychologists to systematically acquire knowledge
and understanding about behavior and other phenomena of interest. As illustrated in Figure 1,
it consists of four main steps: (1) identifying questions of interest, (2) formulating an
explanation, (3) carrying out research designed to support or refute the explanation, and (4)
communicating the findings.

In using the scientifi c method, psychologists start by identifying questions of interest. We have
all been curious at some time about our observations of everyday behavior. If you have ever
asked yourself why a particular teacher is so easily annoyed, why a friend is always late for
appointments, or how your dog understands your commands, you have been formulating
questions about behavior. Psychologists, too, ask questions about the nature and causes of
behavior. They may want to explore explanations for everyday behaviors or for various
phenomena. They may also pose questions that build on fi ndings from their previous research
or from research carried out by other psychologists. Or they may produce new questions that
are based on curiosity, creativity, or insight. After a question has been identified, the next step
in the scientific method is to develop a theory to explain the observed phenomenon. Theories
are broad explanations and predictions concerning phenomena of interest. They provide a
framework for understanding the relationships among a set of otherwise unorganized facts or
principles. All of us have developed our own informal theories of human behavior, such as
“People are basically good” or “People’s behavior is usually motivated by self-interest.”
However, psychologists’ theories are more formal and focused. They are established on the
basis of a careful study of the psychological literature to identify earlier relevant research and
previously formulated theories, as well as psychologists’ general knowledge of the fi eld.
Growing out of the diverse approaches employed by psychologists, theories vary both in their
breadth and in their level of detail. For example, one theory might seek to explain and predict a
phenomenon as broad as emotional experience. A narrower theory might attempt to explain
why people display the emotion of fear nonverbally after receiving a threat (Guerrero, La Valley,
& Farinelli, 2008; Waller, Cray, & Burrows, 2008; Anker & Feeley, 2011). Psychologists Bibb
Latané and John Darley, responding to the failure of bystanders to intervene when Kitty
Genovese was murdered in New York, developed what they called a theory of diffusion of
responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970). According to their theory, the greater the number of
bystanders or witnesses to an event that calls for helping behavior, the more the responsibility
for helping is perceived to be shared by all the bystanders. Thus, the greater the number of
bystanders in an emergency situation, the smaller the share of the responsibility each person
feels—and the less likely that any single person will come forward to help. HYPOTHESES:
CRAFTING TESTABLE PREDICTIONS Although the diffusion of responsibility theory seems to
make sense, it represented only the beginning phase of Latané and Darley’s investigative
process. Their next step was to devise a way to test their theory. To do this, they needed to
create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a prediction stated in a way that allows it to be tested.
Hypotheses stem from theories; they help test the underlying soundness of theories. In the
same way that we develop our own broad theories about the world, we also construct
hypotheses about events and behavior. Those hypotheses can range from trivialities (such as
why our English instructor wears those weird shirts) to more meaningful matters (such as what
is the best way to study for a test). Although we rarely test these hypotheses systematically, we
do try to determine whether they are right. Perhaps we try comparing two strategies: cramming
the night before an exam versus spreading out our study over several nights. By assessing which
approach yields better test performance, we have created a way to compare the two strategies.
A hypothesis must be restated in a way that will allow it to be tested, which involves creating an
operational definition. An operational definition is the translation of a hypothesis into
specific, testable procedures that can be measured and observed.

There is no single way to go about devising an operational definition for a hypothesis; it


depends on logic, the equipment and facilities available, the psychological perspective being
employed, and ultimately the creativity of the researcher. For example, one researcher might
develop a hypothesis that uses as an operational defi nition of “fear” an increase in heart rate.
In contrast, another psychologist might use as an operational defi nition of “fear” a written
response to the question “How much fear are you experiencing at this moment?” Latané and
Darley’s hypothesis was a straightforward prediction from their more general theory of diffusion
of responsibility: The more people who witness an emergency situation, the less likely it is that
help will be given to a victim. They could, of course, have chosen another hypothesis (try to
think of one!), but their initial formulation seemed to offer the most direct test of the theory.
Psychologists rely on formal theories and hypotheses for many reasons. For one thing, theories
and hypotheses allow them to make sense of unorganized, separate observations and bits of
information by permitting them to place the pieces within a coherent framework. In addition,
theories and hypotheses offer psychologists the opportunity to move beyond known facts and
make deductions about unexplained phenomena and develop ideas for future investigation
(Cohen, 2003; Gurin, 2006; van Wesel, Boeije, & Hoijtink, 2013). In short, the scientifi c method,
with its emphasis on theories and hypotheses, helps psychologists pose appropriate questions.
With properly stated questions in hand, psychologists then can choose from a variety of
research methods to find answers. Psychological Research Research —systematic inquiry aimed
at the discovery of new knowledge—is a central ingredient of the scientific method in
psychology. It provides the key to understanding the degree to which hypotheses (and the
theories behind them) are accurate. Just as we can apply different theories and hypotheses to
explain the same phenomena, we can use a number of alternative methods to conduct
research. As we consider the major tools that psychologists use to conduct research, keep in
mind that their relevance extends beyond testing and evaluating hypotheses in psychology. All
of us carry out elementary forms of research on our own. For instance, a supervisor might
evaluate an employee’s performance; a physician might systematically test the effects of
different doses of a drug on a patient; a salesperson might compare different persuasive
strategies. Each of these situations draws on the research practices we are about to discuss.

You might also like