Chapter 2

Psychological Science
Psychologists aren’t the only people who seek to understand human behavior and solve
social problems. Philosophers, religious leaders, and politicians, among others, also strive to
provide explanations for human behavior. But psychologists believe that research is the best
tool for understanding human beings and their relationships with others. Rather than accepting
the claim of a philosopher that people do (or do not) have free will, a psychologist would
collect data to empirically test whether or not people are able to actively control their own
behavior. Rather than accepting a politician’s contention that creating (or abandoning) a new
center for mental health will improve the lives of individuals in the inner city, a psychologist
would empirically assess the effects of receiving mental health treatment on the quality of life
of the recipients. The statements made by psychologists are empirical, which means they are
based on systematic collection and analysis of data.

The Scientific Method

All scientists (whether they are physicists, chemists, biologists, sociologists, or psychologists)
are engaged in the basic processes of collecting data and drawing conclusions about those data.
The methods used by scientists have developed over many years and provide a common
framework for developing, organizing, and sharing information. The scientific method is the
set of assumptions, rules, and procedures scientists use to conduct research.

In addition to requiring that science be empirical, the scientific method demands that the
procedures used be objective, or free from the personal bias or emotions of the scientist. The
scientific method proscribes how scientists collect and analyze data, how they draw conclusions
from data, and how they share data with others. These rules increase objectivity by placing data
under the scrutiny of other scientists and even the public at large. Because data are reported
objectively, other scientists know exactly how the scientist collected and analyzed the data.
This means that they do not have to rely only on the scientist’s own interpretation of the data;
they may draw their own, potentially different, conclusions.

Most new research is designed to replicate—that is, to repeat, add to, or modify—previous
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org
1
research findings. The scientific method therefore results in an accumulation of scientific
knowledge through the reporting of research and the addition to and modifications of these
reported findings by other scientists.

Laws and Theories as Organizing Principles

One goal of research is to organize information into meaningful statements that can be applied in
many situations. Principles that are so general as to apply to all situations in a given domain of
inquiry are known as laws. There are well-known laws in the physical sciences, such as the law
of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, and there are some universally accepted laws in
psychology, such as the law of effect and Weber’s law. But because laws are very general
principles and their validity has already been well established, they are themselves rarely directly
subjected to scientific test.

The next step down from laws in the hierarchy of organizing principles is theory. A theory is an
integrated set of principles that explains and predicts many, but not all, observed relationships
within a given domain of inquiry. One example of an important theory in psychology is the stage
theory of cognitive development proposed by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. The theory
states that children pass through a series of cognitive stages as they grow, each of which must be
mastered in succession before movement to the next cognitive stage can occur. This is an
extremely useful theory in human development because it can be applied to many different
content areas and can be tested in many different ways.

Good theories have four important characteristics. First, good theories are general, meaning they
summarize many different outcomes. Second, they are parsimonious, meaning they provide the
simplest possible account of those outcomes. The stage theory of cognitive development meets
both of these requirements. It can account for developmental changes in behavior across a wide
variety of domains, and yet it does so parsimoniously—by hypothesizing a simple set of
cognitive stages. Third, good theories provide ideas for future research. The stage theory of

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

2
cognitive development has been applied not only to learning about cognitive skills, but also to
the study of children’s moral (Kohlberg, 1966) [1] and gender (Ruble & Martin,
1998) [2] development.

Finally, good theories are falsifiable (Popper, 1959), [3] which means the variables of interest can
be adequately measured and the relationships between the variables that are predicted by the
theory can be shown through research to be incorrect. The stage theory of cognitive
development is falsifiable because the stages of cognitive reasoning can be measured and
because if research discovers, for instance, that children learn new tasks before they have
reached the cognitive stage hypothesized to be required for that task, then the theory will be
shown to be incorrect.

No single theory is able to account for all behavior in all cases. Rather, theories are each limited
in that they make accurate predictions in some situations or for some people but not in other
situations or for other people. As a result, there is a constant exchange between theory and data:
Existing theories are modified on the basis of collected data, and the new modified theories then
make new predictions that are tested by new data, and so forth. When a better theory is found, it
will replace the old one. This is part of the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

The Research Hypothesis

Theories are usually framed too broadly to be tested in a single experiment. Therefore, scientists
use a more precise statement of the presumed relationship among specific parts of a theory—a
research hypothesis—as the basis for their research. A research hypothesis is a specific and
falsifiable prediction about the relationship between or among two or more variables, where
a variable is any attribute that can assume different values among different people or across
different times or places. The research hypothesis states the existence of a relationship between
the variables of interest and the specific direction of that relationship. For instance, the research
hypothesis “Using marijuana will reduce learning” predicts that there is a relationship between a
variable “using marijuana” and another variable called “learning.” Similarly, in the research
hypothesis “Participating in psychotherapy will reduce anxiety,” the variables that are expected
to be related are “participating in psychotherapy” and “level of anxiety.”

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

3
When stated in an abstract manner, the ideas that form the basis of a research hypothesis are
known as conceptual variables. Conceptual variables are abstract ideas that form the basis of
research hypotheses. Sometimes the conceptual variables are rather simple—for instance, “age,”
“gender,” or “weight.” In other cases the conceptual variables represent more complex ideas,
such as “anxiety,” “cognitive development,” “learning,” self-esteem,” or “sexism.”

The first step in testing a research hypothesis involves turning the conceptual variables
into measured variables, which are variables consisting of numbers that represent the conceptual
variables. For instance, the conceptual variable “participating in psychotherapy” could be
represented as the measured variable “number of psychotherapy hours the patient has accrued”
and the conceptual variable “using marijuana” could be assessed by having the research
participants rate, on a scale from 1 to 10, how often they use marijuana or by administering a
blood test that measures the presence of the chemicals in marijuana.

Psychologists use the term operational definition to refer to a precise statement of how a
conceptual variable is turned into a measured variable. The relationship between conceptual and
measured variables in a research hypothesis is diagrammed in Figure 2.1 "Diagram of a Research
Hypothesis". The conceptual variables are represented within circles at the top of the figure, and
the measured variables are represented within squares at the bottom. The two vertical arrows,
which lead from the conceptual variables to the measured variables, represent the operational
definitions of the two variables. The arrows indicate the expectation that changes in the
conceptual variables (psychotherapy and anxiety in this example) will cause changes in the
corresponding measured variables. The measured variables are then used to draw inferences
about the conceptual variables.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

4
Figure 2.1 Diagram of a Research Hypothesis

In this research hypothesis, the conceptual variable of attending psychotherapy is operationalized using the number

of hours of psychotherapy the client has completed, and the conceptual variable of anxiety is operationalized using

self-reported levels of anxiety. The research hypothesis is that more psychotherapy will be related to less reported

anxiety.

Table 2.1 "Examples of the Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been
Used in Psychological Research" lists some potential operational definitions of conceptual
variables that have been used in psychological research. As you read through this list, note that in
contrast to the abstract conceptual variables, the measured variables are very specific. This

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

5
specificity is important for two reasons. First, more specific definitions mean that there is less
danger that the collected data will be misunderstood by others. Second, specific definitions will
enable future researchers to replicate the research.

Table 2.1 Examples of the Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been Used in Psychological

Research
Conceptual variable Operational definitions

x Number of presses of a button that administers shock to another student

Aggression
x Number of seconds taken to honk the horn at the car ahead after a stoplight turns green

x Number of inches that an individual places his or her chair away from another person
Interpersonal attraction
x Number of millimeters of pupil dilation when one person looks at another

x Number of days per month an employee shows up to work on time

Employee satisfaction
x Rating of job satisfaction from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 9 (extremely satisfied)

x Number of groups able to correctly solve a group performance task

Decision-making skills
x Number of seconds in which a person solves a problem

x Number of negative words used in a creative story

Depression
x Number of appointments made with a psychotherapist

Conducting Ethical Research

One of the questions that all scientists must address concerns the ethics of their research.
Physicists are concerned about the potentially harmful outcomes of their experiments with
nuclear materials. Biologists worry about the potential outcomes of creating genetically
engineered human babies. Medical researchers agonize over the ethics of withholding potentially
beneficial drugs from control groups in clinical trials. Likewise, psychologists are continually
considering the ethics of their research.

Research in psychology may cause some stress, harm, or inconvenience for the people who
participate in that research. For instance, researchers may require introductory psychology
students to participate in research projects and then deceive these students, at least temporarily,

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

6
about the nature of the research. Psychologists may induce stress, anxiety, or negative moods in
their participants, expose them to weak electrical shocks, or convince them to behave in ways
that violate their moral standards. And researchers may sometimes use animals in their research,
potentially harming them in the process.

Decisions about whether research is ethical are made using established ethical codes developed
by scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, and federal
governments. In the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services provides the
guidelines for ethical standards in research. Some research, such as the research conducted by the
Nazis on prisoners during World War II, is perceived as immoral by almost everyone. Other
procedures, such as the use of animals in research testing the effectiveness of drugs, are more
controversial.

Ensuring That Research Is Ethical

Making decisions about the ethics of research involves weighing the costs and benefits of
conducting versus not conducting a given research project. The costs involve potential harm to
the research participants and to the field, whereas the benefits include the potential for advancing
knowledge about human behavior and offering various advantages, some educational, to the
individual participants. Most generally, the ethics of a given research project are determined
through a cost-benefit analysis, in which the costs are compared to the benefits. If the potential
costs of the research appear to outweigh any potential benefits that might come from it, then the
research should not proceed.

Arriving at a cost-benefit ratio is not simple. For one thing, there is no way to know ahead of time
what the effects of a given procedure will be on every person or animal who participates or what
benefit to society the research is likely to produce. In addition, what is ethical is defined by the
current state of thinking within society, and thus perceived costs and benefits change over time.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations require that all universities
receiving funds from the department set up an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to determine
whether proposed research meets department regulations.

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee of at least five members whose goal it is to
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org
7
determine the cost-benefit ratio of research conducted within an institution. The IRB approves
the procedures of all the research conducted at the institution before the research can begin. The
board may suggest modifications to the procedures, or (in rare cases) it may inform the scientist
that the research violates Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and thus cannot
be conducted at all.

One important tool for ensuring that research is ethical is the use of informed consent. A sample
informed consent form is shown in Figure 2.2 "Sample Consent
Form". Informed consent, conducted before a participant begins a research session, is designed
to explain the research procedures and inform the participant of his or her rights during the
investigation. The informed consent explains as much as possible about the true nature of the
study, particularly everything that might be expected to influence willingness to participate, but
it may in some cases withhold some information that allows the study to work.

[1] Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby

(Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[2] Ruble, D., & Martin, C. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., pp. 933–

1016). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

[3] Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

8