86720

Download the full version of the ebook at
https://ebookultra.com
Writing in Psychology 1st Edition Scott A.

Miller
https://ebookultra.com/download/writing-in-
psychology-1st-edition-scott-a-miller/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Socialist Joy in the Writing of Langston Hughes 1st

Edition Jonathan Scott
https://ebookultra.com/download/socialist-joy-in-the-writing-of-
langston-hughes-1st-edition-jonathan-scott/
ebookultra.com
The Psychology of Sexual Health 1st Edition Dr. David

Miller
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-psychology-of-sexual-health-1st-
edition-dr-david-miller/
ebookultra.com
Writing for Psychology 2nd edition Edition Mitchell
https://ebookultra.com/download/writing-for-psychology-2nd-edition-
edition-mitchell/
ebookultra.com
The Chicago Guide to Writing about Numbers 1st Edition

Jane E. Miller
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-chicago-guide-to-writing-about-
numbers-1st-edition-jane-e-miller/
ebookultra.com
The Social Psychology of Good and Evil 1st Edition Arthur
G. Miller
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-social-psychology-of-good-and-
evil-1st-edition-arthur-g-miller/
ebookultra.com
Swedish Women s Writing 1850 1995 Swedish Women s Writing

1850 1995 1st Edition Helena Forsas-Scott
https://ebookultra.com/download/swedish-women-s-
writing-1850-1995-swedish-women-s-writing-1850-1995-1st-edition-
helena-forsas-scott/
ebookultra.com
Report Writing for Criminal Justice Professionals 4th ed

Edition Larry S Miller
https://ebookultra.com/download/report-writing-for-criminal-justice-
professionals-4th-ed-edition-larry-s-miller/
ebookultra.com
The Essentials of Sports Reporting and Writing 2nd Edition

Scott Reinardy
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-essentials-of-sports-reporting-
and-writing-2nd-edition-scott-reinardy/
ebookultra.com
Screenwriting for Neurotics A Beginner s Guide to Writing

a Feature Length Screenplay from Start to Finish 1st
Edition Scott Winfield Sublett
https://ebookultra.com/download/screenwriting-for-neurotics-a-
beginner-s-guide-to-writing-a-feature-length-screenplay-from-start-to-
finish-1st-edition-scott-winfield-sublett/
ebookultra.com
Writing in Psychology 1st Edition Scott A. Miller Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Scott A. Miller
ISBN(s): 9780415854511, 0415854512
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.45 MB
Year: 2013
Language: english
Writing in Psychology
This book helps readers become better writers of psychology and better writers
in general. After reading thousands of course papers, theses, and dissertations,
Dr. Miller knows and addresses the issues that students find most challenging
when writing about psychology. Written with the utmost flexibility in mind, the
chapters can be read in any order. More comprehensive than similar texts, this
book provides detailed coverage of how to write empirical reports, research pro-
posals, and literature reviews and how to read meta-analyses. Readers will also
find invaluable strategies for improving one’s writing, including how to adopt an
engaging yet accurate style, thorough coverage of grammatical and word-use rules
that govern writing in general, and the APA (American Psychological Association)
rules that govern the expression of that content.
Readers will appreciate these helpful learning tools:
• Descriptions of the most common APA style rules encountered and references to the
Manual when more detailed knowledge is required.
• Numerous examples from journal articles that help readers gain a clearer understanding
of content they will encounter in writing psychological reports.
• Chapter exercises that provide an opportunity to apply the points conveyed in each
chapter.
• Examples of the most common mistakes made by students and how to avoid them and
best practices for improving one’s writing.
• Tables that help readers gain a clearer understanding of the new standards in the Publi-
cation Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (Appendix A).
• Errors in APA style exemplified via an improperly formatted paper and another version
noting corrections pertaining to APA style and grammar, to highlight the most common
pitfalls encountered by students (Appendix B).
Ideal for courses on writing in psychology or as a supplement for graduate or ad-

vanced undergraduate courses in research design or research methods, this book
also serves as a resource for anyone looking for guidance on how to write about
psychological content.
Scott A. Miller is Professor Emeritus at the University of Florida.

This page intentionally left blank
Writing in
Psychology
Scott A. Miller
University of Florida
First published 2014
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
The right of Scott A. Miller to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Miller, Scott A., 1944–
Writing in psychology / Scott A. Miller.
pages cm
1. Psychology—Authorship. 2. Report writing. I. Title.
BF76.7.M55 2014
808.06'615—dc23 2013025359
ISBN: 978-0-415-85451-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-85452-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-86984-1 (ebk)
Typeset in New Caledonia

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
About the Author ix

Preface and Acknowledgments xi
1 The Importance of Writing 1

Why Write? 1
Why Write Well? 2
Why Write Well (Part 2)? 3
Organization of the Book 4
What Are Your Requirements? 5
2 Some General Advice About How to Write 7

Seek Help 7
Written Sources of Help 8
Help From Others 9
Going to the Source 10
Online Help 10
Read Psychology Before Writing Psychology 11
Aim for Simplicity 12
Aim for Variety 13
Aim for Conciseness 13
Aim for Smoothness 14
Use the Active Voice 16
Be Careful 17
Read Aloud 17
Plan Ahead 18
Getting Started (Part 1) 19
Getting Started (Part 2) 20
Know Your Audience 21
Use of Sources 22
Plagiarism 23
Quotations 24
Summary 25
Exercises 26
v
vi CONTENTS
3 Conducting a Literature Search 27

Types of Sources 27
Search Strategies 32
Recording the Results of Your Search 37
Exercises 39
4 Sections of an Empirical Report: Title Page, Abstract,

Introduction, and Method 41
Title Page 41
Abstract 44
Introduction 44
Getting Started 45
Review of Literature 45
Overview of Method 49
Hypotheses 50
Some General Points 51
Method 52
Subjects 52
Apparatus or Materials 54
Procedure 55
Pointing Ahead 57
Exercises 57
5 Sections of an Empirical Report: Results and Discussion 59

Results 59
Organization 59
What to Report 60
Tables and Figures 63
Discussion 65
Multistudy Reports 68
Exercises 69
6 Research Proposals 71
Deciding on a Research Topic 71
Generating Ideas 71
Evaluating Ideas 74
Research Ethics 77
Writing the Proposal 78
Introduction 79
Method 80
Results and Discussion 82
Exercises 85
CONTENTS vii
7 Literature Reviews and Term Papers 87

Literature Reviews 87
Choosing a Topic 88
Goals and Contributions 90
Possible Problems 92
Meta-Analysis 100
Term Papers 106
Choosing a Topic 107
Types of Paper 108
Strategies for Writing 110
Style of Presentation 111
Exercises 112
8 Rules of Writing: APA 113

Using Unbiased Language 113
Headings 115
Seriation 117
Anthropomorphism 118
Punctuation 118
Commas 118
Semicolons 119
Colons 120
Parentheses 120
Hyphens 120
Capitalization 122
Abbreviations 122
Numbers 124
Measurements 125
Statistics 125
Tables and Figures 127
Quotations 132
References in the Text 133
References List 134
Journal Articles 135
Books 136
Book Chapters 137
Exercises 137
9 Rules of Writing: General 139

Tense 139
Pronouns 140
Agreement in Number 142
Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers 143
Parallel Construction 144
viii CONTENTS
Present Participle Phrases 145

Redundancies 146
Homonyms 147
Grammatical Myths 148
Words or Phrases That Pose Challenges 149
Exercises 159
References 161
Appendix A: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS):

Information Recommended for Inclusion in Manuscripts
That Report New Data Collections Regardless of Research
Design 167
Appendix B: Example of Errors in APA Style 171
Author Index 175
Subject Index 177

About the Author
Scott A. Miller is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the Uni-
versity of Florida. He was a faculty member in Psychology at the University of
Michigan prior to joining the University of Florida’s Psychology Department in
1977. Dr. Miller is a member of the Cognitive Development Society, the Jean
Piaget Society, and the Society for Research in Child Development and a Fellow
of the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological
Science. He is the author of Developmental Research Methods, Child Psychology
(with Robin Harwood and Ross Vasta), Cognitive Development (with John Flavell
and Patricia Miller), and Theory of Mind: Beyond the Preschool Years. His research
has examined various aspects of cognitive development in young children, and his
current research focus is on the development of theory of mind during the pre-
school and grade-school years.
ix
This page intentionally left blank
Preface and Acknowledgments
The goal of this book is to help its readers become better writers—better writers
of psychology, in particular, but also better writers in general. I also hope to help
them become more informed readers of the psychology content they encounter.
This book is for anyone who wants to learn how to do writing in psychology. Its
main audience will undoubtedly be students enrolled in courses such as Writing
in Psychology or Research Methods in Psychology. I hope, however, that the book
may also be a helpful resource beyond the bounds of course requirements—for
example, for students writing a thesis or dissertation.
Several aspects of the book are meant to distinguish it from other books de-
voted to the task of writing in psychology. Most generally, the book is informed by
my 30-plus years of teaching courses in research methods, in the course of which
I have read several thousand papers by Psychology students. Directing or serving
on committees for honors theses, master’s theses, and dissertations has provided
further experience with psychology writing of a variety of forms and a variety of
levels. When I look at how-to-write books, I see space devoted to issues that in
my experience seldom if ever occur in student papers; conversely, I see little or
no space devoted to topics that students struggle with. A partial list of the latter
includes when to quote, how to paraphrase when not quoting, which statistics to
include in a Results section, when to use tables or figures, and how to express num-
bers in APA style. I hope that this book benefits from its grounding in a thorough
knowledge of its primary target audience.
As the preceding indicates, my experience with student papers ranges from the
first attempts at such writing in response to some course requirement to disserta-
tions or articles submitted for publication. This book is designed to be helpful for
tasks at both ends of this spectrum. Various aspects of the presentation are intended
to make the content accessible to those for whom this sort of writing is new, in-
cluding frequent use of examples as well as end-of-the chapter exercises that allow
application of the points being taught. Even students with a fair amount of writing
experience, however, typically have room for improvement (a point, indeed, that
applies to most of us throughout our careers), and my discussions are intended to be
at a high enough level to allow such students to build upon existing skills.
One of the ways in which this book is designed to speak to the more advanced
student is its frequent citation of further sources that offer more detailed and often
more advanced treatments of particular topics. Another way is through the offer of
choices rather than mandates for aspects of writing that are matters more of per-
sonal preference than of clear-cut right or wrong. Many books on writing consist
xi
xii PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
mainly of do-it-this-way prescriptions. Such prescriptions are perfectly appropri-

ate when rules of grammar or of APA (American Psychological Association) style
are at issue, and I offer many such prescriptions myself. Much of writing, however,
is a matter not simply of following rules but of finding one’s own optimal approach,
and my book is intended to help students in this quest.
In addition to the end-of the-chapter exercises, two further pedagogical fea-
tures are worth noting here. Appendix A reproduces a table from an article on
standards for empirical journal articles that APA commissioned at the time of the
most recent revision of the Publication Manual. Appendix B presents two exam-
ples of a paper in psychology, one that contains numerous errors in APA style and
a second in which the errors are marked and explained. Both appendixes are excel-
lent resources for learning both what to do and what not to do.
There is no single best way to organize material on writing in psychology. The
organization adopted here is my preferred way; after the introductory Chapter 1,
however, the chapters can be read in whatever order an instructor or student prefers.
As will be seen, the coverage is divided into the two main topics in writing in
psychology: what to say and how to say it. In contrast to some how-to-write texts,
the coverage of the first topic is not limited to one sort of writing but rather en-
compasses four important forms: empirical reports of research, research proposals,
literature reviews, and term papers. The coverage of the how-to-say-it question in-
cludes a chapter on strategies for improving one’s writing, another chapter devoted
to general principles of English composition (with a fuller coverage of such prin-
ciples than is found in most such books), and a chapter that summarizes the APA
rules that govern all writing in psychology.
The last of these topics deserves a bit of comment. If you are a student and are
doing your writing as a course requirement, you may be expected to follow APA
style fully (as students in my courses do), partially, or not at all, and you may or
may not be expected to have the APA Publication Manual next to you as you write.
Whatever the instructor’s requirements, they obviously take precedence, and this
book should be usable for any of the situations just described. I will add, however,
that if you continue in Psychology, the coverage of APA style provided here will
definitely be helpful. Whatever your current needs, if you become a psychologist
you will need APA style. Writing in psychology is APA-style writing.
I am grateful to various people for help in the preparation of this book. I would like
to thank the following colleagues who reviewed the manuscript: Marie T. Balaban,
Eastern Oregon University; Elaine S. Barry, Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Cam-
pus; Kenneth C. Elliot, University of Maine at Augusta; Nancy Davis Johnson,
Queens University of Charlotte; Travis Langley, Henderson State University; Amy
E. Lindsey, Utica College; Claudia J. Stanny, University of West Florida; and Lori
Van Wallendael, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I also want to express
special thanks to Tony Onwuegbuzie for permission to reproduce the material in
Appendix B and to APA Permissions for permission to quote from the APA Publi-
cation Manual on pages 7, 15, 16, 23, 44, 53, 60, 65, 67, 88, 113, 114, 125. Finally,
I am grateful for the excellent support provided by the Routledge/Taylor and
Francis editorial and production team: Debra Riegert, Miren Alberro, and
Rebecca Willford.
The Importance of Writing
1
When I teach courses in research methods, the students do a lot of writing. For
many, it is a new experience, and for many it is not an experience that they look
forward to. I like to begin, therefore, with a pep talk about the importance of
writing.
WHY WRITE?
The first point I make is the most basic one. Science is a matter of shared informa-
tion, and a scientific finding is simply not a finding until it has been communicated
to others. Some such communication is oral—for example, presentations at profes-
sional conferences. By far the most important way in which scientists communi-
cate, however, is through writing—through publication of their work in books or
professional journals. Communication is an intrinsic part of science, and writing is
an intrinsic part of being a scientist.
One way to think about the importance of writing is to reflect on what you have
learned from your study of psychology. Some things you have learned may have
come from—or at least been reinforced by—personal experience. Most of what
you know, however, you know because someone wrote it down. This is obviously
true of learning through textbooks or journal articles. But it is equally true of learn-
ing from lectures. A lecture, after all, is simply an oral summary of information
gleaned from the written records of the field.
The discussion to this point may suggest that writing is a kind of necessary
evil—a service to the field certainly, but of no value to the researcher himself or
herself. In fact, as anyone who has done much research knows, such is far from
being the case. The need to communicate one’s work to others—to explain the
reasoning behind a particular methodological decision, to make sense of a puzzling
outcome, to suggest needed directions for future research—sharpens one’s think-
ing in a way that solitary contemplation alone could never accomplish. Such is the
case when one anticipates the audience for one’s work, and it is even more the case
when there is an actual audience—for example, when a manuscript is submitted
1
2 WRITING IN PSYCHOLOGY
to a journal for publication. The publication process will involve feedback from
reviewers and editors that may strengthen not only the current but also future re-
search efforts, and the same is true for the work’s reception following publication.
Science is a collaborative endeavor, and the benefits from sharing one’s work are
very much reciprocal and not just unidirectional.
WHY WRITE WELL?

The preceding section addressed the question of why write. It did not address the
question of why write well.
This is a reasonable question. Certainly the essential element in scientific com-
munication is the content. Assuming that all the important content is included,
why should we be concerned with the method of presentation? “Style” is a nicety
that can be left to English classes.
There is some truth to this argument. The content is indeed the most impor-
tant element of any scientific contribution. In addition, many aspects of what we
often think of as “style” (e.g., setting up ambiguity, interjection of the unexpected,
flashbacks or foreshadowing, use of metaphor, use of humor) are not appropriate
in scientific writing. It does not follow, however, that the quality of the writing is
unimportant. Indeed, just the reverse is the case. Any new contribution in psychol-
ogy must compete for attention in a marketplace of publications that is far too large
for any reader to come close to reading everything. One determinant of which con-
tributions rise to the top in this survival of the fittest is the quality of the writing.
The most successful publications have three attributes.
One is that they are clear. Inclusion of all the required content is a necessary,
starting-point component of a potential contribution to the literature. It is not a
sufficient component, however; rather, the content must be there in a form that
readers can understand. And it must be in a form that they can readily under-
stand, or the busy reader may turn elsewhere. You undoubtedly respond negatively
to material whose method of presentation poses an obstacle to understanding.
Researchers, reviewers, and editors have the same reaction.
A second attribute is that the most successful publications are interesting. Con-
ceivably, clarity could be achieved by simply presenting a bulleted list of points for
the reader to take away. An author who does so, however, is unlikely to achieve a
further goal of scientific writing: namely, to entice the busy reader to read further.
The best scientific writings tell a story, setting up the questions of interest in the
Introduction, detailing the approach to studying these questions in the Method,
and leading the reader gradually through to the answers to these questions in the
Results and Discussion.
A final attribute is that the most successful publications are persuasive. Some
people think of scientific writing as a dispassionate, facts-only enterprise. It is true
that objectivity and honesty are central to scientific writing. It is not true, however,
that an author cannot be an advocate for his or her work. A major element in suc-
cessful writing is persuasion: persuading the reader that the issues under study are
important ones, persuading the reader that the methods used to study these issues
THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING 3
are valid and informative, and persuading the reader that the conclusions drawn
from the research are novel and trustworthy.
As anyone who has done much reading in psychology knows, there is an imper-
fect relation between scientific eminence and ability to write. Not all of the field’s
major contributors have been good writers. Most, however, have been—that is one
reason that their contributions have had the impact that they have.
An even more pragmatic justification can be offered for writing well. Before
an article can be made available to the scientific community, it must be accepted
for publication in a professional journal. Most journals are selective in what they
publish, and the best journals have rejection rates of up to 80% or 90%. A poorly
written article is simply much less likely ever to see the light of day than a well-
written one. Busy editors and reviewers may be unwilling to make the effort to
penetrate the poor writing to get to underlying content and may be unable to find
the content if they do make the effort. Furthermore, because the purpose of a
research report is to communicate, the quality of the writing is a quite legitimate
part of the evaluation process.
The points just made are confirmed by many who have served as editors for
psychology journals (Eisenberg, Thompson, Augir, & Stanley, 2002). Eisenberg
(2000), for example, writes, “Many an article is rejected due to poor writing rather
than to lack of a good idea . . . or good data” (p. 26). There is also some empirical
evidence for a link between quality of writing and publication success. Brewer and
colleagues (Brewer, Scherzer, Van Raalte, Petitpas, & Andersen, 2001), in a survey
of journal editors, reported that 39% had returned a manuscript to the author be-
cause of failure to follow APA style (i.e., the rules presented in the APA Publication
Manual, a source that I consider at length throughout the book). Onwuegbuzie and
colleagues (Onwuegbuzie, Combs, Slate, & Frels, 2009) tabulated the number of er-
rors in APA style in manuscripts submitted to the journal Research in the Schools. In-
cluded in the tally were several basic grammatical errors in addition to points specific
to APA rules. They reported that articles with nine or more errors were three times
as likely to be rejected as articles with fewer errors. The authors go on to acknowl-
edge the familiar truism that correlation does not prove causation—in this case, that
poor writing causes manuscript rejection. It is possible, for example, that researchers
whose writing is relatively weak also produce research that is relatively weak. Their
own belief, however—one that is probably shared by most psychologists who have
been involved in the reviewing process—is that quality of writing does contribute.
WHY WRITE WELL (PART 2)?

Let me make the argument more personal. Suppose that your long-term goals do
not include writing in psychology. Is there then any reason (other than perhaps a
course requirement) to strive to learn to do such writing?
As you no doubt can anticipate, my answer is yes. The reason it is yes is that
good writing is good writing, and what you learn about writing in psychology
will carry over to other forms of writing. This point holds true even for the most
psychology-specific of the things you must learn: namely, the rules of APA style.
It is possible that you may not use APA style in whatever writing you do in the
future (although it is also possible that you will—APA style is used in a number of
contexts in addition to psychology writing). Still, you will need to use some consis-
tent style in whatever you write, such that you are not handling headings or refer-
ences or footnotes in one way at the start of a paper and a different way by the time
you reach the end. Working within the constraints of one style is good practice for
working with any style that you may eventually need.
Again, pragmatic considerations can be added to whatever intrinsic, need-to-
master motives may underlie the attempt to become a better writer. Assuming
that you are still a student, then quality of writing is a definite determinant of how
well you fare. Instructors may tell you that they grade on content and not on style,
but you should be skeptical whenever you hear this. It is difficult (and for some of
us impossible) not to be positively impressed by good writing and negatively im-
pressed by bad. At the extreme, one can hardly reward good content if the writing
is so bad that the content is impossible to discern.
I will mention just one more incentive for writing well. If you still have gradu-
ate school applications looming ahead of you, then the quality of your writing may
play an important role in your future development. There are few more certain
ways to sink a grad school application than to submit a poorly written essay or per-
sonal statement (Appleby & Appleby, 2006).
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

As the Preface indicates, the ordering of material in this book reflects my preferred
organization, and some instructors and some students will doubtless have other
preferences. Although some cross-chapter checking might sometimes be neces-
sary, it should be possible to read the chapters in any order that is preferred.
I begin in Chapter 2 with some general pieces of advice about how to approach
the task of writing in psychology. Included are a variety of suggestions culled from
a variety of different sources. You may find some of the suggestions easier to imple-
ment or more helpful than others, and that is fine—most are merely suggestions
rather than must-follow prescriptions.
A starting point of almost every kind of writing in psychology is knowledge
of the relevant research literature. An important skill for an aspiring psycholo-
gist, therefore, is the ability to search the literature to find the necessary sources.
Chapter 3 discusses how to carry out a literature search.
The remaining chapters of the book are devoted to the two general challenges
in writing in psychology. One is what to say. The other is how to say it.
The what-to-say question is addressed in the middle chapters of the book.
Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the most common form of writing in psychology: the em-
pirical journal article whose purpose is to report the results of research. Chapter 6
adds material on how to write a research proposal, and Chapter 7 discusses how
to write review papers that summarize some aspect of the psychological literature.
Because not all course assignments will fit one of these three molds, Chapter 7 also
offers some suggestions with respect to how to write term papers.
THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING 5
The how-to-say-it question divides into two general categories. One is specific
to psychology: the stylistic conventions, presented in the Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2010),
that govern writing in psychology. Chapter 8 discusses various aspects of the APA
rule system. I concentrate on points that in my experience are often the source of
errors in student papers.
The other part of the how-to-say-it question is both more general and more
difficult: how to write good, readable prose whatever the specific style or specific
context. This aspect of writing is a good deal less teachable than is mastery of a
conventional rule system (if it were readily teachable, all of us would write well).
Many of the suggestions offered in Chapter 2 are intended to aid in the task of
constructing smooth and grammatical prose. In addition, Chapter 9 addresses a
number of specific aspects of English grammar and word use. Again, I concentrate
on points that often go astray in student papers.
In addition to its nine chapters, the book includes two appendixes. One appen-
dix reproduces one of the tables from an article on standards for empirical journal
articles that APA commissioned at the time of the most recent revision of the Pub-
lication Manual (APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group
on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). The table provides a summary of
many of the points contained in the current version of the Publication Manual.
Note that the table will be most helpful if read in conjunction with the full article
in which it appears.
The second appendix presents an example of a paper in psychology, one that
deliberately includes a number of errors of both APA style and English grammar.
The paper appears twice: first in original form and then with the errors marked and
explained. The example comes from the Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) article referred
to earlier. Assuming no specific direction from an instructor, you can, of course, use
this appendix in any way you like. My advice is to take an initial look at the original
(i.e., uncorrected) version soon—even if you have no familiarity with APA style,
you should be able to identify some features that seem dubious. I suggest that you
then return to the appendix after reading Chapter 8. Note as many of the errors as
you can, and then check your reading against the corrected version provided in the
second part of the appendix.
WHAT ARE YOUR REQUIREMENTS?

A point made in the Preface is important enough to be reiterated here. My as-
sumption throughout this book is that your goal is to write an APA-style paper,
either an empirical report (the subject of Chapters 4 and 5), a research proposal
(the subject of Chapter 6), or a literature review (the subject of Chapter 7). If you
are doing your writing as a course requirement, however, your instructor’s require-
ments may differ in some ways from the guidelines offered here, and if so, it is the
instructor’s rules that take precedence.
Perhaps the most likely way in which a course requirement might differ from
this book’s emphases concerns the use of the APA Publication Manual, a topic that
I treat most fully in Chapter 8. It may be that you will be required to follow the
Manual’s prescriptions only in part, adhering to some of its rules but not others.
Perhaps, for example, you will be expected to produce a standard term-paper title
page (course number, date, etc.) rather than an APA-style title page. Perhaps you
will be expected to insert any tables or figures at the point at which they occur in
the text, not (as in APA style) near the end of the manuscript. Or perhaps there
will be a specific page limit or a minimum number of references required, neither
of which is true when writing a manuscript for publication. For these and any other
course-specific requirements, you may wish to note the relevant aspects of APA
style for future use, but they will not be anything that you need immediately.
It is also possible that you will not be expected to have and to use the Publica-
tion Manual at all. If so, my advice is to try nevertheless to write your papers in
APA style—apart, of course, from any aspects that you are explicitly instructed
to do differently. You should follow some consistent style in anything you write,
and for writing in psychology APA style is the style. Chapter 8 will not tell you
everything you need to know about how to do such writing; the only way to do
so would be to reproduce the entire contents of the Manual. The chapter will,
however, give you a good starting point, especially if used in conjunction with the
APA website devoted to APA style (www.apastyle.org). Or, of course, if used in
conjunction with the Manual itself, which you should consider purchasing if you
plan to continue in Psychology. For even if you do not need the Manual now, you
will need it eventually.
Some General Advice About
2
How to Write
Most of the rest of the book has to do with the two questions identified in Chapter 1:
what to say and how to say it. This chapter presents various strategies that can
increase the chances of being successful at both these tasks.
The strategies divide into two rough categories. Some might better be charac-
terized as aims rather than as strategies, for they represent qualities to strive for
in one’s writing. The first piece of advice given in the APA Publication Manual,
write concisely, falls in this category. So do the other qualities that I have singled
out below with an “Aim for” heading (simplicity, variety, smoothness). Aiming for
these qualities is, of course, not a sufficient basis for achieving them. But realizing
that they are goals to strive for may well be a necessary basis.
The second category encompasses various techniques for improving one’s writing.
This category, as you will see, is a potpourri of different pieces of advice, some derived
from my own experience and some taken from various how-to-write books or articles
by others. A few of the suggestions I regard as prescriptions—that is, as strategies that
should work for any author doing any sort of writing. The first suggestion, make use of
available sources of help, is in this category. The “Be Careful” admonition is another
example. Many of the suggestions, however, are just suggestions, things to be tried
out and then kept or discarded, depending on how well they work for you.
The Manual expresses this point well: “The fit between author and strategy is
more important than the particular strategy used” (p. 70). Authors of how-to-write
books tend to present the strategies that work for them. You need to use the strate-
gies that work for you. If you already know what these are, then put them to work
whenever you write. If you do not yet know, then work to discover what they are.
SEEK HELP
A first suggestion is to make use of all the various sources of help that are available
for writing in psychology. Especially if this sort of writing is new for you, there is no
way to get everything right on your own—so why try to do it on your own?
7
Written Sources of Help

The one indispensable source of help for writing in psychology is the APA Publica-
tion Manual. Even if you are not expected to apply APA style to your current writ-
ing projects, you may wish to begin the task, for if you continue in psychology it is
APA style that you will need to master. And if you are expected to apply APA style,
then the Manual is a must. You should keep the book next to you as you write, and
you should expect to consult it dozens of times between the start of a paper and
the finish.
Chapter 1 identified three components of successful writing in psychology:
knowing what content to include, knowing how to convey this content in clear
and grammatical prose, and knowing the APA rules that govern how the content
should be expressed. Of these tasks the third should be the easiest; everything that
needs to be known is spelled out in the Publication Manual, and with sufficient
care it should be possible to get everything right. Yet students often struggle to
master APA rules, and few, at least in my experience, come close to complete
mastery. Nor are students the only ones who find the APA system challenging;
various surveys indicate that even seasoned professionals often go astray (Brewer
et al., 2001; Ernst & Michel, 2006; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). The Onwuegbuzie
et al. (2009) survey reported an average of 10.57 errors in manuscripts submitted
for publication.
Why is the task so difficult? I suspect that many factors contribute, including
the fact that some aspects of the system (and I am thinking now of the rules for
numbers) are just plain hard to master. My guess, however, is that often the prob-
lem is not the difficulty of understanding the Manual but a failure even to consult
the Manual, either because an already learned rule from some other system is
assumed to apply or because of a failure to realize that there is a rule that applies.
When I teach writing, I suggest that students begin by leafing through the Manual,
just to get a feel for the range of topics considered. I also suggest that they look at
the two sample papers in the Manual (which, happily, are given increased promi-
nence in the current edition), because doing so is an excellent way to learn quickly
both what is covered and where it is covered.
Various sources of help exist for those attempting to master the Manual. A help-
ful supplement to the Manual is a website maintained by APA: www.apastyle.org.
The website summarizes the most important changes to the most recent edition
of the Manual, gives the answers to frequently asked questions, provides updates
with regard to evolving stylistic issues (e.g., how to do electronic references), and
gives information about further sources of help with APA style. The importance of
the website increased with the most recent revision of the Manual, which resulted
in a book that is 168 pages shorter than its predecessor. Much of the shortening
was possible because relevant information is now available on the web, on both the
APA style website and the websites for the various APA journals.
There also are a number of books whose purpose is to help students master APA
style. Table 2.1 lists several examples. Of course, helping students master APA style
is also one of the purposes of this book, and Chapter 8 is devoted to the task. Still,
SOME GENERAL ADVICE ABOUT HOW TO WRITE 9
TABLE 2.1 Guides to APA Style

American Psychological Association. (2009). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Mastering APA style: Student’s workbook and training
guide. Washington, DC: Author.
Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2013). A pocket style manual, APA version. Boston, MA: Bedford/
St. Martin’s.
Houghton, P. M., Houghton, T. J., & Pratt, M. M. (2009). APA: The easy way! (2nd ed.). Flint, MI:
Author.
Neal, M., & Shaw, W. (2012). Essentials of APA formatting and style. Arvada, CO: JavaKats
Publishing.
Rossiter, J. (2007). The APA pocket handbook: Rules for format and documentation [conforms to sixth
edition APA]. Augusta, GA: DW Publishing Company.
Schwartz, B. M., Landrum, R. E., & Regan, A. R. (2011). An easy guide to APA style. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
I mention these sources in case you would like to explore book-length and not just
chapter-length sources of help.
Help From Others

If you are doing your writing as part of a course requirement, then the most
obvious source of help is your instructor. At the least, you need to be sure that
you are clear about the nature of the assignment. As I noted in Chapter 1, my
assumption throughout this book is that your goal is to produce an APA-style
manuscript, either an empirical report (the subject of Chapters 4 and 5) or a
proposal or literature review (the subjects of Chapters 6 and 7). To the extent
that the assignment differs from these formats, you need to be aware of the dif-
ferences. If the instructor’s rules and APA rules conflict, clearly it is the former
that win out.
Beyond simply clarification of requirements, your instructor can be a resource
in a number of ways—clarifying some point from your reading, helping you to find
relevant sources, and perhaps providing feedback on a draft prior to final submis-
sion of the paper. Note that a teaching assistant can also perform these roles. Of
course, instructors and assistants vary with respect to how much help they are
willing to give, and you need to learn what is possible in your case. At least in my
experience, however, students are more likely to fail to seek out available help than
they are to ask for too much help. And at least within reasonable limits, it does not
hurt to ask, especially if your questions take the form of “help me learn to do this”
rather than “do this for me.”
The instructor is not the only possible source of help. For particular topics it
may be that other faculty members in your program have expertise that can be
sought out. Or it may be that fellow students can be a resource. One helpful strat-
egy (assuming that it does not violate course rules if you are writing your paper
for a course) is to exchange drafts with a fellow student and offer critiques of
each other’s work. Doing so not only gives you feedback with respect to your own
writing but also provides a chance to see how someone else has attempted to meet
similar challenges.
I will add that there is little point in soliciting feedback on your work if you are
not going to be responsive to the feedback. This point does not mean that you must
adopt every suggestion that is offered. It does mean, however, that you will con-
sider each suggestion carefully and will be willing to make changes when changes
are called for. And not just immediate changes that apply only to the document in
question. The main value of feedback—and the main thing that instructors hope
for when they provide feedback—is that the learning will carry over to future writ-
ing efforts. Conversely, few things are more annoying to an instructor—or more
grade-deflating—than to see the same errors repeated in paper after paper despite
explicit advice to the contrary.
I noted that you do not need to agree with or act upon every suggestion that
you receive. But of course there are situations (e.g., an instructor or committee
chair says “do this”) in which response to feedback is mandatory rather than op-
tional. I offer three consolations with respect to such forced compliance. First, in
the majority of cases the suggestion will be a good one that will improve your writ-
ing. Second, if you really disagree, you need not incorporate the change in your
future, beyond-the-course or beyond-the-thesis writing. Finally, the experience is
good practice for what will occur should you ever submit your work to a journal.
Reviewers and editors are likely to offer a number of “do this” pronouncements to
which you are expected to respond when you revise the manuscript. Again, you do
not need to incorporate every suggestion, especially if you can provide a good rea-
son for not doing so. Still, the eventual fate of your manuscript will likely depend
on your showing at least some degree of responsiveness and willingness to change.
Going to the Source

Suppose that your study is based on the research of Researcher A and that you
have some question about this research that is not answered by Researcher A’s
published work. Can you write to the researcher for help?
The answer is yes, but this answer comes with several qualifications. First, make
certain that the answer is not somewhere in print before sending your request for
help; obviously, you should not expect someone else to do your bibliographic work
for you. Second, keep the request brief and also keep the asked-for-response brief.
It is reasonable to ask for clarification of some procedural detail; it is not reason-
able to ask for a detailed critique of your experimental design. Finally, make clear
that you realize that you are asking for a favor and that the researcher may be too
busy to respond quickly or fully or perhaps at all. And if you do get a response, be
sure to send a thank you.
Online Help
As anyone who has typed a paper on a computer knows, sources of help with writ-
ing are no longer limited to books or other people. Various computer programs, as
well as various options within those programs, are available to monitor both spell-
ing and grammar as one writes.
Authors vary in how helpful they find these aids. My advice is to activate both
spell-check and grammar-check programs while writing but to be selective in what
you take from them. Even if you are a good speller, spell-check programs can catch
typographical errors, as well as the occasional word that you do not in fact know
how to spell. The problem with such programs, as numerous commentators have
noted, is that they can tell you that you have correctly spelled a word but not that
you have correctly spelled the right word. Thus spell-check programs cannot tell
the difference between there and their, lose and loose, principal and principle, and
any number of other homonyms or near-homonyms (a sampling of which I give in
Table 9.4 when I return to the issue of homonyms). As one who graded thousands
of student papers before the advent of spell-check, I can testify that such programs
have made spelling errors much less common than was once the case. They have
not eliminated them, however.
Grammar-check programs are also useful in catching typographical errors. And,
of course, they can also perform their intended function of flagging grammatically
incorrect constructions. The problem is that in their present state of development
such programs also flag a number of constructions that are as grammatical as a con-
struction can be. They produce, in other words, a high number of false positives.
Doubtless the software in question will improve with time, and such programs may
eventually have a much better hit-to-error ratio. At present, however, their feed-
back should be used very selectively. The odds are that your grammatical abilities
outstrip those of grammar-check.
READ PSYCHOLOGY BEFORE WRITING PSYCHOLOGY

A second suggestion is to read psychology before writing psychology. A basic dif-
ficulty that many students have in writing psychology research reports is simply
that they have read few such reports themselves. Writing in psychology is not fun-
damentally different from other kinds of writing, as I will stress shortly. Neverthe-
less, there is a kind of feeling for what is appropriate in a research report—for how
things are said, for what should be included and what left out—that can be gained
only by exposure to a number of real-life examples. Such exposure is not sufficient
to ensure success, but it may well be necessary.
If you are writing a paper in psychology, then you necessarily are also reading
psychology—there will be relevant literature that must be mastered as a context
for the presentation of your work. The suggestion now is that you pay attention not
just to the content of what you read but also to the style—to how other authors
have handled the expositional challenges that you are now facing. Beyond simply
required reading of this sort, I suggest that you also seek out some examples of
journal articles in an area of psychology that interests you. There is no reason,
of course, to seek models indiscriminately—there are plenty of bad examples in
even the best journals. What makes more sense is to enlist some guidance in find-
ing especially good examples and then learn from them. I will offer one general
piece of advice here, and that is to target the journals published by the American
Psychological Association, or APA (a list of which is available on the APA website:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/index.aspx), for these are among the strongest
journals in the field.
Note that you may be able to decide yourself whether a particular example is
going to prove helpful. If you read a few paragraphs and find yourself either con-
fused or bored, then you probably do not want to pattern your writing after what
you see. Conversely, notice what it is in other reports that grabs and holds your
attention, and aim for similar qualities in your own writing.
Note that published articles are not a good source for one of the challenges in
learning to write psychology: namely, mastering APA style. For one thing, not all
journals are APA journals, and those that are not do not always require APA style.
In addition, some APA rules changed with the publication of the 6th edition of the
Manual in 2010, and so only fairly recent publications will reflect the current rules.
Finally, the manuscript version of an article (the target to which the Manual is
directed) differs in various ways from the version that eventually appears in print.
The conclusion is straightforward: The only way to master APA style is to work
closely from the APA Manual.
AIM FOR SIMPLICITY

My third suggestion is to seek simplicity in writing. The danger in a section such
as the preceding one is that it may reinforce the notion that scientific writing is an
abstruse business that is somehow basically different from other kinds of writing.
In particular, scientific writing is difficult, packed with arcane technical terms, long
and complex sentences, densely reasoned arguments, and so forth.
It is true that scientific writing requires a kind of formality of discourse that
does not hold for writing in general. It is true also that technical terms exist in any
discipline and are often preferable to less precise everyday language. (My favorite
defense of technical terms in psychology is from the novelist Peter DeVries, who
wrote that “Id is not just another big word.”) One reason to read articles in psychol-
ogy is to develop a sense of the sort of tone and sort of vocabulary that are appro-
priate for such writing. It is not true, however, that scientific writing should aim
for difficulty; rather, just the reverse is the case. There will be difficulties aplenty
in the content being conveyed; the goal of the writing should be to help the reader
surmount the difficulties and arrive at understanding. Thus, in general the short,
simple word is preferable to the long, complex one; the familiar word to the ob-
scure one; the short, simple sentence to the long, convoluted one; and the short or
medium-length paragraph to the one that stretches across two or three pages. The
aim, after all, is to communicate, not to impress the reader with one’s sophistication.
The value of simplicity is not limited to scientific writing. “Simplicity” is the
title of the second chapter of one of the leading guides to general writing style,
On Writing Well by Zinsser (2006). Simplicity is also a recurring theme in what
is probably the best-known such general writing guide, Strunk and White’s (2000)
The Elements of Style.
AIM FOR VARIETY

The fourth suggestion is to seek variety in writing. Simple sentences may be
desirable, but an unbroken string of simple sentences quickly begins to pall. The
shorter word is not always the best one, and in any case an occasional long word or
long sentence can impart a kind of rhythm to the prose that enhances readability.
Recall that one goal of effective writing is to interest the reader. The writer who
consistently uses the same vocabulary, the same sentence structure, and the same
paragraph structure may succeed in being clear but is unlikely to be very interest-
ing. Clarity of expression and grace of style are not incompatible, and both should
be sought.
I should add—and this is a point I take from Bem (2004)—that varying one’s
wording just for the sake of variation is not always a helpful move. Consider the
following two ways of summarizing a research outcome:
“Men showed a low level of response in the low-reward condition; women,

however, showed increased responding under low reward.”
“Men showed a low level of response in the low-reward condition; women,
however, persisted longer at the task when the payoff was less than expected.”
The second summary certainly provides more variety in wording than does the
first. But it also requires more work from the reader, who must equate “less than
expected payoff” with “low reward” and “persisted longer” with “increased re-
sponding.” Requiring unnecessary work from the reader is never a desirable qual-
ity in writing. Variety is nice, but clarity is more important, and often it is best,
especially when drawing comparisons, to use the same wording and same sentence
structure rather than change just for the sake of change.
AIM FOR CONCISENESS

The first topic addressed in the APA Manual’s “Writing Clearly and Concisely”
chapter is length. As the word “Concisely” in the chapter title suggests, the empha-
sis is on minimizing length, an emphasis conveyed by what the Manual labels the
“less is more” rule. It is an emphasis also found in the instructions for authors that
many journals provide. For example, the web page for Developmental Psychology
(the APA journal for developmental psychology) tells prospective authors the fol-
lowing: “Editors will decide on the appropriate length and may return a manu-
script for revision before reviews if they think the paper is too long. Please make
manuscripts as brief as possible. We have a strong preference for shorter papers.”
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (another APA journal) limits
submissions to 35 manuscript pages. Anything longer must be justified in a cover
letter to the editor.
Like simplicity, conciseness is not a virtue that applies only to scientific writing.
A similar emphasis is found in an often-quoted passage from Strunk and White’s
(2000) The Elements of Style: “Omit needless words! Omit needless words! Omit
needless words!” (p. xv).
Although conciseness may be a general virtue, in psychology there is also

a pragmatic justification for minimizing length. As I noted in Chapter 1, the num-
ber of submissions to journals far outstrips the number of available journal pages.
And as we have just seen, editors are protective of their limited space. Manuscripts
whose length is out of proportion to their contribution invite a negative response.
If submitted to a journal they may be rejected outright; at the least, editors and
reviewers are likely to demand substantial reductions in length.
The goal, then, is to produce a manuscript that is as long as it needs to be and
no longer. Achieving this goal requires that authors solve two challenges. One is to
say only what needs to be said. One purpose of this book is to help you make the
need-to-say or not decision. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss what needs to be said in each
of the sections of an empirical report, and Chapters 6 and 7 address the issue for
other forms of writing.
The other challenge is to say what needs to be said as briefly as possible. The
Manual offers various pieces of advice as to how to do so, including eliminating
redundancy, cutting down on use of the passive voice, and weeding out overly
detailed descriptions and irrelevancies. In part, such eliminating and weeding out
can be achieved by following the aim-for-simplicity principle, for the simpler word
or phrase is usually the shorter one as well. Probably the most important strategy,
however, is vigilance and self-monitoring, asking yourself continually as you write
(or rewrite): “Have I made this point as economically as possible?” If the answer is
no, then try to say the same thing in fewer words.
Although brevity is a virtue, it is important not to overstate the need for con-
ciseness. In the first graduate course in writing that I took, the instructor em-
phasized brevity so forcefully that none of us came close to including all of the
necessary information in our papers. The advice to be economical does not mean
that scientific writing should be telegraphic. Brevity achieves nothing if important
content is lost or if the terseness of the writing makes the paper unreadable. The
primary goal remains communication, not space saving. A good rule is this: When
in doubt, include. It is generally easier, for both author and reader, to pare down
an unnecessarily long draft than to try to make sense of a bewilderingly short one.
Less may indeed be more, but only if the less is not too little.
AIM FOR SMOOTHNESS

Of all the “Aim for” goals, this one may be both the least objectionable (who would
not aim for smoothness?) and the hardest to achieve.
What is meant by “smooth”? It may be easier to identify kinds of writing that
are not smooth. The aim-for-simplicity principle is again relevant. A high propor-
tion of multisyllable words, multiclause sentences, and page-long paragraphs is
unlikely to fit anyone’s definition of “smooth.” In general, simpler is smoother.
The Manual identifies another contributor to lack of smoothness: the use of
strings of nouns as adjectives. In itself, the use of words that are typically nouns
as adjectives is a familiar, useful, and quite acceptable aspect of English (e.g.,
“test instructions,” “posttest debriefing,” “publication manual,” “Results section”).
The difficulty comes when several nouns-as-adjectives are strung together in a

row—for example (to take two particularly egregious examples from the Manual),
“commonly used investigative expanded issue control question technique,” or
“early childhood thought disorder misdiagnosis” (p. 66). Not only are such phrases
cumbersome to read, but they lend themselves to misreading, as readers assume
that they have finally reached the noun in the sentence only to find that it is an-
other adjective. The Manual suggests various ways to untangle such strings, includ-
ing hyphenating when appropriate (e.g., “expanded-issue, control-technique”) and
moving the last word to the beginning (e.g., “misdiagnosis of thought disorders in
early childhood”).
Another problem that the Manual warns against is abruptness or discontinuity
in writing. Sometimes the individual elements in a manuscript are fine in them-
selves, but it is not clear how one element leads to the next. If so, the problem
may lie more in the content than in the method of presentation; you need to be
sure that the various parts of your argument are arranged in a logical, building-
upon-each-other sequence. Elements of the presentation, however, can also help
the reader to follow the flow of movement. In particular, various transitional terms
can provide helpful links across the different parts of a manuscript. Table 2.2
presents a number of such transitional terms that the Manual singles out. As can
be seen, different kinds of links are possible, depending on exactly how the new
element relates to the old.
Let me mention one of these transition words that sometimes gets overused
in student papers, and that is the word then. The overuse comes in Procedure
sections when the author is providing a chronological account of the events of the
study. What occurs is something like the following. “The tester first explained the
game to the child. She then presented the warm-up item. The stimuli for the first
problem were then presented. The tester then reminded the child of the rules for
the game. She then. . . .” And so on. Tempting as it may be, there should never be
two sentences in a row with “then,” let alone half a dozen. Often at least some of
the sentences in such an account do not need a specific temporal marker. When
they do, other possibilities (e.g., “After this,” “Next”) can help to avoid the ubiq-
uitous “then.”
I will conclude this section on smoothness by pointing ahead to one of the
strategies to be discussed shortly: namely, reading a draft of the manuscript aloud
to oneself. There are various ways that reading one’s writing aloud can be helpful,
but one is as a test for smoothness. If you find yourself stumbling over words or
TABLE 2.2 Transitional Terms

Type of link Terms
Time then, next, after, while, since
Cause-effect therefore, consequently, as a result
Addition in addition, moreover, furthermore, similarly
Contrast but, conversely, nevertheless, however, although
passages, needing to pause for breath, or wondering when a particular sentence

will ever end, then your writing is not yet as smooth as it needs to be.
USE THE ACTIVE VOICE

A quick reminder. The term active voice refers to a sentence structure in which the
actor is stated first, followed by the action, followed by the object of the action—for
example, “The man read the book.” The passive voice refers to a sentence structure
in which the order of the actor and the object is reversed—for example, “The book
was read by the man.”
One of the prescriptions in the Manual is to prefer the active voice, because
use of the active voice generally results in a more vigorous, direct communication.
The pair of sentences that the Manual uses to make this point is not the clearest
possible example: “We conducted the survey in a controlled setting.” “The survey
was conducted in a controlled setting” (p. 77). Note, though, that the actor is as-
sumed in the second of these sentences; if it had to be stated explicitly (“was con-
ducted in a controlled setting by us”), the superiority of the active voice would be
more obvious. Becker (2007) provides a clearer contrast: “Every writing text insists
that you substitute active verbs for passive ones when you can” rather than
“The necessity of replacing passive verbs with active ones is emphasized in every
book on writing” (p. 79).
A preference for the active voice is yet another suggestion that is not limited
to writing in psychology. One of the first “Principles of Composition” in Strunk
and White’s (2000, p. 18) The Elements of Style is “Use of the active voice.” In the
words of another style authority, “The active voice has palpable advantages in most
contexts: It saves words, says directly who has done what, and meets the reader’s
expectation of a normal actor-verb-object sentence order” (Garner, 2009, p. 613).
The admonition to use the active voice does not mean that the active voice
should always be used. Recall that variety (if it is not overdone) is one quality to
aim for in one’s writing, and an occasional use of the passive is one way to provide
variety. Also, as the “in most contexts” in the Garner passage indicates, there are
some instances in which the passive voice is preferable to the active. Probably the
most common such instance comes when the writer wishes to focus on the object
or recipient of an action rather than on the actor. “The president was shot” is a
natural wording for such a message, because the emphasis is on the information
that is most important to convey, namely, who it was who was shot. The Manual’s
example is “The speakers were attached to either side of the chair” (p. 77), also a
natural wording because the interest here is in where the speakers were attached,
not in who attached them. Garner (2009) lists five other reasons for employing
the passive, including the fact that in some cases the passive simply sounds better.
Despite the exceptions just noted, the advice here is straightforward. Write
primarily in the active voice. Mix in an occasional passive sentence, but be aware
that you are doing so and do so only when there is a good reason for using the
passive. The passive voice should not be overused. Or better: Do not overuse the
passive voice.
BE CAREFUL
This next suggestion should fall in the goes-without-saying category. Unfortunately,
as anyone who has read many student papers knows, it does not. Especially if this
kind of writing is new for you, there are certain to be missteps and omissions that
are beyond your control. You need to make sure that there are no mistakes in what
you can control.
How might lack of sufficient care lead to problems? Failing to respond to feed-
back is one example. Getting something wrong once is often understandable. Get-
ting something wrong a second time, after being told the first time that you got it
wrong, is simply lack of effort.
Some mistakes should not happen even once. At a basic level, there is no ex-
cuse for not proofreading a paper before submitting it. A paper replete with typo-
graphical or grammatical errors is not only an insult to the reader but also a sure
stimulus for negative reactions. Spell-check and grammar-check programs can be
helpful in this regard; as noted earlier, however, they are not sufficient. Whatever
spell-check and grammar-check tell you, you still need to reread carefully to be
sure that there are no remaining errors.
As you will see when you attempt the task, getting every aspect of your refer-
ences in proper APA style can be a challenge, and some errors may be inevitable
on the first few attempts. There is no reason, however, not to get certain basic
aspects of the citations and references correct. Being sure that every source you
cite in the text appears in the References list is simply a matter of effort. Being sure
that the entry in the References matches that in the text (same names, same dates)
is simply a matter of effort. Getting these things wrong is a clear sign that you have
not put in sufficient effort.
Finally, at a higher level, it is important to reread papers for ideas as well as for
grammar and spelling and citations. Many papers contain blatant misstatements,
contradictions, inconsistencies, and so forth that obviously would never have sur-
vived if their authors had simply taken the time to reread what they had written.
I will add here a suggestion that both the Manual and many how-to-write
guides offer. It is not simply to reread your paper but to do so after a delay. Most
of us have difficulty reading our own work as objectively as we can read that of oth-
ers; we know what we intended to say, and when we read we tend to process the
intent rather than the actual product. Returning to the manuscript after a delay
makes it easier for an author to put himself or herself in the perspective of a first-
time reader. This makes it easier to see what is actually there rather than what was
supposed to be there.
READ ALOUD
Here is another suggestion found in both the Manual and many writing guides. It is
not simply to reread what you have written but to read it aloud to yourself.
One reason to do so was noted earlier: as a test for the smoothness of the writing.
More generally, reading aloud serves the same purpose as reading the manuscript
after a delay: It forces attention on what is actually there, rather than on what the
author intended to be there. Sometimes student papers (and, to be fair, papers by
others also) contain passages that clearly did not come out as intended—something
is missing, something is repeated, something is contradictory, or whatever. The pas-
sage is obviously not something that the author would ever say, assuming that he
or she were simply talking about the research. The simplest way to pose the would-
I-say-this test is in fact to say aloud what you have written. If the passage fails the test,
then it needs to be changed. (Note that the reverse direction does not hold: The fact
that you would say something in a particular way does not mean that you can write it
that way. If it did, many papers would feature the word like in every sentence.)
PLAN AHEAD
The most important entry under this heading is “allow sufficient time.” If you are a
student, you may well have had a skeptical reaction to the advice in the preceding
sections. Who has time for multiple rereadings of a paper when half a dozen papers
and exams are coming due at the same time? The answer is that you have to make
time. The most serious error I see students make (and most instructors would
probably second this observation) is to wait too long to begin working on a paper.
The time to begin work on a paper is as soon as (a) you know that you will be writ-
ing it and (b) you have enough information about what you will be writing to begin.
Not only will such use of the available time reward you in the present case, but it
is good practice for whatever beyond-the-classroom writing you may do. Multiple
responsibilities and deadlines are not limited to college classes; they are the norm
for most of the writing that most of us do.
Using the available time is, of course, just one component of planning. You also
need to plan what you will write.
Let us consider for a moment the various decisions that must be made in the
course of writing a paper. You must decide, out of all the potentially usable mate-
rial that you have to work with, what will be included in the paper and what will
be left out. You need to decide on relative emphases, what material will receive a
relatively expansive treatment and what material will be handled more briefly. You
need to decide on the order of presentation, what will come first in each section of
the paper and what next and what after that. Beyond simply the order of material,
you need to decide on the organizational structure for the paper, what the different
sections or headings will be and which subsidiary topics will be embedded within
which more general topics.
How much of this organizational decision making should be done in advance
of writing? Advice-givers vary in their views on this question. For some (e.g., Silva,
2007; Sternberg & Sternberg, 2010), the answer is quite bit—a detailed in-advance
outline is the way to begin the writing process. In Silva’s (2007) words, “You can’t
write an article if you don’t know what to write. . . . Get your thoughts in order be-
fore you try to communicate them to the world of science” (p. 79). Others, however,
disagree. Peterson (2006), for example, writes, “I think that the notion of planning
out one’s writing before one starts has been given too much emphasis” (p. 362).
And personally, I doubt that I have generated a formal, detailed outline since the
last time that a high school teacher forced me to.
The preceding is not meant to suggest that an article can somehow materialize
with no in-advance planning. But how much is necessary, as well as what form it
takes, varies across authors. If you find a detailed outline helpful, then generate
one (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2010, provide a helpful discussion of how to do so). If
note taking or perhaps simply thinking the problem through is sufficient, then take
that approach. Again, you need to use the strategies that work for you.
I should qualify this somewhat skeptical view of outlining by noting that the
value of outlining may vary across different kinds of papers. Suppose that you are
writing an empirical report (the subject of Chapters 4 and 5). In this case you do
not need an outline to decide on the basic organizational structure for the paper;
you already know that the Introduction will come first, followed by the Method,
followed by the Results, followed by the Discussion. You do not need an outline to
decide on the sequence of material within the Method; that section will open with
Participants or Subjects, followed by (if necessary) Materials or Apparatus, followed
by Procedure. Furthermore, as Chapters 4 and 5 discuss, well-established guide-
lines exist for deciding on sequence and emphases within each of the other sections
of the paper. There will still be decisions to make about the specifics of your paper,
and an outline may be helpful in that regard. But for many of us it is not necessary.
Suppose, in contrast, that you are writing a literature review (the topic of
Chapter 7). In this case the organizational possibilities are a good deal less con-
strained than is true for empirical reports, and there consequently will be many
more decisions to make about what headings to use, how to order the material,
and which specific topics to embed within which more general topics. Even if
you do not begin with an outline, a literature review is likely to require more in-
advance planning than does an empirical report. The same is true, I will note, for
the amorphous category of “term paper” that dots the syllabi of many Psychology
undergraduate courses. Outlines, then, may be an it-depends decision in a couple
senses: It depends on the author, and it depends on the paper.
Rosnow and Rosnow (2012) add an interesting point about outlines. Even if
you do not begin with an outline, you may want to finish with one—that is, gener-
ate an outline after you have completed a draft of the paper. Doing so is one way to
check—along, of course, with rereading—that you have included all that you need
to include and that your organizational structure is clear and consistent.
GETTING STARTED (PART 1)

Where should you begin your writing? A famous answer to this question appears in
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It is advice offered by the White King: “Begin
at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”
It may be that you, like the White Rabbit in Alice, will have no choice with re-
spect to whether to follow the White King’s advice. An instructor may require that
the Introduction be submitted first, followed by the Method, and so forth, and if
so, this is the order that you will follow.
Suppose, however, that you do have a choice. You may, of course, always decide
to adopt the expected beginning-to-end order. The point for now is that you do not
have to.
Why would you not begin at the beginning? The answer is that Introductions
are often one of the more difficult parts of a paper to write, and the opening para-
graph of the Introduction can sometimes be especially difficult. Rather than sit
for days agonizing over the search for the perfect opening, you might find it more
adaptive to start with a part of the paper that you feel more ready to tackle. For
many of us, for example, the Method is the easiest section to write, for it is mainly
just straight factual reporting—you know what you did, and your task now is to
convey what you did to the reader. Assuming that you understand your statistics,
parts of the Results section may also be relatively easy to write, given that there
are standard ways to summarize statistics in the text and that you can apply these
general templates to your data. The point is that it may be important (especially
with a deadline looming) to start—to be able to tell yourself that you are under way.
Once you are, the harder-to-write sections may come more easily.
GETTING STARTED (PART 2)

The preceding section addressed where to begin. This section discusses how to
begin. The basic question is how close does what you write initially need to be to
what you will write finally.
One approach has been labeled the “spew method” (Peterson, 2006, p. 362).
As this rather inelegant label suggests, the goal of the spew method is to get words
on paper quickly, concentrating on the content that needs to be conveyed and not
worrying yet about the style with which it is conveyed. In Peterson’s (2006, p. 362)
words, “The only rule governing the spew method is not to rewrite as one goes
along.” Silva (2007, p. 75) concurs, in a section labeled “Write First, Revise Later”:
“Generating text and revising text are distinct parts of writing. . . . The quest for the
perfect first draft is misguided.”
The spew method is another example of a strategy that works for some authors.
If it works for you, by all means use it. If you are not sure whether it works for you,
by all means experiment with it. Again, the approach is simple: Think about what
you wish to write (perhaps having first generated an outline) and then write it as
quickly and as without interruption as you can. Later, you can go back and work
on the style.
How well this approach works for you probably depends on how easily you
can separate, albeit temporarily, content and style. Advocates of the approach are
no doubt correct that an attempt to make every sentence perfect before moving
on may keep some authors from ever getting beyond the first few sentences. Not
every author, however, suffers from this kind of perfectionist paralysis; for some,
rewriting as they go may work perfectly well. Note that the issue is not whether
rewriting will be necessary—few of us get much in final form on first attempt. The
issue is when the rewriting will occur. For some authors the best strategy may be
an extreme version of the spew method—that is, generate a first draft of the entire
manuscript and only then go back and rewrite. For others a less extreme version
may work better—perhaps generate a section of the manuscript (e.g., Introduc-
tion, Method) and then rewrite, or perhaps a section within a section, or perhaps
a paragraph within a section. Whatever the approach, the constant element is the
need to rewrite—to revisit each sentence and make it as strong as you can.
The discussion to this point has focused on how to produce a complete version
of a manuscript, one that is ready to submit to either an instructor or a journal. If
the latter is the case, then further rewriting may eventually be necessary in response
to feedback from reviewers and the editor. Rewriting of this sort poses some further
challenges beyond those present in self-generated rewriting. Among the helpful
sources with respect to how to revise a journal submission are Liben (2010), Nagata
and Trierweiler (2006), Osipow (2006), and Warren (2000). Note that the advice in
these sources is not limited to journal submissions; it can also be helpful if you are
required to submit multiple drafts of a course paper in response to feedback from
the instructor or multiple drafts of a thesis in response to feedback from the chair.
KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE

So far we have been discussing writing without addressing a key question: For
whom are you doing the writing—that is, who is the intended audience for the
paper?
If you are writing your paper for a course, then the immediate audience is,
of course, your instructor. Assuming, however, that the assignment is to write an
APA-style report, then the broader audience is the readership for whatever journal
would be appropriate given the topic of your paper. How general or how special-
ized should you be in writing for such an audience? What sorts of knowledge can
you assume, and what kinds of information do you need to spell out?
The answer is that you want to aim for somewhere in between on the general
to specialized continuum. On the one hand, you do not want to write exclusively
for the relatively few specialists who do the kind of research you are reporting. Any
paper should be of interest to a broader audience and should be comprehensible
to a broader audience. On the other hand, you are not writing for Time or News-
week or even Psychology Today. Thus you do not need to start from ground zero;
you can assume some basic background knowledge in anyone who would seek out
an article such as yours.
As an example (and this is an example I refer to in Chapter 4), imagine that
you are writing an article about theory of mind in young children, an article that
would be submitted to a journal of developmental psychology. Your readership will
consist primarily of developmental psychologists but may also include researchers
from other areas of psychology and perhaps other disciplines (e.g., education) who
have an interest in the topic. Such readers can be assumed to bring various kinds
of relevant knowledge to such an article—knowledge, for example, about major
figures in developmental psychology, or about the verbal limitations of young chil-
dren, or about standard statistical procedures for analysis of data. Material of this
sort, therefore, should not require any explanation. Most readers will probably also
already know something about the topic of theory of mind. Not all will, however,
and even those familiar with the topic may not possess the specific background
knowledge that is necessary to understand your work. The discussion of theory of
mind, therefore, will require some basic expositional material, prior to a focus on
the specific aspects of the literature that led to your study.
The challenge, then, is to judge what your likely audience already knows (and
thus you do not need to explain) and what it does not know (and thus you do need to
explain). Making this judgment can be difficult, especially if you are relatively new
to the field of psychology. Here is another way in which reading psychology can in-
form your own writing of psychology. As you read, note what sorts of knowledge are
assumed at various points in the papers you read and what sorts of things are spelled
out. Look especially at the cases that are closest to the decisions that you need to
make. If neither Author A nor Author B takes the space to explain a particular point,
then probably you do not need to do so either. Conversely, if other authors treat
particular kinds of material as in need of explanation, then probably you should also.
There may still be instances in which you are uncertain about whether the
material that you are presenting requires an explanation. Earlier I suggested a
default assumption for whether to include material: When in doubt, include. I sug-
gest a similar default assumption for whether to explain material: When in doubt,
explain. It is best to err in the direction of making your paper more rather than
less accessible to potential readers. Depending on the content, there may still be
aspects of the presentation, perhaps especially in the Method and the Results, that
not every reader will fully comprehend. Nevertheless, the broad outlines of your
message—what you did, why you did it, why we should care—should be accessible
to any interested reader.
The know-your-audience principle is not limited to writing papers for classes
or articles for journals, nor is the need to write for an audience that varies in the
expertise they bring to what you have written. If you complete a master’s thesis or
a dissertation, you will need to produce a document that works for both your com-
mittee chair (presumably an expert in the topic) and an “outside” member from
some other discipline (presumably a good deal less expert). Similarly, if you write
a grant seeking funding for your research, you will need to communicate with
evaluators from a range of different backgrounds and disciplines.
USE OF SOURCES
Any paper in psychology has some original element—something that makes it a
new contribution, something that makes it the author’s own. But no paper—not
even the most groundbreaking effort by the field’s most eminent theorist—is ever
totally new; rather, every paper is grounded in and made possible by what came
before. It is the job of the author to make clear the sources for his or her work.
Proper use of sources divides into three general tasks. One is finding the
sources in the first place. I address this task in Chapter 3. A second is using the
correct APA style for citing a source in the text and for spelling it out in the Refer-
ences list. Chapter 8 discusses these tasks.
The third task is the one that I consider here. It is how to make fair use of one’s
sources.
Plagiarism
The basic rule is simple: You need to cite anything that you are in some way making
use of. To do so, you need to remember what you are making use of, which is one
reason to take careful notes when you read your background sources. If source A
was the basis for point X, you need to be able to recapture this fact when you come
to write about X. Failure to cite a source that contributed to your paper constitutes
one form of plagiarism. And plagiarism, as you should be aware, is one of the most
serious breaches of both academic and professional ethics.
Using someone’s work without attribution is one form of plagiarism. Using
someone’s words without attribution is another form of plagiarism. If you want
to use someone else’s words, you need to indicate that you are quoting. I discuss
quotations shortly. Generally, however, rather than quoting, the way to summarize
the sources you read is by paraphrasing—that is, convey the points that you want
to take away from the source, but do so in your own words rather than those of the
original author.
Paraphrasing presents two challenges. One is coming up with original word-
ing that departs sufficiently from the original. The goal is to change the wording
enough so that the meaning is retained but the resulting passage really is your
writing and not that of the original author. Table 2.3 reproduces a passage from the
Manual that I quote in Chapter 8. It also provides two paraphrases of the passage.
TABLE 2.3 Examples of Paraphrases

Original passage
As an organization, APA is committed both to science and to the fair treatment of individuals and
groups, and this policy requires that authors who write for APA publications avoid perpetuating
demeaning attitudes and biased assumptions about people in their writing. Constructions that
might imply bias against persons on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic group,
disability, or age are unacceptable.
Unacceptable paraphrase
As the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2010) indicates, APA is committed
not only to science but also to the fair treatment of people. This policy affects authors who write for
APA publications. Such authors need to avoid perpetuating demeaning attitudes and assumptions
about people. Wording that might imply bias against people based on factors such as gender, sexual
orientation, race or ethnicity, disability, or age is unacceptable.
Acceptable paraphrase
As the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2010) indicates, APA has a dual
commitment: to scientific research and to the fair treatment of people who might be affected by
research. Articles intended for publication in APA journals must not employ wording that conveys
negative attitudes about the groups being discussed. Among the dimensions for which the choice of
wording can be important are age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability.
The first is too close to the original to be acceptable, because it reuses too many
elements from the original. The second paraphrase is distinct enough to pass the
own-writing test.
The second challenge follows from the first. The more you change the wording
in the material you are drawing from, the greater the risk that you may be changing
the meaning as well. The way to guard against this possibility should be obvious.
You need to be certain that you understand what you have read before attempting
to paraphrase it, because only then can you safely translate the material into your
own words. And, of course, understanding should be a goal with respect to all of
your background reading.
The preceding advice is meant to guard against unintentional plagiarism. I as-
sume that most readers of this book do not need to be warned against intentional
plagiarism—that is, deliberately presenting someone else’s work as one’s own. For
the few who might need such a warning, I will add a pragmatic argument against
plagiarism to go along with the ethical argument (which, of course, should be a suf-
ficient reason for avoiding the practice). The penalties when plagiarism is detected
are severe, and plagiarism is in fact often not difficult to detect. A number of elec-
tronic programs now exist precisely for this purpose. And even before the develop-
ment of such programs, any experienced instructor could often spot writing that
clearly was not the student’s own. In short, if you deliberately present someone
else’s work as your own, you will not learn how to do such writing yourself, you will
be violating a basic ethical principle, and you will run an appreciable risk of detec-
tion and severe sanctions.
Quotations
As noted, if you are going to quote rather than paraphrase you need to indicate
explicitly that you are doing so. Chapter 8 discusses the APA rules for presentation
of quotations. The main point that I want to make about quotations here is not to
overuse them—a point that I make because many students do overuse quotations.
If you are going to quote, there should be some reason for doing so. Quotations
should not be used for standard passages that you could easily put in your own
words; they should be reserved for material that is in some way especially vivid
or informative or memorable. Quotations should not be used for material that is
peripheral to the main themes of your paper; they should be reserved for material
that is central to what you want to say. Finally, although any author may be the
source for a quotation, quotations tend to be skewed toward the major figures in
the field. Thus, other things being equal, quote Freud or Skinner or Piaget before
quoting Researcher A, B, or C.
How often then should you quote? There is no set figure. For most empirical
articles, however, the answer is somewhere between not at all and twice.
One of the pieces of advice offered earlier was to read psychology before at-
tempting to write psychology. If you follow this advice, one thing that you should
note as you read is how rarely quotations appear in psychology articles. I can
provide a little data on this point. I did a quick scan of the first two issues of
the journal Developmental Psychology from 2012, a total of 53 articles. Of these,
37 contained no quotations at all, 15 contained one quotation, and one contained
two quotations. Again, if you find yourself with multiple quotations, force yourself
do without some of them.
It may have occurred to you that the preceding advice falls under the heading
of “do as I say and not as I do,” given the frequency of quotations in this book.
There is no contradiction, however. A book is not an empirical journal article, and
in some respects (use of quotations being one) the two kinds of writing differ.
SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed a variety of ways to improve one’s writing. It may be
helpful to have a brief reminder of the points discussed. That is the purpose of
Table 2.4.
The table divides the entries into the two categories identified at the start of
the chapter: aims to strive for in one’s writing and strategies to make the writing as
effective as possible. I will reiterate just one point here. Realizing that strategies
such as those in the table can be helpful is a starting point; often, however, further
decisions must be made about exactly how to apply the strategy (how to plan, how
to begin, how to reread, etc.). No single approach will work for all authors, and you
need to discover the approaches that work best for you.
TABLE 2.4 Summary of Advice With Regard to Writing

Qualities to aim for:
Simplicity
Variety
Conciseness
Smoothness
Strategies to follow:
Use available sources of help.
Learn from examples of writing in psychology.
Plan ahead.
Be careful.
Start with material with which you are comfortable.
Use the active voice.
Write for the intended audience.
Reread and rewrite frequently.
Make appropriate and fair use of sources.
Review carefully after writing, including reading aloud.
EXERCISES
1. Find a term paper that you have written while in college—ideally, a fairly recent
paper written for a Psychology course. Identify all the passive sentences in the paper
and change as many as possible to the active voice. (This exercise is adapted from
Dunn, 2011.)
2. Obtain a copy of the Strunk and White book (Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B., 2000,
The Elements of Style, 4th ed., New York, NY: Longman) and read the chapter en-
titled “Elementary Principles of Composition.” Find a recent paper that you have
written and evaluate how well the paper adheres to the principles set forth by Strunk
and White.
3. Table 5.2 presents the concluding paragraphs from three of the classic studies in
psychology. For each, write a paraphrase of the passage that preserves the meaning
but expresses it in your own words. If you are not certain that you have fully grasped
the meaning, consult the full article before writing.
4. One emphasis of this chapter is the need to write as concisely as possible. Consider
the following example of a possible concluding paragraph from an empirical report,
one that has been deliberately inflated beyond the original passage on which it is
based. Rewrite the passage so that the same meaning is expressed in at most half as
many words. Once you have done so, compare your version with the original para-
graph on which the passage is based (McCrae et al., 1999).
Like all human beings, personality psychologists are necessarily prisoners of the
time in which they live, whether that time be the mid 20th century or the present mo-
ment of the dawn of the 21st century. All the development that such psychologists study,
whether the study is cross-sectional or whether the study is longitudinal, necessarily
occurs in the particular historical era in which the research takes place. In other words,
research findings are always embedded in a specific historical context. The historical
grounding of their research means that in principle psychologists cannot replicate their
studies in other eras to assess directly the generalizability of their conclusions. The im-
possibility of such a direct test threatens one of the major goals of the discipline, the
quest for a cumulative science of psychology (Gergen, 1977). Unless they are prepared
to abandon this quest, psychologists must turn to indirect methods in an attempt to
verify the generalizability of their conclusions. What might such methods be? The pres-
ent study offers one answer to this question. The study of personality development in
cultures with different recent histories—the approach taken in the present research—
provides one method for surmounting the time-bound nature of any particular find-
ing. What does such research show? The evidence so far suggests that there are lawful
patterns of adult personality development that are likely to hold in all times and places.
Conducting a Literature Search
3
Writing in psychology takes a variety of forms, several of which we will consider
across the remaining chapters of the book. As we will see, writing a research pro-
posal is in some respects different from writing the report of a completed study,
and both kinds of writing in turn differ in some ways from the writing that goes into
a literature review. One important feature, however, is common to almost every
kind of writing in psychology, and that is a grounding in the relevant empirical and
theoretical literature. Anyone who wishes to write successfully in psychology must
identify the relevant literature for his or her topic and must convey the conclusions
from this literature clearly and accurately to the eventual reader. The chapters
to come discuss ways to achieve the “clearly and accurately” goal. This chapter
considers the first of these tasks: how to search the literature to identify relevant
sources.
TYPES OF SOURCES
A first point is that relevant sources come in many forms, and the forms vary in how
useful they are likely to be. Table 3.1 lists and briefly describes the most common
types. In what follows I discuss ways to evaluate the trustworthiness and usefulness
of the different sources. Note, though, that if you are doing your writing to fulfill a
course assignment it is important to be clear about your instructor’s expectations.
You may be required to use only certain kinds of sources, and if so you can limit
your search to these types.
A basic distinction divides the entries in the table, and that is the distinction be-
tween primary sources and secondary sources. In most instances, a primary source
is a report of original research written by the researcher or researchers who car-
ried out the research. Empirical journal articles are the main entry in this category.
Papers or posters presented at conferences are another example. Primary sources
also include theoretical statements written by the theorist himself or herself, state-
ments that may take the form of a journal article, a conference talk, or part or all
of a book.
27
TABLE 3.1 Sources for Information About Research in Psychology

Source Strengths Weaknesses
Journal article: The major primary source for reports Despite peer review, articles (and
empirical report of research. Peer review guarantees journals in general) vary in quality.
generally high quality. There is typically a delay between
completion of research and
publication.
Journal article: Generally the most trustworthy Same as above.
review source for review articles. Such
articles perform a service to the
field by synthesizing large bodies of
research literature.
Conference paper A primary source for reports of Not as detailed as journal reports and
(usually quite recent) research. typically of more variable quality.
Textbook A generally reliable source of The breadth of coverage is at the
information on a wide range of expense of detailed, expert-level
topics. treatment of specific topics.
Specialized book In contrast to a textbook, provides Typically not as up to date as a review
a detailed treatment of the topic article in a journal. Also of more
under review. Expertise is generally variable quality than a peer-reviewed
higher, especially if different authors journal article.
contribute different chapters.
Magazines and Provide an easily accessible and Generally written at a simplified level
newspapers generally up-to-date coverage of a more appropriate for a lay audience
range of topics. than a professional audience.
Lack the controls for accuracy and
absence of bias that characterize
journal articles.
Internet Provides multiple sources of Different sites vary markedly in the
information on virtually any topic in trustworthiness of the information
psychology. they provide. As with the popular
press, most sites lack controls for
accuracy and absence of bias.
Secondary sources, in contrast, are summaries of primary sources, written by

authors who carried out at best some and often none of the work being summa-
rized. Textbooks are one example in this category. So too are review articles pub-
lished in journals and newspaper or magazine stories.
Secondary sources, as I discuss shortly, can be valuable in a number of ways.
For most papers in psychology, however, the bulk of the supporting literature
should consist of primary sources. The reason for this prescription is straightfor-
ward. Secondary sources are at least one step removed from the original work, and
any conclusions they provide are winnowed through the perspective of someone
who typically was not involved in creating the work. The admonition “go to the
source” is generally a good one, and for writing in psychology the primary source
is the source.
CONDUCTING A LITERATURE SEARCH 29
The preceding does not mean that any primary source must be accepted with-
out question. A critical reading of any source you plan to use is part of your re-
sponsibility as both psychologist and author. In addition, primary sources vary in
how trustworthy they are likely to be. The gold standard in this respect is the
journal article. The great majority of journal articles in psychology have undergone
what is known as “peer review” prior to being published. Peer review means that
at least one and typically two or three psychologists with expertise in the topic
under study have read the submission to the journal and have agreed that it merits
publication. Peer review is thus a kind of quality control, a mechanism to ensure,
via objective evaluation by disinterested experts, that only work that deserves to
be published gets published. As I noted in Chapter 1, for the best journals this can
mean that 80% or more of submissions go unpublished.
In addition to its gate-keeping role, peer review serves another important
function. The reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication typically contain a
number of comments and suggestions that are conveyed to the author, comments
and suggestions that the author can take into account if he or she decides to revise
the manuscript and resubmit it for publication. The result is that the final, pub-
lished manuscript is in a sense a collaborative effort, and it is generally stronger
than it would have been without the feedback from peers.
Earlier I referred to “best journals.” This phrase raises a further point, and that
is that journals vary in quality. In general, and as you would expect, journals with
the most stringent criteria for acceptance tend to publish the best papers. For this
reason, those who are knowledgeable about a discipline may pay special attention
and give special credence to articles that appear in the most prestigious journals.
Among the strong journals across many areas of psychology are those published by
the American Psychological Association (a list of which is available at http://www.
apa.org/pubs/journals/index.aspx) and those published by the Association for Psy-
chological Science (a list of which is available at http://www.psychologicalscience.
org/index.php/publications). A general ranking of journals, based largely on
the number of times in which articles in the journal are cited in other articles,
is provided by the Social Science Citation Index (http://thomsonreuters.com/
products_services/science/science_products/a-z/social_sciences_citation_index/).
Journal articles are not the only form of primary report. Every year thousands
of research projects in psychology are presented at professional conferences.
Conference presentations typically feature quite recent, often ongoing, research,
and they therefore can be valuable sources if you can gain access to them (an
issue that I discuss shortly). They do, however, have two limitations in comparison
to journal articles. First, they typically are a good deal less detailed, a limitation
that makes them harder to evaluate and harder to summarize accurately. Second,
although most conference presentations have undergone peer review, the review
is less rigorous than that for journal articles, and it typically does not include feed-
back to which the author can respond. Given the choice, therefore, you should
always opt for the published version of a study rather than the conference version.
In particular, if you encounter a reference to a conference report in your reading,
check to see if the work has been published before settling for the conference
version. The same point applies, obviously, to any unpublished manuscripts that
you see cited.
Let us turn now to secondary sources. Two entries in this category need to be
treated with special caution. One is newspapers and magazines. Although there
may be a surface similarity, a story in a newspaper or magazine differs in important
respects from a journal article on the same subject. A newspaper or magazine story
is not only not a primary report; it is usually written by a journalist and not by a
scientist with expertise in the topic. A newspaper or magazine story does not un-
dergo peer review, it is intended for the lay public and not for a professional audi-
ence, and it typically concentrates on the conclusions from research without saying
much or anything about the methods on which the conclusions are based. For all
of these reasons, you should not plan to include such sources in the References list
for any paper you write (the only exception being if popular-press accounts of the
phenomenon in question are one of the topics that your paper addresses). Such
stories, however, can be helpful in a couple senses: They may suggest an interest-
ing topic that would not have occurred to you otherwise, and they may direct you
to primary sources on the topic.
The second treat-with-caution entry is information on the internet. Such in-
formation, as you no doubt know, comes in a dizzying variety of forms, and some
forms are much more trustworthy than others. To begin at the trustworthy end,
most of the primary sources that you use will probably be obtained via the inter-
net, given that virtually every psychology journal is now available electronically
(indeed, some only electronically). Most of the search that you carry out to locate
such sources will probably also occur via the internet, given that the main data-
bases for such search (which I discuss in the next section) are electronic databases.
In such cases the internet locus of the information is obviously not a concern.
In addition to the uses just described, many internet sites provide reliable
secondary-source treatments of a range of topics in psychology. As an example, let
us imagine that you type “autism” into Google’s search engine. Among the first en-
tries identified by the Google search are two sites provided by the National Insti-
tute of Health (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002494/http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002494/; http://www.ninds.nih.gov/
disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm), both of which are solidly grounded in rel-
evant research and both of which cite a number of primary sources that an in-
terested reader can seek out. In general, sites with a “gov” URL are relatively
trustworthy, as are “edu” sites (those with a university affiliation) and “org” sites.
Note that the last of these categories includes the sites for professional organiza-
tions such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association
for Psychological Science (APS).
On the other hand, as you progress through the Google pages for autism you
will encounter a number of sites whose trustworthiness is a good deal less certain—
therapists marketing a particular kind of treatment, groups arguing that vaccines
are a cause of autism, one site that identifies cow manure as a possible cause. It is
good to remember that virtually anyone can create a home page or blog or partici-
pate in a chat room—no credentials at all are necessary.
CONDUCTING A LITERATURE SEARCH 31
I have already suggested one way to evaluate the likely credibility of internet
sites: pay attention to the domain name (e.g., gov, edu, org, com). Further tips are
available in several helpful guides to internet use, some in book form (e.g., Ford,
2011; Tate, 2010) and some on web pages (e.g., http:/lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/
eval.html; http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm). Table 3.2
presents five criteria for evaluating the credibility of websites, taken from the first
of these web sources. Obviously, these are criteria that apply to any source, not just
those obtained on the internet. The point, however, is that it is often more difficult
to answer these questions with internet sources than it is with other sources. In
comparison to a journal article, it is also less likely that the answers, assuming they
are discovered, will be positive ones.
Because of its ubiquity these days, Wikipedia deserves a special mention. As
of this writing, a search of Index of Psychological Articles on Wikipedia yields 121
entries—for the letter A alone. Clearly, Wikipedia is a rich source of potential
information. As is true of the site in general, the psychology articles on Wikipedia
are unsigned, they have not undergone peer review (although they may have been
modified by multiple contributors), and they definitely vary in quality and reli-
ability. For these reasons, such sources are dubious entries on the References list
for any article you write. They can be helpful, however, in terms of alerting you
to issues or ideas that you may have been unaware of, as well as directing you to
primary sources for the topic in question.
It is worth noting that the Association for Psychological Science recently
launched an initiative to improve the quality of psychology articles on Wikipedia
(Banaji, 2010). You can follow the course of this initiative—and perhaps eventually
contribute yourself—by monitoring the website devoted to the effort: http://www.
psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative.
Having emphasized the potential unreliability of secondary sources, I should
say something about the more reliable entries in this category. Journal articles
TABLE 3.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Credibility of Internet Sources

Criterion Specific Question
Authority Is there an author identified? Is the author qualified? Is there a sponsor, and if so is
the sponsor reputable? If neither an author nor a sponsor is identified, is there any
way to determine the article’s origin?
Accuracy Is the information reliable and error-free? Is there anyone (e.g., an editor) who
verifies the information?
Objectivity Does the information show a minimum of bias? Is the page designed to sway opinion?
Is there advertising on the page?
Currency Is the page dated? If so, when was the last update? How current are the links?
Coverage What topics are covered? What does the page offer that is not found elsewhere?
How in-depth is the material?
Note. Adapted from “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, or Why It’s a Good Idea to Evaluate Web
Sources,” by S. E. Beck, 2009. Retrieved from http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html.
Adapted with permission.
are again the source of choice. Many journals in psychology are devoted to re-
view articles that summarize the literature on important topics in the field. Psy-
chological Bulletin is the most general of these sources, and more specialized
journals exist for most of the major subareas of psychology (e.g., Developmental
Review for developmental psychology, Review of Educational Research for edu-
cational psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Review for personality
and social psychology). Books and book chapters are another possibility. Most
books, it is true, do not undergo the rigorous review process that characterizes
the best journals, and the reviews they offer tend therefore to be more variable
in quality. Some, however, are outstanding. The Annual Review of Psychology
has long offered in-depth reviews on a range of topics (different from year to
year) written by leading researchers of the topics in question. Note that the An-
nual Review is available online (http://www.annualreviews.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/loi/
psych). Similar expertise and depth characterize the chapters in various hand-
books devoted to different areas of psychology, handbooks that typically receive
new editions every few years (e.g., Handbook of Child Psychology, Handbook of
Clinical Psychology).
I indicated earlier that most of the sources you cite should be primary sources.
This advice does not mean, however, that secondary sources should not appear
in your References list. Indeed, just the reverse is the case. If some secondary
source played a role in your understanding of the topic, then you need to give
proper credit by citing the source in your paper. In addition, it is a service to your
readers to make them aware of helpful reviews of the topics to which your paper
is directed. As I discuss in Chapter 4, there is seldom enough space to provide an
exhaustive review of relevant literature in the Introduction to an empirical report.
By citing further, more detailed sources you will enable interested readers to go
beyond the information that you have space to provide.
SEARCH STRATEGIES
The preceding section discussed how to evaluate the different kinds of sources
that underlie writing in psychology. This section discusses how to find the sources
in the first place.
We can begin with the simplest (and probably the oldest) search strategy: Ask
someone. If you are writing your paper for a course, then the instructor or teach-
ing assistant is an obvious resource. For particular topics other faculty members
or graduate students in your department may have expertise and may be willing
to help. Note also that reference librarians can be a wonderful resource at various
points in the search process.
I will add that such help-seeking probably should not be the first step in your
search process. You do not want to ask someone to do something that you could
easily have done yourself; in addition, one of your goals should be to learn how
to conduct a search on your own. Help from others, therefore, is most appropri-
ate when you have gotten under way and have specific questions to ask—how to
select keywords on PsycInfo, perhaps, or how to weigh the credibility of conflicting
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
II.21)
Berlin, 1856 január 30-án.

Későre kaptam meg a Magyar Sajtó 149-ik számát, melyben ön
Signora Ristori czimű czikkemet megtámadja. Ez az oka, hogy
feleletemmel csaknem elkéstem. Nem baj. Néhány czikkére teendő
megjegyzésem most se fölösleges, s fölhívásom, a melyet önhöz
intézek, még most is teljesíthető.
Az ön czikke, pár indokolatlan állítás s néhány alkalmasint
szerepeiből emlékében maradt dagályos phrásison kívül, nem foglal
magában egyebet, mint a már mástól reám kimondott hazafiatlanság
vádját. E kényelmes és népszerű vád mindenütt divatos, de sehol se
annyira, mint nálunk, a minek, fájdalom, megvan a maga igen
természetes oka. Angolországban nem egy journalista vádolja
Dickenst és Thackerayt hazafiatlansággal. Miért? Mert kiméletlenül
leplezgetik föl az angol társadalom sebeit. Én végtelenül kevesebbet
tettem, csak színészeink hanyagsága, tragédiaköltőink
könnyelműsége s közönségünk philister hajlamai fölött humorizáltam
s önök mégis oly érdemet tulajdonítanak nekem, a minővel e két
nagy regényíró bír.
Ezután nem fogok többé vitatkozni e vád ellen, sőt úgy fogom
venni, mint bókot. Valóban kezdek büszke lenni az önöktől reám
ruházott hazafiatlan czímre, ha elgondolom, hogy kit neveznek önök
hazafias kritikusnak. Önök szerint – legalább beszédeik és
tapasztalataim után azt kell sejtenem – az a hazafi kritikus, a ki
fejtegetés és birálat helyett üres phrásisokat farag; leplezi
fogyatkozásainkat, mégis előhaladásunkban remél, kérkedőn hirdeti
dicsősségünket s a tehetséget a nem tehetséggel, az érdemet a
nyegleséggel egy sorba helyezi; rosszakaratnak hirdeti az elvek
jogos szenvedélyét s a magánérdekek szenvedélyének hódol,
tekintélyt követel, épen oly pártos, mint következetlen, untalan a
haza nevét koptatja s azt hiszi, hogy ezáltal már szolgálta is.
Idézzek-e adatokat? Ezelőtt egy évvel idéztem eleget, noha csak
egyetlen lapból, ha kivánják, idézni fogok többet és tízannyit. Én
ennek a kritikának határozott és kérlelhetetlen ellensége vagyok,
mert nevetségessé tesz bennünket az idegenek előtt; mert nem
termékenyíti az irodalmat; mert eszmezavart idéz elő; mert
lehangolja a becsvágyat; mert hizeleg a hiúság szeszélyeinek; mert
fölbátorítja a könnyelműséget és hanyagságot.
Van-e szükség kritikusra vagy nincs? ez oly kérdés, mely
irodalmunkban újra föllátszik merülni. Elég szégyen, hogy e
kérdésről még most is vitáznunk kell, miután oly kritikusaink voltak,
mint Kazinczy, Kölcsey, Bajza, Erdélyi, s munkálkodásaik oly
jótékony hatását mutatják föl irodalmi évkönyveink. Részemről nem
vitázok s utasítok minden írót s olvasót irodalmunk multjára.
Vigasztalásul mégis mondhatók mindenkinek annyit, hogy a kritikus
nagy költőt és művészt épen úgy nem teremtett soha, mint nem
tudott elnyomni. A nagy költő és művész, azon a nagy befolyáson
kívül, melyet kora gyakorol reá, mindig maga teremti magát, ha van
elég tehetsége s ha nem restel mindent megtenni tehetségének
kifejtésére. A kritika csak az utat egyengeti számukra, csak az ízlés
érdekeit védi, csak gyönyörködik és haragszik; csak tapasztal,
észlel, fejteget s hátrahagyja tanulmányai és küzdelmei tanulságát,
melynek a legnagyobb költő is hasznát veheti, ha a legtöbb esetben
nem is föltétlenül. Szigorú legyen-e a kritika vagy nem, az
másodrangú kérdés, a fődolog az, hogy legyen elve, jelleme és
mértéke. Én a szigorú kritika híve vagyok, mert visszahat
kedélyemre azon csaknem a nevetségességig ment üres
engedékenység és pártosság, a mi irodalmi közlönyeinknek
majdnem mindegyikében divatos, mert meg vagyok győződve, hogy
irodalmunk e válságos korszakában szükség van őszinte, szigorú
szóra, sőt éles gúnyos hangra is, mind az írók, mind a közönség
irányában.
Miért magasztaljam én a mi közönségünket, midőn kötelességét
csak félig teljesíti azzal, hogy bizonyos irányban némi élénkülő
részvétet mutat irodalmunk és művészetünk iránt? Ez a közönség
untatlan ajkain hordja a nyelv és nemzeti műveltség ügyét és
érdekében sokkal kevesebbet tesz, mint a mennyit tehetne.
Nem szégyen-e, hogy egyetlen tudományos folyóiratunk a
részvétlenség miatt nem felelhet meg hivatásának? Nem szégyen-e,
hogy közönségünkben nem találkoznak annyian, a kik részvények
útján, mi másutt is szokás, egy irodalmunkhoz méltó tudományos
folyóiratot alapítsanak, mely a tudományok európai fejlődését
figyelemmel kisérhesse és hazai tudományosságunkal is
előmozdítsa? Ezelőtt húsz évvel az akkori szükségekhez képest volt
ilyen folyóiratunk. Most alig van. Ezelőtt tíz-húsz évvel volt kritikai
folyóiratunk, sőt voltak különféle szakfolyóiratunk is. Most alig van
egy-kettő. Nem szégyen-e, hogy oly művekből, melyek fordításban
idegen nemzeteknél is figyelmet gerjesztettek, nálunk alig kél el
néhány példány? Nem szégyen-e, hogy kevés kivétellel azoknak az
íróknak van legtöbb közönségük, a kiknek a legtöbb ismerősük vagy
oly jóbarátjuk van, kik elég fáradhatatlanok összehajhászni az
előfizetőket. Valóban, ha szavaim hatását remélhetném, a gúny és
fájdalom legélesebb fegyvereit használnám közönségünk ellen, mely
kegyúrnak, maecenásnak hiszi magát s még kötelességét sem
teljesíti egészen.
Miért ne legyen szigorú a kritika az írók irányában is? Csecsemő
korát éli e irodalmunk, nincs-e, ha nem is nagy, de elég díszes
multja? Nem voltak-e, nincsenek-e oly íróink is, kik akármily
irodalomban becsülettel megállhatnának? Miért ne legyen
önérzetünk, melylyel a mult emléke s a jövő reménye egyaránt
emeljenek? Miért ne követeljünk egymástól többet, mint a mennyit
adunk; annyit, a mennyit adhatnánk. Miért álljunk össze egymás
dicsőítésére azért, hogy ellenségeinknek jogos szatirákra, sikerült
torzképekre adjunk alkalmat? Aztán elvégre is a művészetet és
irodalmat soha sem tarthatja fön, csak emelheti a pusztán nemzeties
részvét; szükségeseké kell magukat tenniök, különben elvesznek,
haszontalanokká válnak. Nekem kevés hítem van oly irodalomba,
mely csak a nemzeti érzésre támaszkodik s nem egyszersmind a
tudománynak és míveltségnek a viszonyokból követelt szükségeire.
Sötét világfájdalmas nézet – mondhatják sokan. E vád ellen sem
fogom többé védeni magam; úgy veendem, mint bókot, szánakozván
azon derült méretű boldogokon, kiknek oly jó kedvök van Még
egyszer mondom, hogy az irodalomnak és művészetnek
szükségesekké kell magukat tenniök s ezért tartozik az itészet
magasabb szempontokból kiindulva. Ezt próbáltam én meg néhány
czikkben a szépirodalmat illetőleg, melyben némi jártasságom van, s
nem vádol a lelkiismeret, hogy rosszat tettem. Bár kisértenék meg
mások is ugyanezt irodalmunk más ágaiban s többi készültséggel és
kitartással, mint én. A mozgalom élet jele, a nyugalom lassú halál.
Előbbre kell vinnünk szükségesebbé kell tennünk irodalmunkat s
minden lehetőt megtennünk érdekében, a mit még nem tettünk meg.
Ez legyen az irodalomi kritika és közönség jelszava. Ez eszme nem
ábránd, álmodozás, sőt nagyon is rideg, fájó és gúnyos igazság. De
miért beszéltem én mindezt – mondhatja ön – hiszen önt csak a
színház és tapsok, csak a dráma és jó szerepek, csak költői, azaz
magasztaló birálatok érdeklik. Igaza van. Hadd szóljak hát ezekről.
A fővárosi közönség tiszteletet érdemel, hogy köteleségét híven
teljesíti és színházán annyi részvét és szeretettel csügg. De vajon
minden tiszteletünk mellett nem lehet-e megrónunk azon
tulajdonságát, hogy a magasabb, a valódi drámai költészet iránt nem
viseltetik elég érdekkel? Én voltam tanuja színházunkban oly
jelenetnek, melyben a közönség fölfedezte, hogy Shakspeare nem
nagy költő. Tapasztaltam, hogy a páholyok legtöbbször társalogni
szoktak, midőn az úgynevezett szavalati drámák kerülnek színpadra.
Az sem kerülte el figyelmemet, hogy a színésznő szép öltözékével
néha nagyobb hatást idézett elő, mint játékával; hogy némely
színész modoros fogásait inkább megtapsolják, mind szerepének
valóban művészien csinált részeit. Ezt önön is tapasztaltam. A
szinészek jól tudják mindezt, valamint a költők is s nincs annyi
büszkeségük, hogy a közönséget, alázó hódolat helyett,
meghódítani igyekezzenek, közönségünk igen sokszor nem annyira
a költők és színészek becsvágyát táplálja, mint inkább hiúságaiknak
hizeleg; nem annyira azon igyekszik, hogy színházunkban a
költészet és magyar szó bájai tartsanak ünnepet, mint inkább, hogy
látványa és puszta időtöltése legyen. Aztán a koszorú is oly olcsó
lett már, hogy maholnap ingyen adják, míg a sok kihívás miatt
utoljára éjfélig fog tartani az előadás. Miért ne legyen a szellemi
jutalomnak becse? Miért váljék a taps és koszorú költészete a
legridegebb prózává? Mindezt, sőt ennél többet is tartozik elmondani
a kritika s ha a közönség sértve érzi magát, szabadságában áll
pedansnak nevezni a kritikust, ki aztán ismét azzal vigasztalhatja
magát; bizony ez többé kevésbbé másutt is úgy van azon
különbséggel, hogy másutt a színház ügye nem oly jelentékeny, mint
nálunk.
S vajon a színészet irányában mért ne legyen szigorú a kritika?
Mai szülött-e színészetünk s félszázados multja nem elég díszes-e?
Igaz, szinházi viszonyaink nem állanak a legjobban, de szinészeink
állása eléggé biztosítva van arra, hogy művészetöknek élhessenek.
Miért ne kivánjunk tőlük igyekezettel, előhaladását, tanulmányt.
Miféle eredményt idéztek elő engedékeny birálataink? Ösztönzés és
önérzet helyett oly fönhéjázást, melyet ha valaki illetni mer, csaknem
a gonosztevő hirébe jő, oly önelégültséget, mely csak nevetséges
lenne, ha nem volna egyszersmind számandó is. De a szigorú birálat
csak elkeseredést, csak daczot szül – mondhatja ön, állítását saját
példájával igazolva mind a multból mind a jelenből. Meglehet. De a
kritika nem tartozik számba venni az egyéni szeszélyeket, s ha
helyes eszméket fejteget, mindenesetre szélesbbíti az ízlési látkört,
gondolatokat ébreszt s elébb utóbb némi jó eredményt szül, ha nem
is épen annyit, mennyit az itész jóhiszeme remél. S miért legyen az
itész engedékeny a drámaírók iránt? Annyira kevés önérzetük
legyen-e, hogy oly gyönge műveket is magasztaljunk, minöknél már
jobbakat birunk? Miért ne követelhetnök drámairodalmunk
továbbfejlődését? Miért ne mondjuk drámaíróinknak, hogy ha
szeretik a dicsőséget, szeretniök kell az utat is, mely oda vezet?
Igaz, drámaíróink nincsenek oly jól díjazva, de a díj és jutalom még
sohasem teremtett jó drámát. Francziaországban elég jól vannak
díjazva a drámaírók mégis elég haszontalan művet írnak. Schiller
negyedrész annyit se kapott drámáiból, mint amennyit a sok mostani
rossz német drámaíró kap, mégis a német drámairodalom egyik
alapítója lett. Katona nem, hogy kapott volna valamit «Bánkbán»-
jáért; sőt belé vesztett, mégis oly művet írt, melyre akármely nemzet
csaknem oly büszke lehetne, mint mi.
A díj igen szükséges, igen jó, de nem minden. Tekintsünk vissza
irodalmunk multjára, s tanuljunk meg onnan valamit, mit, úgy látszik
feledni akarunk. Kifizette meg Kazinczynak azt, hogy egész életét
nyelvünk megújításának s irodalmunk emelkedésének szentelte?
Senki; de azért ő nem csüggedt el, hatás-e Vörösmartynak eleinte
egyenként többet azon művekért, melyekkel költészetünkben
korszakot alkotott, mint a mennyit mi kapunk néhány jelentéktelen
hirlapi czikkeinkért? Nem, s ő mégis tudott dolgozni. Eszményies,
ábrándos fölfogás, fogják mondani sokan, de én tényekről,
személyekről szólok, kiknek oly sokat köszönhet irodalmunk,
nemzetiségünk, becsületünk. Ne vénüljünk meg, mielőtt még ifjak
lettünk volna, ne engedjük kialudni szívünkben a lelkesedést, ha
mindjárt többet kellene is szenvednünk érette, mint elődeink!
Most áttérek az ön czikkének azon két indokolatlan állítására,
melyekről föntebb emlékeztem.
Ön így szól: «Miként fogja föl e fohász (tudniillik az én czikkem) a
tragédiát, vagy általában fölfogja-e?… abba most nem ereszkedem,
csak azt jegyzem meg, hogy ez a sopánkodás, egyéb gyarlóságai
mellett, még csak nem is eredeti, hanem utánzása és visszhangja
azon híres franczia classikai párt sápítozásainak, mely azért vált
leginkább bohózatossá, mert a franczia classicitást állította föl, mint
legmagasabb eszmény képét az újkori tragédiának». Mi módon
juthatott ön e gondolathoz, nem tudom elképzelni. Alkalmasint ez is
olynemű geniálitás és szívbensőség, a mit az én prózai és szívtelen
gyengeségem föl nem foghat. Ristori-czikkem távolról sem fejtegette
a tragédia alapelveit; a franczia drámai iskolának pedig se classikai,
se romantikai elméletét nem állította föl eszményképül. E mellett
régibb czikkeimben annyira nem hirdettem soha a franczia classikai
iskola idő és hely egységét s más sajátságait, hogy ezekkel épen
homlokegyenest ellenkező nézeteket fejtegettem, mindig
Shakespearere hivatkozva. Legfeljebb Alfierival állhatna ön elő. De
mit mondodtam én? Azt, hogy Alfieri bárminő iskolához tartozott is,
valódi költő, oly drámaköltő volt, kihez hasonlót a németek Goethén
és Schilleren kívül nem tudnak fölmutatni. Vajon iskoláját védtem-e?
Vajon nem költői, tehetsége mellett szolaltam-e föl a német
kritikusok ellenében, kik iránta igazságtalanok? Vajon Racine és
Corneille költői tehetségét nem ismerték-e el a franczia romantikai
iskola vezérei s legelhatározottabb hívei is, noha iskolájokat a
leghevesebben támadták meg? Aztán Mirrá-ját nem mondotta-e a
legkétesebb becsű tragédiának, a mit ön jónak látott elhallgatni,
hogy erkölcstelennek mutathasson be, mint a ki egy lánynak atyja
iránti szerelmébe gyönyörködöm? Vajon nem azzal vádoltam e
mindig tragédiaíróinkat, hogy az erkölcsi világrend törvényeit nem
értik eléggé, s épen azért nem képesek előidézni se erős tragikai
összeütközést, se költői igazságszolgáltatást? Hogy ön mindezt nem
akarja tudni. Nem csodálkozom, mert tudom, hogy nálunk az a
legdivatosabb polemia, mely az eszméket nem támadja meg, hanem
elfacsarja és haszontalankodik, de azon megint ön csodálkozhatnék,
ha én az ily eljárás iránt a legkisebb tisztelettel is viseltetem. A mi
egyébiránt az önök erkölcsi és aesthetikai elveit illeti, azokat épen
nincs kedvem magamévá tennem.
Ha ön föntebb idézett soraiban nem a tragédia elméletére czéloz,
hanem arra, mit azok nem jelenthetnek; a tragédia elvállására s azt
hiszi, hogy én azon tragikai stil és hagyományok iránt, mit a classikai
dráma a franczia és olasz színészetben hátrahagyott, rokonszenvvel
viseltetem, akkor mond valami olyant, a mit Ristori czikkemből
kiolvashatni. A franczia classikai dráma igen természetes okoknál
fogva nagy mértékben kifejté a franczia színészetben a pathoszt, az
emelkedett szavalatot. Mint mindennek, úgy ennek is megvan a
maga árnyoldala, de fényoldala oly nagy, hogy a franczia színészet
dicsőségét alkotja. Corneille és Racine nem hijába írták oly szépen,
mindig találkoztak színészek és színésznők egész Rachelig, kik
verseikkel elbájolják a félvilágot. Bármennyit gunyolódjanak a
németek a franczia színészet pathoszával, ők a szavalatban soha
sem tudtak annyi bájt fejtene ki, annyi hatást idézni elő s hijába
hivatkoznak az angolokra, kik hasonlókép nagyra becsülik a
pathoszt, a minek mi is tanúi lehettünk Aldriage
vendégszerepléseikor.
A franczia classikai dráma másfelől nagyban elősegíté a
színészeti plastika kifejlődését is. A költők tárgyaikat nagyrészt a
görög vagy római mythologiából és történetekből vévén, már maga
az öltözék kényszeríté a színészeket némi plastikára, a mit a régi
classikai irodalom és művészet iránti rokonszenv még inkább
elősegített. Teljességgel nem szándékozom a franczia classikai
dráma elméletét akkor védeni, midőn azt már az idők és kritikusok
egyaránt megbuktatták, csak azon hagyományait érintem röviden,
melyeket a franczia színészetben hátrahagyott. A franczia classikai
dráma sok tekintetben szembe tette magát a keresztyén
világnézettel s így nélkülöznie kellett korunk legerősbb tragikai
elemeit; továbbá az idő és hely egységével tűrhetlen békót fűzött a
költőkre; míg végre a jellem alkotásban soha sem emelkedett az
egyéniségig, csak typosokat teremtett, a szenvedélyeknek csak
általánosított képviselőit festette. Azonban az általánosított
szenvedélyeket a költészet és ékesszólás nagy erejével állítá elő s
hozzá szoktatta a szinészeket a szenvedélyek élénk festéséhez, a
mit ezek már csak azért is kénytelenek voltak megtenni, hogy az
egyéniség hiányát valami egyébbel pótolják. Az élénk és pathetikus
franczia nép oly előszeretettel csüggött a classikai dráma e
színészeti hagyományain, hogy midőn a romantikai iskola
győzelemre jutott is, ezek csak módosultak de nem vesztették el
jogaikat. Mindez miért ne érdemelné meg a magyar itészek és
szinészek figyelmét. Miért ne mondhatná valaki közülünk, hogy a
német színészet befolyása nem volt reánk mindig jótékony s nem árt
másfelé is tekintgetnünk? Miért ne mernök sejteni, hogy nyelvünk
hangzatosbb mint a német és több és másnemű pathoszt kíván?
Miért ne higyjük, hogy szónoki nép vagyunk, s nem ártana, ha e
művészetet színészeink is mívelnék, midőn más úgysem mívelheti?
Miért ne erősíthetnök, hogy az egyénítés, mi az újabb színészet
legnagyobb hódítmánya, s miben az angolok és németek annyira
kitünők, nem hogy kizárnák pathoszt, de a szükséges módosítások
mellett épen megkívánja? Miért ne kívánhatnók meg, hogy a
magasabb tragédiákban bizonyos tragikai stylünk alakuljon meg,
annyival inkább, hogy e tekintetben már birunk némi
hagyományokkal is? – Miért ne bölcselkedhetnék valaki e
kérdésekről egy franczia vagy olasz előadás erős benyomásai után?
Én ugyan Ristori czikkemben mindezt nem tevém, csak a közönség,
tragédiaírók és színészek kölcsönös vádjai fölött humorizáltam; csak
a szavalat és pathosz mellőzése, csak azon nyugodtság és
hidegség ellen keltem ki, mi tragédiáink előadásaiban uralkodóvá
vált, de ha tettem volna is, követék-e valami nagy bűnt? Mindebből
láthatja ön, hogy nem vagyok épen a legrosszabb akaratú ember,
sőt az ön kedvéért fölveszem egy pillanatra a jó ember szerepét is.
Ezennel kinyilatkoztatom, hogy én megnem bocsájtva semminemű
hanyagságot, nem bámulva semminemű és bármennyire bámult
ferdeséget, az ön és más jelesb színészeink és színésznőink
tehetségeit, őszintén becsülöm s ha a tragödiákban igen sokkal
kevésbbé méltánylom önöket, mint más itész, annak oka az én
polemikus itészetem, mely szépirodalmunk és színészetünk néhány
vezérelvét ostromolja s nem annyira a tehetségek fényoldalait tünteti
föl, mindinkább iskoláik árnyoldalaira mutat. Nem tudom, érti-e ön e
mondatot, de magyarul van mondva s épen nem új eszme.
Lássuk most már azon második indokolatlan állítást. Ön azt
mondja, hogy e mondatomnak: «Az ő (Ristori) érdemei nem pusztán
a franczia, olasz színészeti iskola kitünő sajátságain alapulnak,
melyeket annyira hűn képvisel» – nincs értelme. Hogy miért, azt
természetesen nem mondja meg. Ennek így is megvan a maga
értelme, de még inkább meglesz, ha ön a rá közvetlenül következő
mondatot is elolvasná, mely ez: «Neki meg van az a sajátsága, mi
minden művészetben csak a lángészi stb.» Ebben se logikus, se
æsthetikai ellenmondas nincs, s azt teszi, hogy a Ristori érdem, nem
pusztán a franczia-olasz színészeti iskola kitünő sajátságaié, melyek
már magokban is nagy hatásnak, hanem egyszersmind a lángészé.
Ennyit nem annyira feleletül az ön czikkére, melyben egyetlen a
dologra vonatkozó gondolat sincs, hanem inkább rövid itészi pályán
némi igazolással, melyről ha nem is örökre, de legalább egy időre
lelépni szándékozom. De mielőtt lelépnék, még végig akarok önnel
vivni egy harczot a tragödia fölött, ha mindjárt tragikomikailag ütne is
ki. Ön azt mondja: miként fogom én föl e tragédiát, vagy egyátalában
fölfogom-e, abba most nem ereszkedik. De kérem, én fölhívom,
hogy ereszkedjék bele és fejtse ki nézeteit szemben az enyéimmel.
Azonban nézeteimet a tragédiáról nem fogja megtalálhatni Ristori-
cikkemben, melyben majd semmi sincs, mi határozottan ide
vonatkozhatnék. Elméletem a tragödiáról leginkább fellelhető
Diocletian-ról írt birálatomban, mely a Pesti Napló mult évi
folyamának valamelyik szeptemberi számában jelent meg. Ez épen
nem kimerítő czik, csak könyed hirlapi dolgozat, mint minden
czikkem, de elég arra, hogy kimerítő vitatkozást alapjául szolgáljon.
Kiváncsi vagyok hallani az ön nézeteit, mert őszintén megvallom,
hogy azokat eddigi czikkeiből sehogy sem tudtam kivenni, s azt
hiszem ezzel más sincs különben.
Aztán a tragédia elméletéről vitatkoznunk épen nem fölösleges,
mert irodalmunk e tekintetben igen szegény. Tehát harcz és háború!
Hadd kürtöljön a várkapus, nyiljanak meg a sorompók, csattogjon a
fegyver, s a közönség készüljön egy mérges párviadal szemléletére,
mely ha nem is fog oly nagyszerűen kiütni, mint a Toldié, de talán
méltó lesz arra, hogy Toldy irodalomtörténetébe följegyezze. Akár én
essem el, akár ön, küzdelmünk az irodalomra nézve nem lesz
minden haszon nélküli. Azonban előre figyelmeztetem, hogy a
dologhoz kell szólania, különben ott hagyom önt is, mint Török
Jánost s ön is kénytelen lesz maga önmagát sebezni össze.
Egyébiránt lehet ön szenvedélyes, eszmékért szabad
szenvedélyesen küzdeni; lehet gúnyos is, e fegyvert nagy írók is
használják, csak azokat a czifra phrasisokat kerülje, melyeket úgy
látszik, költészetnek képzel, de én prózának is kevesellek s a
polemia legtöredékenyebb fegyvereinek tartok.
Ön bizonyosan engedni fog fölhívásomnak, különben azt a jogos
gyanút kelti föl, hogy inkább szeret kötekedni, mind irodalmilag
polemizálni s több bátorsága van vádakkal állani elő, mint
eszmékkel. Tegyen ön bármit, én mindenkép ki leszek elégítve, s ha
kritikai pályám fölött pálczát tört is a közönség, azt a mivel
bevégzem, alkalmasint méltányolni fogja; mert vagy az eszmét
polémiájára adok alkalmat, vagy leálarczozok egy fönhéjózó és
eszme nélküli polemikust.
III.22)
Berlin, április 26-án.

Ön a mult év végén megtámadván Ristoriról írt czikkemet, a
többek közt azt mondá rólam, hogy a tragédiát nem értem. Erre
bátor valék fölhívni önt, hogy állítását indokolja és fejtse ki nézeteit
szemben az enyéimmel, s minthogy Ristori-czikkemben semmi
sincs, a mi szorosan a tragédia elméletére vonatkoznék, utasítám
önt oly czikkemre, a Szigligeti Diocletián-járól írt birálatomra, mely
épen ezt fejtegeti. Ez által nem egyebet akartam elérni, mint azt,
hogy az ellenem megindult hazafiuskodó polemiát az æsthetikai
térre vigyem, a hova tulajdonkép tartozik s ott vagy az eszmék
polemiájára adjak alkalmat, vagy leálarczozzam önt, mint fenhéjázó
és eszme nélküli polemikust.
S miként fogadta ön fölhivásomat? Egyszerűen visszautasítá, azt
mondván rólam, hogy velem vitába nem bocsátkozhatik, mert ahhoz
nekem se «szellemi erőm» se «szakértelmem» se «tapasztalatom»
se «érettségem» se «érzékem» nincs. Jól van. De ha ön engemet,
mint írót ennyire megvet, nem kellett volna annyira figyelmére
méltatnia, hogy megtámadjon; vagy ha kegyeskedett leereszkedni
hozzám s azt mondani rólam, hogy a tragédiát nem értem,
méltóztatott volna egyszersmind állítását indokolni is, össze meg
összetörvén a tragédiáról írt elméletemet. Mibe került volna ez
önnek? Óriási ereje mily könnyen semmivé tehet vala oly törpét, a
minő én vagyok. Ugyan miért nem tett semmivé? Mennyi dicsőség
háromlot volna önre! Azok a lyrai költők, a kikkel én oly
igazságtalanul bántam, fönséges ódákban halhatatlanították volna
önt; a szinésznők és szinészek, kiket én néha megróni mertem, a
közügyért félre téve minden személyes rangkórt, lakomát rendeztek
volna az ön tiszteletére s Török János, ez idő szerint legnagyobb
hazafi, kit én elég rossz szivű valék rágalmazni, elérzékenyülve
nyújtotta volna önnek a hazafikoszorút s mindig compact betűkkel
szedette volna az ön nevét vezérczikkeiben újdonságaiban is, mint a
Széchenyiét és Komlóssy Idáét. Mennyire elvakithatta önt a
büszkeség, hogy mind ezt nem gondolta meg.
Hagyján! Csakhogy igazán meg tudott volna vetni engem. De ön
nem képes elég büszke lenni, sőt még elég gőgös sem. Végetlenül
jobban játszik a színpadon, mint a tárczában. E tárczai
vendégszereplése sehogy sem sikerült. Mennyit nem beszél ön az
egyenítésről s mennyire nem tudja önmagát, mint büszke művészt
egyéníteni. Higyje meg, e szerepet nagyon rosszul játsza. Mindjárt
az első jelenetben nagy hibát ejt. A büszke művész, a ki engem oly
mélyen megvet, nem átalja oda alázni magát, hogy velem három
hónapig foglalkozzék. Ez oly ellenmondás, melyet még Török János
sem tudna összeegyeztetni, pedig ő az effélékben figyelemre méltó
furfangosságot fejt ki. Úgy van: ön büszkén visszautasítja ugyan
fölhivásomat, de ugyanakkor egyszersmind czikkeket kezd meg
ellenem, melyekből ötöt három hónap alatt szerencsésen be is
végezett. S mit foglalnak magukban e nagy erőlködések közt írt
czikkek? Vajon bonczolat alá veszik-e az én tragédiáról írt
elméletemet? Nem, hiszen ön engemet megvet, nem akar vitázni
velem, legkevésbbé oly dologról, mi megérdemli a fáradtságot. Mit
tesz hát ön? Birálni törekszik azon czikkemet, melyben önt vitára
hivtam föl. Azonban e czikkemben újra semmi sincs, mi szorosan a
tragédia elméletére vonatkoznék, mert az nem akart egyéb lenni,
mint felhívás, itészi eljárásom igazolása s felvilágosítása azon két
ráfogásnak, melyek ön első czikkének egész tartalmát tették. E
szerint önnek úgynevezett birálatában, igen természetesen, e pontok
védveit kellett volna ostromolnia. S mit tesz ön? Megtámadja
nézeteimet a tragédiáról, vagy jobban mondva holmi összetépett,
elfacsart mondataimból, oly mesterséggel, melyet a legutolsó
zugprókátor is megvetne, oly széptani nézeteket következtet és fog
reám, melyeket soha nem vallottam. Hova sülyed az ön
büszkesége? Csaknem Fallstaff mesterségéig. Valóban Fallstaff
nem mond annyi valótlanságot, mint a mennyi ráfogást ön használ
ellenem czikkeiben. Sajnálom egész vitánkat. Nem kellett volna
alkalmat adnom arra, hogy a legelső magyar színész s annyira
kitünő æsthetikus magát ennyire compromittálja, ha ugyan
journalistikánk némely pontokban nem kezdene oda jutni, hol többé
semmi se compromissio.
Most már mit csináljak önnel, miután az eszmék polemiája
lehetetlenné vált köztünk? Leálarczozzam-e mint fenhéjázó és
eszme nélküli polemikust? Nem teszem, mert ha tenném, négy nagy
tárczát kellene tele irnom s öt-hat napig untatnom a közönséget
azzal, hogy én ezt meg ezt mondottam, s nem azt, a mit ön reám
fog; nogy állitásaimnak értelme ez meg ez, s nem az, a mit ön mond;
hogy innen is amonnan is kikapott mondataimat így meg így ferdíti
el; hogy itt meg itt nem ellenem beszél s tulajdonkép mindent,
helyest és helytelent, össze-viszza zavar s egyetlen gondolatot sem
fejt ki végig. Nem lehet visszaélnem e lapok szerkesztője és olvasói
türelmével, kik különben is már megunták az én hosszadalmas
Ristori-peremet. Aztán azt hiszem, hogy ön az én segítségem nélkül
is eléggé leálarczozta magát. Minthogy azonban ezt se ön, se
mindenik olvasó nem tartozik elhinni, ezennel győzöttnek
nyilatkoztatom magamat; önnek engedek minden diadalt, leteszem
fegyvereimet, föltétlenül meghódolok s eltűröm, hogy valamikép
Török János magát nem rég («Magyar Sajtó» 97. sz.)
Megváltónkhoz hasonlította, kiről a gonosz és irástudó farizeusok
kétélü fegyverei visszapattantak: úgy ön Hunyady dicsőségével
kérkedhessék, kin Cilley ármányai megtörtek s az egész színházi
személyzet elénekelhesse fölöttem: «Meghalt a cselszövő, nincsen
többé viszály!»… Úgy hiszem e nyilatkozatommal megelégszik ön s
épen nem fogja rossz néven venni, ha daczára föltétlen
meghódolásomnak, polemiája egyetlen pontjára pár megjegyzést
teszek. Nem cáfolni akarok, isten mentsen, sőt ellenkezőleg ön
legsúlyosb vádját szándékozom igazolni, bevallván bünömet. Utolsó
czikkének végén ön ezt mondja: «A költőről jut eszembe, hogy
Vörösmarty utolsó költeményére, a «Vén czigány»-ra ez a berlini
polemikus oly értelemben fejezte ki kritikáját, hogy e költeménynek
csupán a feje (első verse) emberi: a többi része se nem hús, se nem
hal, mint Fallstaff jegyzi meg a csaplárosnéról. Tanulságos példa
ismét arra, mikép szokott a hivatlan itészkedő saját magára irni
legkegyetlenebb birálatot. Ime ez a polemikus itészkedő világosan
kimondja magáról, hogy neki sem a költői mélységhez érzéke, sem a
művészi nagyságról fogalma nincs.»
Ön geniális ember lévén, ki gondolkodás nélkül, öntudatlan
szokott irni, alkalmasint nem tudja, hogy e sorokban tulajdonkép mit
fejezett ki. Azért megmagyarázom. Ön sem többet, sem kevesebbet
nem fejezett ki, mint ezt: lássátok ez ember nemcsak Egressy
Gáborról szólott tiszteletlenül, hanem Vörösmartyról is, ime e törpe a
nemzet mindenik nagy fiát megtámadja. E fogás bizonyosan
megtette a maga hatását. Ha sikerül Török Jánosnak handabandáit
Széchenyi nevével takargatni, miért ne sikerülne Egressy Gábornak
fenhéjázó és eszme nélküli polemiáját a Vörösmarty nevének aegise
alá helyezni? Miért, ugyan miért ne? Egyébiránt azon tény, mit ön
ellenem végsoraimban fölhoz, igaz s csak kissé van elferdítve. A
dolog így áll: Vörösmarty «Vén czigányát» nyilvánosan, lapban soha
se biráltam ugyan, hanem a «Magyar szép könyve» egyik
szerkesztőjének szállásán, hol több iró volt jelen, midőn
véleményemet kérdezték körülbelül így nyilatkoztam felőle: e
költemény első versszaka kitünő szép, a másodikban már kiesik a
költő az alaphangulatból, több helyt dagályba csap, míg forma
tekintetében nem mindenütt ismerhetni meg benne a régi
Vörösmartyt. Nem vitatom: vajon magántársaságban mondott
szavaiért felelős-e az ember a közönség előtt s vajon volt-e önnek
joga az úgynevezett birálatomat nyilvánossá tenni? Mindegy. A mit
mondok, soha sem szégyeltem és tudom mindig indokolni s ha a
kérdéses költemény kezemnél volna, avagy itt helye lehetne, hogy
azt biráljam, nem mulasztanám el bővebben kifejteni véleményemet.
Azonban, ha én Vörösmarty e költeményét nem tartom valami
kitünőnek s legkevésbbé oly remeknek, mint ön, következik-e ebből
az, hogy én Vörösmartyt nem tisztelem s nem tartom egyik
legnagyobb magyar költőnek? Bizonyára nem. Igaz, én
Vörösmartynak még több ily s ezeknél gyöngébb költeményét is
tudnám előszámlálni; igaz, se eposzait, se drámáit nem birtam
annyira magasztalni mint mások, de ha azon költeményeiről van szó,
melyekben ő valóban nagy ha azon hatás jő kérdés alá, melyet ő
nyelvünkre s nemzeti érzésünk felköltésére tett, ha szóval egész
költői pályájáról kell szólani, alkalmasint inkább és nyomósabban
tudnám azt méltányolni, mint ön, a minthogy ezt tettem is. Meglehet,
hogy ön e szavaimat, kissé elferdített kiadásban, mint
kegyetlenséget, vérárulást, nemzeti bűnt fogja hirdetni. Nem
botránkoznám meg benne. Van irodalmunkban egy nem annyira
párt, mint csoport, – ide tartozik ön is, – mely brutalitással akar
terrorisalni minden neki nem tetsző irodalomtörténeti vagy széptani
véleményt. E párt kegyelete otromba dicsőítés, nemzeti önérzete
émelyitő kérkedés s hazafisága a sértett hiúság vagy üzérkedés
nyeglesége. De elég. Oly ponthoz értem, mely mindig indulatossá
tesz. Jobb hallgatnom, különben is elég rossz hirem van.
1857
A SZINHÁZI NAPTÁR ÜGYÉBEN.
I.
A Magyar Sajtó és Hölgyfutár közti polemiába akarok

beleszólani, nem mint érdekelt fél, hanem mint olyan, kire
kellemetlenül hatott a vita folytán kifejlett botrány s ki sajnálja, hogy
elvkérdés személyeskedésnek lőn föláldozva. Egy pár év előtt
nyiltan és névtelenül sokkal többször irtam mind a Hölgyfutár, mind a
Magyar Sajtó ellen, mintsem ez egyetlen oknál fogva is ne hihetném
magamat ez ügyben pártatlanabbnak másoknál.
A mult évben gróf Bethlen Miklós, Dobsa Lajos és Tóth Kálmán
urak Szinházi Naptár című vállalatot indítottak meg oly igéret mellett,
hogy a tiszta jövedelmet részben a nemzeti szinház
nyugdíjintézetének adják s így vállalatuk minden pártolója ezuttal e
kegyelt intézetnek is áldozik. A vállalat szerencsésen sikerült s a
szerkesztők igéreteiket megtartva, a nyugdíjintézetnek 100 darab
aranyat adtak át s mint naptárjuk boritékján megjegyzik, igéretükön
fölül Fáncsy Lajos elhunyt jeles művészünk leányát buzditáskép
külön negyven aranyban részesítették. E szerint a közönség nem
volt kijátszva, mert tudta, mennyiben áldozik a nyugdíjintézetnek,
amennyiben a szerkesztők nem voltak szószegők, mert nem csak
igéretöket teljesíték, hanem annál valamivel többet. Ez nem lehet
kérdés tárgya, ez bevégzett tény, melyet mindenkinek el kell ismerni.
Egészen más és egészen nyilt kérdés az: vajon helyes-e
jótékony cél cége alatt adni ki könyvet s mégis a jótékony célra a
tiszta jövedelemből csak bizonyos részt – harmadát vagy felét, az
mindegy – ajánlani oda. Azt hiszem nem helyes, mert árt az
irodalom erkölcsi tekintélyének, veszélyezteti a jótékonyság e szép
módjának sikerét, s oly kellemetlen helyzeteket szülhet, melybe a
legbecsületesebb ember is belekeveredhetik, ha jó hiszemben, de
gondolatlanul hódol e divatnak, melyet hirlapjaink inkább dicsérve,
mint megróva, csaknem kétség alá sem jöhető elvvé emeltek.
A jótékony czél czége az egész tiszta jövedelem oda ajánlása
nélkül, oly kérdéseket ébreszt a közönségben, melyek rosszul
eshetnek az embernek, nem mintha kényesebbnek tartaná a reá
ruházott irói czimet más czimeknél, hanem mert szivén fekszik az
irodalom erkölcsi tekintélye, melyet elvégre a szerkesztők is
képviselnek, s a jótékonyság ügye, mely e miatt majd mindig
szenvedni szokott. Hová lesz a tiszta jövedelmek másik része? Nem
elég-e a kiadó szerkesztőnek és iróinak fáradságuk jutalmául
bizonyos méltányos tiszteletdíj? Illő-e nyereségre is számítaniok
akkor, midőn philanthropok akarnak lenni? Hogyan lehet
kockáztatásról beszélni, hiszen szabadságában áll a szerkesztőnek
nem indítani meg vállalatát, ha előfizetői gyéren mutatkoznak, vagy
ha szó lehet kockáztatásról, nem kockáztat-e a közönség is,
előfizetve s nem tudva: vajjon azt, mit részben jótékony célra adott
nem emésztik-e föl egészen a kiadási és dijazási költségek? Nincs-e
okunk, ha nem is gyanús szemmel nézni, de nagyon hibáztatni e
félkegyelmű cégeket? E kérdések igen természetesek és jogosak,
de ha nem volnának is azok, az eredmény ugyanaz lenne. A
magánkörben elmondott kérdések nyilt támadásokká válhatnak a
lapok hasábjain s mint szokás, nem elv, hanem személy ellen
intézve. Valaki a méltányosság szempontjából azt vitathatja, hogy
ennyi meg ennyi tiszta jövedelemhez képest csekély volt ez vagy
amaz jótékony célra adott összeg. Mennyi félreértés és kellemetlen
helyzet merülhet föl. Az önérdek, irigység elkeseríthetik a vitát, a
rágalom megteheti a magáét s az ügy különös természeténél fogva
az egészből nem származhatik egyéb, mint vagy nagy botrány vagy
nagy igazságtalanság vagy mindakettő egyszerre. A különben is
elégedetlen közönség még elégedetlenebb lesz, gyanús szemmel
néz nemcsak ily hanem másnemű irodalmi vállalatokat is, s
mindinkább elhül a jótékonyság e szép módja iránt, melyet aztán
majd a legnagyobb szükség esetében sem lehet sikerrel igénybe
venni.
Mindezt rég el kellett volna mondani a lapoknak s illő kimélettel,
de nagy erélylyel elvvé emelni, hogy minden jótékony cél cége alatt
megindult vállalat tartozik cégének áldozni egész tiszta jövedelmét.
Azonban a lapok ezt mindig elmulasztották. Ezért természetes volt,
hogy a divatnak nemcsak gróf Bethlen Miklós, Tóth Kálmán és
Dobsa urak hódoltak folytatva naptárukat, hanem jónak látta Szigeti
úr is új szinházi naptárt inditani meg, a nyugdíjintézeti választmány
pártfogása mellett a tiszta jövedelemnek felét igérve. Végre a
Magyar Sajtó-ban felszólalt valaki Szathmárból, azon helyes elvet
fejtegetve, hogy a Szinházi Naptár-nak egész jövedelme legyen a
nyugdijintézeté, mert különben a cég csak üres hang, s az előfizetők
célja nem lesz elérve. Mindenki azt várta, hogy a Magyar Sajtó
pártolni fogja e helyes elvet s mind a két naptár szerkesztőit felhivja
az egész tiszta jövedelem odaajánlására. A Magyar Sajtó mást tett:
csak Szigeti úr naptára mellett izgatott s gróf Bethlen Miklós, Dobsa
Lajos és Tóth Kálmán urakat felhivta naptáruk megszüntetésére. E
logikátlanságot élesen lobbantá szemére a Hölgyfutár, de az
irodalmi polémia határai közt. Erre a Magyar Sajtó, vagy a mint
később kiderült, Török János úr egy sokkép rágalmazó cikkel felelt,
mit aztán a Hölgyfutár oly módon viszonzott, mely csak azok előtt
menthető, kik ismerik a magán-körülményeket s tudják, hogy a
Hölgyfutár e lépésre kényszerülve volt. Török János úr folytatta
rágalmait s csak akkor hallgatott el, midőn Dobsa Lajos és Tóth
Kálmán urak több igen méltánylandó ok miatt megszüntették
naptárukat s előfizetőiket Szigeti úrnak küldötték.
Ime röviden az egész polémia, mely nem szül hasznot, csak
botrányt. Pedig az elvkérdést ki kell vivnunk mind az irodalom, mind
a közönség iránti tekintetekből. Ez elv sokkal természetesb,
jogosabb, mintsem a mondottakon kivül még bővebb fejtegetésre is
szorulna. Ezért bátor vagyok felszólitani lapjaink szerkesztőit, hogy
támadjanak meg minden jótékony cél cége alatt megindult vállalatot,
mely nem egész tiszta jövedelmet ajánl jótékony célra s ezt kezdjék
a Szigeti úr vállalanát, hol különben is holmi koczkáztatásról
legkevésbbé lehet szó. Felszólítom továbbá irótársaimat is, hogy
közremunkálásukkal oly vállalatot ne támogassanak, mely nem
hódol ez elvnek s így a Szigeti úrét sem mindaddig, mig a
nyugdijintézetnek csak bizonyos részt igér, részemről nem
támogatom, mivel ugyan a vállalat keveset vagy épen semmit sem
veszt, de az elv nyer valamit, talán egy két hivet az irók közül s
erkölcsi súlyt a közönség részéről.

86720

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

86720

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

86720

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook at

Writing in Psychology 1st Edition Scott A.

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

Socialist Joy in the Writing of Langston Hughes 1st

The Psychology of Sexual Health 1st Edition Dr. David

Writing for Psychology 2nd edition Edition Mitchell

The Chicago Guide to Writing about Numbers 1st Edition

Swedish Women s Writing 1850 1995 Swedish Women s Writing

Report Writing for Criminal Justice Professionals 4th ed

The Essentials of Sports Reporting and Writing 2nd Edition

Screenwriting for Neurotics A Beginner s Guide to Writing

Ideal for courses on writing in psychology or as a supplement for graduate or ad-

Scott A. Miller is Professor Emeritus at the University of Florida.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset in New Caledonia

About the Author ix

1 The Importance of Writing 1

2 Some General Advice About How to Write 7

3 Conducting a Literature Search 27

4 Sections of an Empirical Report: Title Page, Abstract,

5 Sections of an Empirical Report: Results and Discussion 59

7 Literature Reviews and Term Papers 87

8 Rules of Writing: APA 113

9 Rules of Writing: General 139

Present Participle Phrases 145

Appendix A: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS):

Appendix B: Example of Errors in APA Style 171

Author Index 175

Subject Index 177

mainly of do-it-this-way prescriptions. Such prescriptions are perfectly appropri-

WHY WRITE WELL?

WHY WRITE WELL (PART 2)?

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

WHAT ARE YOUR REQUIREMENTS?

Written Sources of Help

TABLE 2.1 Guides to APA Style

Help From Others

Going to the Source

READ PSYCHOLOGY BEFORE WRITING PSYCHOLOGY

AIM FOR SIMPLICITY

AIM FOR VARIETY

“Men showed a low level of response in the low-reward condition; women,

AIM FOR CONCISENESS

Although conciseness may be a general virtue, in psychology there is also

AIM FOR SMOOTHNESS

The difficulty comes when several nouns-as-adjectives are strung together in a

TABLE 2.2 Transitional Terms

passages, needing to pause for breath, or wondering when a particular sentence

USE THE ACTIVE VOICE

GETTING STARTED (PART 1)

GETTING STARTED (PART 2)

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE

TABLE 2.3 Examples of Paraphrases

TABLE 2.4 Summary of Advice With Regard to Writing

TABLE 3.1 Sources for Information About Research in Psychology

Secondary sources, in contrast, are summaries of primary sources, written by

TABLE 3.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Credibility of Internet Sources

Berlin, 1856 január 30-án.

Berlin, április 26-án.