Understanding the Roles of Research Producers and Consumers in Psychology, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Psychology

Download Understanding the Roles of Research Producers and Consumers in Psychology and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

4 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

limitations of each type of study. As you read, you will learn not only how to plan your own studies but also how to find research, read about it, and ask questions of it. You will gain a greater appreciation for the rigorous standards psychologists maintain in their research, and you will learn how to be a systematic and critical consumer of psychological science.

Research Producers, Research Consumers

Some psychology majors are fascinated by the research process and intend to be- come producers of research information. Perhaps they hope to get a job studying brain anatomy, observing the behavior of pigeons or monkeys, administering personality questionnaires, observing children in a school setting, or analyzing data. They may want to write up their results and present them at research meetings. These students may dream about working as research scientists or professors. Other psychology students may not want to work in a lab, but they do en- joy reading about the structure of the brain, the behavior of pigeons or mon- keys, the personalities of their fellow students, or the behavior of children in a school setting. They are interested in being consumers of research information— in reading about research so that they can later apply it to their work, hobbies, relationships, or personal growth. These students might pursue careers as family therapists, teachers, sales representatives, guidance counselors, or police officers, and they expect a psychology education to help them in these roles. In practice, many psychologists engage in both roles. When they are planning their research and creating new knowledge, they study the work of others who have gone before them. Furthermore, psychologists in both roles require a curi- osity about behavior, emotion, and cognition. Research producers and consum- ers share a desire to ask, answer, and communicate interesting questions. And they share a commitment to the practice of empiricism—to answer psychologi- cal questions with direct, formal observations and to communicate with others about what they have learned.

Why the Producer Role Is Important For your future coursework in psychology, it is important to know how to be a producer of research. Of course, students who decide to go to graduate school for psychology will need to know all about research methods. But even if you do not plan to do graduate work in psychology, you will probably have to write a paper in APA style before you graduate, and you may be required to do research as part of a course lab section. To succeed, you will need to know how to ran- domly assign people to groups, how to measure attitudes accurately, and how to interpret results from a graph. Perhaps more important, the skills you acquire by conducting research can teach you how psychological scientists ask questions and how they think about their discipline.

As part of your psychology studies, you might even work in a research lab as an undergraduate (see Figure 1.1 ). Many psy- chology professors are active researchers, and you might have the opportunity to get involved in their laboratories. Your faculty supervisor may ask you to code behaviors, assign participants to different groups, graph an outcome, or write a report. If such an opportunity arises, take it! Doing so will give you your first taste of being a research producer. Although you will be supervised closely, you will be expected to know the basics of conducting research. This book will introduce you to what you need to know. In turn, by participating as a research producer, you can expect to deepen your understanding of psychological inquiry.

Why the Consumer Role Is Important

Although it is important to understand the psychologist’s role as a producer of research, most psychology majors do not eventually become researchers. But regardless of the career you choose, you will need to become a savvy consumer of information. In your psychology courses, you will read studies published by psychologists in scientific journals. You will need to learn how to read about research with curiosity—to understand it, learn from it, and ask appropriate questions about it. Even in everyday life, we are constantly bombarded by information on the Internet, on TV, in magazines, and in newspapers, and much of this information is based on research. For example, during an election year, Americans may come across polling information in the media almost every day. In addition, many newspapers have special science sections that present stories on the latest re- search, and lifestyle magazines such as Self , Men’s Health , and Parents summarize research for their readers. Entire websites are dedicated to psychology-related topics, such as treatments for autism, subliminal learning tapes, or advice for married couples. However, only some of this information is accurate and useful; some of it is dubious, and some is just plain wrong. How can you tell the good research information from the bad? Knowledge of research methods enables you to ask the appropriate questions so that you can assess information. So research methods skills apply not only to research studies but also to much of the other information you encounter in your daily life. Finally, being a smart consumer of research could be crucial to your future career. Even if you do not plan to be a researcher—if your goal is to be a social worker, a teacher, a sales representative, a family therapist, a human resources representative, or an entrepreneur—you will need to know how to read research with a critical eye. Clinical social workers and family therapists read research to

Research Producers, Research Consumers 5

Figure 1. producers of research. As undergraduates, some psychology majors work along- side faculty as producers of information.

Research Producers, Research Consumers 7

saw (that is, the sandwich). Obviously, the typed responses had been deter- mined by the facilitators, who must have been cuing the clients in some way, even if they were not aware they were doing so—and even if they were trying not to do so. (For a summary of this research and an explanation of why FC may still be practiced today, read Twachtman-Cullen, 1997; Jacob- son, Mulick, and Schwartz, 1995; see also Figure 1.2 .) Indeed, the Ameri- can Psychological Association (APA) resolved that FC has “no scientifi- cally demonstrated support for its ef- ficacy” (American Psychological As- sociation, 1994). But the controversy continues, and current proponents of FC maintain that at least some clients can communicate independently by typing (e.g., Janzen-Wilde, Duchan, & Higginbotham, 1995). To return to our scenario, because you are a careful consumer of informa- tion, you would probably decide to save your time and money for training in therapies and techniques that are backed up by empirical evidence. But without some ability to find, read, and understand the research on this topic, you might not have learned that FC is an unsupported technique. Training in research methods should motivate you to ask questions about this and other therapeutic techniques that you encounter. Even if you choose a career that is not part of the field of psychology, you can benefit from reading psychological research. Consider a study on the im- pact of the color red, conducted by Andrew Elliot and his colleagues (2007). These researchers observed that the color red could become associated, over time, with messages of danger, caution, and avoidance. Red is the color of stop signs, stoplights, and warning signs, and teachers often use red ink or pencil to correct homework and tests. Do these associations matter for stu- dent achievement? When Elliot and his colleagues gave college students a cog- nitive skills test, students scored lower if their test booklets had a red paper cover rather than a green or white one. In a second study, the students solved fewer anagrams when their participant ID number was written on each page in red ink rather than green or black ink. Elliot and his co-authors thus dem- onstrated that using red ink or a red cover as part of a cognitive test can in- hibit people’s performance. In a third study, students with a red-covered test (compared with students given a green or gray one) decided to solve more of the easy problems instead of the more challenging ones. The color red appar- ently primes people with an “avoidance” mindset—they avoid challenges and play it safe.

Figure 1.2 Facilitated communication. One behavior that led some researchers to doubt FC was that clients were observed to type with one finger while looking away from the keyboard. (If you try it yourself, you’ll notice that it is virtually impossible to type coherently with one finger without looking.) Such observations meant that the facilitators, not the clients, were probably creating the typed words. Current users of FC say they ensure that clients always see the keys.

8 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

Just think of the real-world applications of this study. If you were a teacher preparing a test or an employer preparing a questionnaire for job candidates, you would now know that the color of paper and ink you use can make a dif- ference. (Chapter 9 returns to this example and explains why Elliot and his col- leagues’ study stands up to interrogation.)

Check Your Understanding

1. What does it mean to reason empirically?
2. Explain what the consumer of research and producer of research roles have in com- mon, and describe how they differ.

Four Scientific Cycles

As you learn about psychological research, you will also need to understand four fundamental scientific cycles. The first cycle is a give-and-take between theory and data: Scientists test theories through research and, in turn, adapt their theories based on the data that result from that research. Second, there is a give-and-take between applied research, which directly targets real-world problems, and ba- sic research, which is intended to contribute to the general body of knowledge. Third, psychologists write up the results of their research for other scientists, submit them to journals for review, and respond to the opinions of other scien- tists. Fourth, the findings of psychological research are sometimes reported in the popular media, while a scientist might be inspired by current events to begin a new line of research. Through each of these cycles, scientists become inspired to refine their ideas and create new studies. Don’t let the term cycles mislead you into thinking that science just goes around in circles, however. The opposite is true: These cycles of feedback, application, inspiration, communication, and publica- tion move science forward, as researchers respond to a number of forces.

The Theory-Data Cycle The most important cycle in science is the theory-data cycle, in which scientists collect data to test, change, or update their theories. Even if you have never been in a formal research situation, you have probably tested ideas and hunches of your own by asking specific questions that are grounded in theory, making pre- dictions, and reflecting on data. For example, imagine you pick up your cell phone to make a call. You hit the “on” button, but nothing happens. Something is obviously wrong, but what? Of course, the battery might have died, so you plug in the phone to charge it. If your phone still is not working an hour later, you might guess that something is wrong inside the phone. At the cell phone store, the customer service representative opens the back plate, takes out your SIM card, and puts it back in. But the phone still doesn’t work, so he tries to see if your SIM card works in another, brand-new

See pp. 4–5. 2. See p. 3. 1.

10 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

own. He built two monkey foster “moth- ers”—the only mothers his lab-reared baby monkeys ever had. One of the mothers was made of bare wire mesh but had a bottle of milk built in. This wire mother offered food but not comfort. The other mother was covered with fuzzy terrycloth and was warmed by a lightbulb suspended inside, but she had no milk. This cloth mother of- fered comfort but not food. Note that this experiment offers three possible outcomes. The contact comfort theory would be supported if the babies spent most of their time clinging to the cloth mother. The cupboard theory would be supported if the babies spent most of their time clinging to the wire mother. And neither theory would be supported if mon- keys divided their time equally between the two mothers. When Harlow put the baby monkeys in the cages with the two mothers, the evidence in favor of the contact comfort theory was overwhelming. Harlow’s data showed that the little monkeys would cling to the cloth mother for 12 to 18 hours a day (as shown in Figure 1.3 ). When they were hungry, they would climb down, nurse from the wire mother, and then at once go back to the warm, cozy cloth mother. In short, Harlow used the two theories to make two specific predictions about how the monkeys would interact with each mother. Then he used the data he recorded (how much time the monkeys spent on each mother) to support only one of the theories. The theory-data cycle in action!

Theory, Prediction, and Data A theory is a statement, or a set of statements, that describes general principles about how variables relate to one another. For example, Harlow’s theory, which he developed in light of extensive observations of primate babies and mothers, was about the overwhelming importance of bodily contact (as opposed to simple nourishment) in forming attachments. Contact comfort, not food, provided the primary basis for a baby’s attachment to its mother. This theory led Harlow to investigate particular kinds of questions—he chose to pit contact comfort against food in his research. The theory meant that Harlow also chose not to study unre- lated questions, such as the babies’ food preferences or sleeping habits. The theory not only led to the questions—it also led to specific hypotheses , or predictions , about the answers. A prediction, or hypothesis, is a way of stating the specific outcome that the researcher expects to observe if the theory is ac- curate. Harlow’s predictions related to the way the baby monkeys would interact with two kinds of mothers. He predicted that the babies would spend more time on the cozy mother than the wire mother. Notably, a single theory can lead to a

Figure 1.3 the contact-comfort theory. Harlow’s baby monkeys spent most of their time on the warm, cozy cloth mother, even though she did not provide any food.

Four Scientific Cycles 11

large number of predictions, because a single prediction, or hypothesis, is usu- ally not sufficient to test the entire theory—it is intended to test only part of it. Most researchers test their theories with a series of empirical studies, each designed to test an individual hypothesis. Finally, data are a set of observations. (Harlow’s data were the amount of time the baby monkeys stayed with each “mother.”) Depending on whether or not the data are consistent with predictions based on a theory, the data may either support or challenge the theory. Data that match the theory’s predictions strengthen our confidence in the theory. But when the data do not match the theory’s predictions, those results indicate that the theory needs to be revised. Figure 1.4 shows how these steps work as a cycle. Empiricism , also called the empirical method or empirical research , is the ap- proach of collecting data and using it to develop, support, or challenge a theory. Empiricism involves using evidence from our senses (sight, hearing, touch) or from instruments that assist our senses (such as thermometers, timers, photo- graphs, weight scales, questionnaires, and so on) as the basis for our conclusions. Empirical evidence is also independently verifiable by other observers or scientists. In Chapter 2, you will learn more about why empiricism is considered the most reliable basis for conclusions when compared with other forms of reasoning, such as experience or intuition.

leads researchers to pose particular

research questions, which lead to an appropriate

revision research design. In the context of the design, researchers formulate

support

hypotheses. Researchers then collect and analyze

Theory

data, which feed back

Non-supporting data lead to revised theories or improved research design.

Supporting data strengthen the theory.

into the cycle.

Figure 1.4 The theory-data cycle.

Four Scientific Cycles 13

prediction they make, they must take the risk that their theory might not be supported.

Good Theories Are Parsimonious. A last feature of good theories is that they show parsimony : All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best (sometimes re- ferred to as “Occam’s razor”). If two theories explain the data equally well but one is simpler, most scientists will opt for the simpler, more parsimonious theory. Stanovich’s disappearing green men theory is not parsimonious, because its crea- tures, with their special abilities, require us to make several complex assumptions that happen to contradict most principles of physics and biology. Parsimony sets a standard for the theory-data cycle. As long as a simple theo- ry predicts the data well, there should be no need to make the theory more com- plex. Harlow’s theory was parsimonious because it posed a simple explanation for infant attachment: Contact comfort drives attachment more than food does. As long as the data continue to support the simple theory, the simple theory stands. However, when the data contradict the theory, the theory has to change in order to accommodate the data. For example, over the years, psychologists have collected data showing that baby monkeys do not always form an attach- ment to a soft, cozy mother: If monkeys are reared in complete social isolation during their first, critical months, they seem to have problems forming attach- ments to anyone or anything. Thus, the contact comfort theory had to change a bit, so that it would emphasize the importance of contact comfort for attach- ment in the early months of life. The theory is slightly less parsimonious now, but it does a better job of accommodating the data.

“But That Doesn’t Prove Anything”

The word prove is an important one. In psychology—indeed, in all of the mod- ern sciences that rely on empiricism—researchers never say they have proved their theories. At most, they will say that some data support or are consistent with a theory, or they might say that some data are inconsistent with or complicate a theory. But no single confirming finding can prove a theory. New information might require researchers, tomorrow or the next day, to change and improve their ideas. Similarly, a single, disconfirming finding does not lead research- ers to scrap a theory entirely. The disconfirming study may itself have been designed poorly. Or perhaps the theory needs to be modified, not discarded. Rather than thinking of a theory as proved or disproved by a single study, sci- entists evaluate their theories based on the weight of the evidence , for and against. Again, knowledge in psychology is intimately tied to studies: The data show what psychologists know for now, but future studies could change the weight of the empirical evidence.

The Basic-Applied Research Cycle

A second important cycle in psychological research is the reciprocity between applied research and basic research. Applied research is done with a practical problem in mind; the researchers hope that their findings will be directly applied to the solution of that problem

14 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

in a particular real-world context. In psychology, applied research can be about the treatment of mental disorders: The researchers may explore new treatments for depression, autism, or eating disorders. But applied psychologists might also experiment with new methods for teaching math or for evaluating teachers. Or they might be looking for better ways to identify those most at risk for depres- sion, failing in school, or cheating. They might want to predict who is likely to do well in college or at a particular job. Basic research , in contrast, is not intended to address a specific, practical problem. The goal of basic research is simply to enhance the general body of knowledge. Basic researchers might want to understand the structure of the visual system, the capacity of the human memory, the motivations of a de- pressed person, or the limitations of the infant attachment system. Because basic research does not always address real-world problems directly, it might not seem as important as applied research. But basic researchers do not just gather facts at random, and the knowledge they generate may be applied to real-world issues later on. A better understanding of the unimpaired human memory system could translate into treatments for memory disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease or into techniques to improve the memory of children with ADHD. In most cases, solid basic research is an important basis for later, applied studies. Applied and basic research can be difficult to distinguish. Elliot and his col- leagues’ studies on how the color red affects people’s performance is one ex- ample of the blurry line between applied and basic research. Is this an example of an applied or a basic study? On the one hand, this research was an extension of the finding that avoidance goals (such as trying not to fail) usually inhibit people’s achievement, whereas approach goals (trying to succeed) usually en- hance people’s achievement. In this respect, Elliot’s study was basic research on this principle, because it merely found that the color red stimulates an avoidance goal. On the other hand, these studies are quite easy to apply to any real-world situation in which achievement is being tested. Applied and basic research questions not only overlap but often influence each other as well: Basic research inspires applied research, and vice versa (see Figure 1.5 ). Elliot’s basic research on approach and avoidance goals has also shown that approach and avoidance orientations can lead to different kinds of moods. Other researchers have applied this knowledge by developing a therapy that teaches depressed people to reframe their avoidance goals into approach goals (Strauman et al., 2006), which seems to work well for some depressed people. When researchers conduct studies in which they are intentionally using lessons from basic research to develop and test applications to health care, psychothera- py, or other interventions, they are doing translational research. Translational research represents a dynamic bridge from basic to applied research. Applied research can also inform and inspire basic research. For example, more than a century ago, the education researcher Alfred Binet faced the applied problem of predicting which children needed extra help in school. He developed a test that would measure each child’s abilities, relative to his or her classmates’— the first IQ (intelligence quotient) test (Gould, 1981). Although Binet’s test was developed to solve an applied, real-world problem, it spawned decades of basic

16 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

The Journal-to-Journalism Cycle One goal of this textbook is to teach you how to interrogate information about psychological science that you find not only in journals but also in more main- stream sources that you encounter in daily life. The fourth cycle, the journal- to-journalism cycle, is especially important in this context. Scientific journals are read primarily by other scientists and by psychology students; the general public almost never reads them. Journalism , in contrast, includes the kinds of news and commentary that most of us read or hear on tele- vision, in magazines and newspapers, and on Internet sites—articles in Psychology Today and Men’s Health , topical blogs, relationship advice columns, and so on. These sources are usually written by journalists or laypeople, not scientists, and they are meant to reach the general public; they are easy to access and do not require specialized education to read. Of course, part of the journal-to-journalism cycle occurs when scientists find inspiration or ideas for a new topic of study in current events that they read about in the media. But it is more important to focus here on the other end of the journal-to-journalism cycle—how the news media cover the latest scientific findings. A journalist might become interested in a scientific study by reading the latest issue of a scientific journal or by hearing scientists talk about their work at a scientific conference. The journalist turns the research into a news story by summarizing it for a popular audience, giving it an interesting headline, and writing about it using nontechnical terms. For example, Elliot and his col- leagues’ article on the color red and achievement was summarized in an online magazine called World Science (“Seeing red affects achievement,” 2007) and on a science blog (“Seeing red,” 2007).

Benefits and Risks of the Journal-to-Journalism Cycle It can be beneficial for psychologists when journalists publicize their research. By reading about psychological research in the newspaper, the general public can learn what psychologists really do. Those who read or hear the story might also pick up important tips for living: They might understand their children or themselves better; they might set different goals or change their habits. These important benefits of science writing depend on two things, however. First, journalists need to report on the most important scientific stories, and second, journalists need to describe the research accurately (see Figure 1.6 ). Is the Story Important? When journalists report on a study, have they chosen research that has been conducted rigorously, that tests an important question, and that has been peer-reviewed? Or have they chosen a study simply because it is vivid and eye-catching? Sometimes journalists do select the important sto- ries, especially when they cover research that has already been published in a selective, peer-reviewed journal. But sometimes journalists choose the sensa- tional story over the important one. For example, a few years ago, a story about whether parents buckled their children into shopping carts hit the science head- lines (Bakalar, 2005). The study found that “cute” children were more likely to be buckled into shopping carts than “ugly” children. Of course, this story was ripe for

Four Scientific Cycles 17

public consumption—it was shocking, easy to understand, and even a little fun- ny. The original newspaper story was picked up by many other science columns on the Internet, and no doubt many people read it and discussed it around the watercooler that day. However, the original study had been presented only at a local conference and had not been peer-reviewed. Its importance, methods, and conclusions had not yet been assessed by scientists in the field. Indeed, years later, this study has yet to be published in a scientific journal.

Figure 1.6 the journal-to-journalism cycle. Cartoonist Jorge Cham parodies what can hap- pen when journalists report on scientific research. An original study reported a relationship be- tween two variables. Although the University Public Relations Office reports the story accurately, the story is exaggerated over time. Both the strength of the relationship and its implications become distorted with multiple retellings, much like a game of “telephone.”

Summary 19

on tiny city-to-city differences, creating headlines about how the city of Edin- burgh is the “most miserable place in the country” or writing stories about the unhappy citizens of Basingstoke. But none of the journalists mentioned one important detail in their stories: The differences the survey found between the various places were not statistically significant (Goldacre, 2008). That is, even though there were slight differences in happiness from Edinburgh to London, the differences were small enough to be caused by random variation. Goldacre spoke to the researcher who conducted the study, who said, “I tried to explain issues of [statistical] significance to the journalists who interviewed me. Most did not want to know.”

Check Your Understanding

1. What happens to a theory when the data do not support the theory’s predictions? What happens to a theory when the data do support the theory’s predictions?
2. Explain the difference between basic research and applied research, and describe how the two interact.
3. Describe the peer-review cycle in your own words.
4. What are two ways that journalists might distort the science they attempt to publicize?

Summary

Thinking like a psychologist means thinking like a scientist, and thinking like a scientist involves thinking about empirical data. Whether you plan to be a re- search producer or a research consumer, you will benefit from learning to ask good questions about what you encounter and learning to evaluate what the research has to say in response. Psychological researchers participate in four cycles. The most important is the theory-data cycle, in which researchers posit theories, make predictions, and collect data. In turn, data lead scientists to change, challenge, and even reject their theories. A good theory must be supported by the data, must be parsimo- nious, and must be falsifiable—that is, the data could either support or chal- lenge the theory. Because science is progressive, incremental, and evidence based, the word prove is not generally used in scientific discourse. Instead, a researcher might say that a theory is well supported or well established , meaning that most of the data have confirmed the theory and very little have disconfirmed it. In the basic-applied research cycle, some researchers work on applied, real- world questions, and others work for basic understanding. Not only do basic and applied research sometimes overlap, but applied questions inspire basic re- search and basic research can lead to applied solutions for real-world problems. The peer-review cycle is part of the process of scientific communication. Scientists publish their research in journals, but first their papers are reviewed by experts in the field. Often the peer-review process leads scientists to sharpen their thinking and improve their communication.

See pp. 16–19. 4. See p. 15. 3. See pp. 13–14. 2. See the discussion of Harlow’s monkey experiment on pp. 9 –10 and p. 11. 1.

20 Chapter 1 Psychology Is a Way of Thinking

NeeD HeLP STuDYiNg?

wwnorton.com/studyspace

Visit StudySpace to access free review materials such as: ■ (^) Diagnostic Review Quizzes ■ (^) Study Outlines

Key terms

applied research, p. 13 basic research, p. 14 data, p. 11 empiricism, p. 11 falsifiable, p. 12 hypotheses, p. 10

journal, p. 15 journalism, p. 16 parsimony, p. 13 theory, p. 10 translational research, p. 14 weight of the evidence, p. 13

Finally, in the journal-to-journalism cycle, writers for the popular media try to translate scientific studies into everyday language. It takes time, training, and effort to get the story straight, and journalists do not always pull it off. Think critically about what you read in the papers, and when in doubt, go right to the original source—peer-reviewed research.