The tuskegee syphilis study was ethically problematic because quizlet

Discussion

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 1/154

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

Outline the major areas of research in the �ield of psychology. Explain the process of testing research ideas through the scienti�ic method. Describe what it means to turn an idea into a testable hypothesis. Identify the criteria for a good theory. Search online databases for previous research studies. Summarize the key ethical principles that apply to conducting research on human and non-human animals.

In an article in Wired magazine, journalist Amy Wallace (2009) described her visit to the annual conference sponsored by Autism One, a nonpro�it group organized around the belief that autism is caused by mandatory childhood vaccines:

I �lashed more than once on Carl Sagan’s idea of the power of an “unsatis�ied medical need.” Because a massive research effort has yet to reveal the precise causes of autism, pseudoscience has stepped in to the void. In the hallways of the Westin O’Hare hotel, helpful salespeople strove to catch my eye . . . pitching everything from vitamins and supplements to gluten-free cookies . . . hyperbaric chambers, and neuro-feedback machines. (p. 134)

The “pseudoscience” to which Wallace refers is the claim that vaccines generally do more harm than good and speci�ically that they cause children to develop autism. In fact, an extensive statistical review of epidemiological studies, including tens of thousands of vaccinated children, found no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism (Madsen et al., 2002). The reality is this: Research tells us that vaccines bear no relation to autism, but people still believe that they do. Because of these beliefs, increasing numbers of parents are foregoing vaccinations, and many communities are seeing a resurgence of rare diseases like measles and mumps.

So what does it mean to say that “research” has reached a conclusion? Why should we trust this conclusion over parents’ personal experience with their own child? One of the biggest challenges in starting a course on research methods is learning how to think like a scientist—that is, to frame questions in testable ways and to make decisions by weighing the evidence. The more personal these questions become, and the bigger their consequences, the harder it is to put feelings aside. However, as we will see throughout this course, in these cases precisely, listening to the evidence becomes most important.

Understanding the importance of scienti�ic thinking matters for several reasons, even if a student never takes another psychology course. First, at a practical level, critical thinking is an invaluable skill in a wide variety of careers. Employers of all types appreciate the ability to reason through the decision-making process. Second, understanding the scienti�ic approach tends to make people more skeptical consumers of news reports. Someone who reads in Newsweek that the planet is warming, or cooling, or staying the same will be able to decipher and evaluate how the author reached this conclusion and possibly reach a different one. Third, understanding science makes a person a more informed participant in debates about public policy. To know whether the planet is truly getting warmer requires carefully weighing the scienti�ic evidence rather than trusting the loudest pundit on a cable news network.

1 Psychology as a Science Children playing on a convex, green labyrinth.

VisitBritain/Jason Knott/Getty Images

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 2/154

Where does psychology �it into this picture? Objectivity can be a particular challenge in studying our own behavior and mental processes because we are intimately familiar with the processes we are trying to understand. The psychologist William C. Corning (1968) captured this sentiment over 40 years ago: “In the study of brain functions, we rely upon a biased, poorly understood, and frequently unpredictable organ in order to study the properties of another such organ; we have to use a brain to study a brain” (p. 6). (Or, in the words of comedian Emo Phillips, “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this” [Jarski, 2007].) The trick, then, is learning to take a step back and apply scienti�ic thinking to issues we encounter and experience every day.

This textbook provides an introduction to the research methods used in the study of psychology. It introduces the full spectrum of research designs, from observing behavior to carefully controlling conditions in a laboratory. The text will cover the key issues and important steps for each type of design, as well as the analysis strategies most appropriate for each one. This chapter begins with an overview of the different areas of psychological science. It then introduces the research process by discussing the key features of the scienti�ic approach and the process of forming testable research questions. The �inal section discusses the importance of adhering to ethical principles at all stages of the research.

Research: Making an Impact

The Vaccines and Autism Controversy

In a 1998 paper published in the well-respected medical journal The Lancet, British physician Andrew Wake�ield and his colleagues studied the link between autism symptoms and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in a sample of twelve children. Based on a review of these cases, the authors reported that all twelve experienced adverse effects of the vaccine, including both intestinal and behavioral problems. The �inding that grabbed the headlines was the authors’ report that nine of the twelve children showed an onset of autism symptoms shortly after they received the MMR vaccine.

Immediately after the publication of this paper, the scienti�ic community criticized the study for its small sample and its lack of a comparison group (i.e., children in the general population). Unfortunately, these issues turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg (Godlee, Smith, & Marcovitch, 2011). British journalist Brian Deer (2004) conducted an in-depth investigation of Wake�ield’s study and discovered some startling information. First, the study had been funded by a law �irm that was in the process of suing the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, thereby threatening researchers’ objectivity. Second, Deer’s investigation showed clear evidence of scienti�ic misconduct: The data had been falsi�ied and altered to �it Wake�ield’s hypothesis—many of the children had shown autism symptoms before receiving the vaccine. In his report, Deer stated that every one of the twelve cases showed evidence of alteration and misrepresentation.

Ultimately, The Lancet withdrew the article in 2010, effectively removing it from the scienti�ic record and declaring the �indings no longer trustworthy. But in many respects, the damage was already done. Vaccination rates in Britain dropped to 80% following publication of Wake�ield’s article, and these rates remain below the recommended 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization (Godlee et al., 2011). Even though the article was a fraud, it made parents afraid to vaccinate their children.

Vaccinations work optimally when most members of a community receive the vaccines because this minimizes the opportunity for an outbreak. When even a small portion of a population refuses to vaccinate children, it places the entire community at risk of infection (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, n.d.). Thus, it should be no surprise that many communities are seeing a resurgence of measles, mumps, and rubella: In 2008, England and Wales declared measles to be a prevalent problem for the �irst time in 14 years (Godlee et al., 2011).

This scenario highlights the importance of conducting science honestly. While disease outbreaks are the most obvious impact of Wake�ield’s fraud, they are not the only one. In a 2011 editorial in the British Medical Journal condemning Wake�ield’s actions, British doctor Fiona Godlee and colleagues captured this rather eloquently: “But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy,

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 3/154

emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it.”

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 4/154

1.1 Major Research Areas in Psychology Psychology is a diverse discipline, encompassing a wide range of approaches to questions about why people do the things that they do. The common thread among all of these approaches is the scienti�ic study of human behavior. So, while psychology might not be the only �ield to speculate on the causes of human behavior— philosophers have been doing this for millennia—psychology is distinguished by its reliance on the scienti�ic method to draw conclusions. Later, the chapter will examine the meaning and implications of this scienti�ic perspective. This section discusses the major research areas within the �ield of psychology, along with samples of the types of research questions asked by each one.

Biopsychology

Biopsychology, as the name implies, combines research questions and techniques from both biology and psychology. It is typically de�ined as the study of connections between biological systems (including the brain, hormones, and neurotransmitters) and thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As a result, the research conducted by biopsychologists often overlaps research in other areas—but with a focus on biological processes. Biopsychologists are often interested in the way interactions between biological systems and thoughts, feelings, and behaviors affect the ability to treat disease, as the following questions re�lect: What brain systems are involved in the formation of memories? Can Alzheimer’s be cured or prevented through early intervention? How does long- term exposure to toxins such as lead in�luence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors? How easily can the brain recover after a stroke?

In one example of this approach, Kim and colleagues (2010) investigated changes in brain anatomy among new mothers for the �irst three months following delivery. These authors were intrigued by the numerous changes new mothers undergo in attention, memory, and motivation; they speculated that these changes might be associated with changes in brain structure. As expected, new mothers showed increases in grey matter (i.e., increased complexity) in several brain areas associated with maternal motivation and behavior. In addition, the more these brain areas developed, the more positively these women felt toward their newborn children. Thus, Kim et al.’s study sheds light on the potential biological processes involved in the mother–infant bond.

Cognitive Psychology

Whereas biopsychology focuses on studying the brain, cognitive psychology studies the mind. It is typically de�ined as the study of internal mental processes, including the ways that people think, learn, remember, speak, perceive, and so on. Cognitive psychologists are primarily interested in the ways that people navigate and make sense of the world. Research questions in this �ield might ask: How do our minds translate input from the �ive senses into a meaningful picture of the world? How do we form memories of emotional versus mundane experiences? What draws our attention in a complex environment? What is the best way to teach children to read?

In one example of this approach, Foulsham, Cheng, Tracy, Henrich, and Kingstone (2010) were interested in what kinds of things people pay attention to in a complex social scene. The world around us is chock-full of information, but we can only pay attention to a relatively thin slice of it. Foulsham and colleagues were particularly interested in where our attention is directed when we observe groups of people. They answered this question by asking people to watch videos of a group discussion and using tools to track eye movements. It turned out that people in this study spent most of their time looking at the most dominant member of the group, suggesting that individuals are wired to pay attention to those in positions of power. Thus, this study sheds light on one of the ways that people make sense of the world.

Developmental Psychology

Developmental psychology is de�ined as the systematic study of physical, social, and cognitive changes over the human life span. Although this �ield initially focused on childhood development, many researchers now study changes and key stages over a person’s entire life span. Developmental psychologists look at a wide range of phenomena related to physical, social, and cognitive change, including: How do children bond with their primary caregiver(s)? What are our primary needs and goals at each stage of life? Why do some cognitive skills decline in old age? At what ages do infants develop basic motor skills?

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 5/154

Thomas Northcut/Photodisc/Thinkstock

Social psychologist Norman Triplett’s study of competition among cyclists led to conclusions about how people in�luence one another.

In one example of this approach, Hill and Tyson (2009) explored the connection between children’s school achievement and their parents’ involvement with the school. In other words: Do children perform better when their parents are actively involved in school activities? The authors addressed this question by combining results from several studies into one data set. Across 50 studies, the answer to this question was yes—children do better in school if their parents are involved. Hill and Tyson’s study sheds light on a key predictor of academic achievement during an important developmental period.

Social Psychology

Social psychology, which attempts to study behavior in a broader social context, is typically de�ined as the study of the ways humans’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped by other people. This broad perspective allows social psychologists to tackle a wide range of research questions, such as: What kinds of things do individuals look for in selecting romantic partners? Why do people stay in bad relationships? How do other people shape individuals’ sense of who they are? When and why do people help in emergencies?

Norman Triplett (1898) conducted the �irst published social psychology study at the end of the 19th century. Triplett had noticed that professional cyclists tended to ride faster when racing against other cyclists than when competing in solo time trials. He tested this observation in a controlled laboratory setting, asking people to do a number of tasks either alone or next to another person. His results (and countless other studies since) revealed that people worked faster in groups, suggesting that other people can have de�inite and concrete in�luences on human behavior.

Clinical Psychology

The area of clinical psychology focuses on understanding the best ways to treat psychological disorders. It is typically de�ined as the study of best practices for understanding, treating, and preventing distress and dysfunction. Clinical psychologists engage in both the assessment and the treatment of psychological disorders, as the following research questions suggest: What is the most effective treatment for depression? How can we help people overcome post-traumatic stress disorder following a traumatic event? Should anxiety disorders be treated with drugs, therapy, or a combination? What is the most reliable way to diagnose schizophrenia?

A study by Kleim and Ehlers (2008) offers an example of this approach. The study attempted to understand the risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder, a prolonged reaction to a severe traumatic experience. Kleim and Ehlers found that assault victims who tend to form less speci�ic memories about life in general might be more likely to develop a disorder in response to trauma than victims who tend to form detailed memories. People who tend to form vague memories may have fewer resources to draw on in trying to reconnect with their daily life after a traumatic event. This study, then, sheds light on a possible pathway contributing to the development of a psychological disorder.

Applied Research Areas

The research areas listed thus far represent the majority of basic research within psychology, but the list is not exhaustive. A great deal of additional psychological research focuses on understanding human behavior in a more applied context. For example, the �ield of health psychology applies psychological principles to the study of health, wellness, and illness. Health psychologists often have a background in either clinical or social psychology and use these insights toward a broader understanding of why people get sick. One major insight from this �ield is that the quality and quantity of our relationships with other people can actually have a dramatic impact on our physical health. Close relationships can provide practical support in times of need (e.g., making it easier to get to the doctor), as well as making stressful events seem less stressful (for review, see Newman & Roberts, 2012).

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 6/154

Similarly, the �ield of industrial–organizational psychology (often abbreviated as I/O psychology) applies psychological principles to the scienti�ic study of human behavior in the workplace. I/O psychologists often have a background in social or cognitive psychology and generally help organizations function more effectively by improving employee satisfaction, performance, and safety of employees. One major insight from this �ield shows that people are often more productive in the workplace if given more freedom over their time. This model started in the high-tech industry. For example, Google employees have game rooms around the of�ice; the company requires workers to spend time each week developing “side” projects unrelated to their main responsibilities. This approach makes employees feel more valued as individuals, more dedicated to the company, and thus more industrious in completing their work.

As a �inal example, the �ield of school psychology applies psychological principles to the goal of helping children learn effectively. School psychologists, who are typically trained in developmental, clinical, and educational psychology, work to meet the learning and behavioral health needs of students. More so than the previous examples, school psychologists play a “practitioner” role, applying their broad knowledge base to provide psychological diagnosis, conduct health promotions, evaluate services, and conduct interventions with individual students as needed.

To learn more about all of these areas, see the American Psychological Association’s collection of web resources: http://www.apa.org/ about/division/index.aspx (http://www.apa.org/about/division/index.aspx) .

http://www.apa.org/about/division/index.aspx
1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 7/154

1.2 The Research Process With a broad understanding of the major research areas in psychology, we now turn our attention to the research process. How do psychologists conduct research? What are their goals? This section will answer these questions. This section will also compare quantitative and qualitative research, two different approaches to scienti�ic inquiry.

The Scienti�ic Method

What does it mean to draw conclusions based on science? Scientists across all quantitative disciplines use the same process of forming and testing their ideas. The overall goal of this research process—also known as the scienti�ic method—is to draw conclusions based on empirical observations. In this section, we cover the four steps of the research process—hypothesize, operationalize, measure, and explain, abbreviated with the acronym HOME.

Step 1—Hypothesize The �irst step in the research process turns an initial research question into a testable prediction, or hypothesis. A hypothesis is a speci�ic statement about the relationship between two or more variables. For example, if we start with a question about the link between smoking and cancer, our hypothesis might be that smoking causes lung cancer. Or, if we want to know whether a new drug will be helpful in treating depression, we might hypothesize that drug X will lead to a reduction in depression symptoms. The next section of this chapter will cover hypotheses in more detail, but for now it is important to understand that the way a hypothesis is framed guides every other step of the research process.

Step 2—Operationalize Once a researcher develops a hypothesis, the next step is to decide how to test it. The process of operationalization involves choosing measurable variables to represent the elements of the hypothesis. In the depression-drug example, we need to decide how to measure both cause and effect; in this case we de�ine the cause as the drug and the effect as reduced symptoms of depression. That is, what doses of the drug should we investigate? How many different doses should we compare? And, how will we measure depression symptoms? Will it work to have people complete a questionnaire? Or do we need to have a clinician interview participants before and after they take the drug?

An additional complication for psychology studies is that many of research questions deal with abstract concepts. Turning these concepts into measurable variables requires some art. For example, the abstract concept of happiness could be de�ined in countless different ways—being “happy” likely means something different to one individual than it does to his neighbors. To include happiness in a research study, we need to translate it into a more concrete concept, measured by a person’s score on a happiness scale or by the number of times a person smiles in a �ive-minute period, or perhaps even by a person’s subjective experience of happiness during an interview. Chapter 2 (2.2) will cover this process in more detail, with a discussion of guidelines for making these important decisions about the study.

Step 3—Measure Now that we have developed both our research question and our operational de�initions, it is time to collect some data. The text will cover this process in great detail, dedicating Chapters 3 through 5 to the three primary approaches to data collection. Collection of data is a critical step in the research process, as researchers gather empirical observations that will help address their hypothesis. As Chapter 2 will explain, these observations can range from questionnaire responses to measures of brain activity, and they can be collected in a variety of ways, from online questionnaires to carefully controlled experiments. Regardless of the details of data collection, investigators will ultimately use these observations to make a decision.

Step 4—Explain After data have been collected, the �inal step is to analyze and interpret the results. The goal of this step is to return full circle to the initial research question and determine whether the results support the hypothesis. Recall the hypothesis that drug X should reduce depression symptoms. If we �ind at the end of the study that people who took drug X showed a 70% decrease in symptoms, this result would be consistent with the hypothesis. However, the explanation stage also involves thinking about alternative explanations and planning for future studies. What if

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 8/154

depression symptoms dropped simply due to the passage of time? How could we address this concern in a future study? As it turns out, a fairly easy way of �ixing this problem exists; Chapter 5 will cover that solution.

As Table 1.1 summarizes, the research process involves four stages: forming a hypothesis, deciding how to test it, collecting data, and interpreting the results. This process is used to draw conclusions across all scienti�ic disciplines, regardless of whether research questions involve depression drugs, reading speed, or the speed of light in a vacuum.

Table 1.1 The HOME method

Stage of Process Main Idea Example

Hypothesize Take a research question, turn it into atestable prediction

Question: Will my new drug help depression patients? Hypothesis: Drug X will reduce depression symptoms.

Operationalize Turn the key concepts from yourhypothesis into measurable variables Depression can be measured using clinician interviews

Measure Choose and implement the best researchdesign for your hypothesis Compare two groups of people over time, half of whom have been given the new drug

Explain Interpret your �indings and make a decision about the state of your hypothesis

If the people who take the new drug are less depressed at the end, that supports our hypothesis

Research: Applying Concepts

Examples of the Research Process

To make the steps of the scienti�ic method a bit more concrete, the following two examples show how they could be applied to speci�ic research topics.

Example 1—Depression and Heart Disease

Depression affects approximately 20 million Americans, and 16% of the population will experience it at some time in their lives (NIMH, 2007). Depression is associated with a range of emotional and physical symptoms, including feelings of hopelessness and guilt, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, and suicidal thoughts. This list has recently been expanded even further to include an increased risk of heart disease. Individuals who are otherwise healthy but suffering from depression are more likely to develop and to die from cardiovascular disease than those without depression. According to one study, patients who experience depression following a heart attack experience a fourfold increase in �ive-year mortality rates (research reviewed in Glassman et al., 2011).

Research Question

Based on these �indings, we could ask the question, “Would it make sense to treat heart attack patients with antidepressant drugs?”

Recall that the goal of the scienti�ic method is to take this research question, turn it into a testable hypothesis, and conduct a study that will test it. The following steps use the HOME method discussed earlier.

Step 1: Form a testable hypothesis from the research question.

We might predict that, “People who have had heart attacks and take prescribed antidepressants are more likely to survive in the years following the heart attack than those who do not take antidepressants.” We

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-1… 9/154

have taken a general idea about the bene�its of a drug and stated it in a way that a research study can directly test.

Step 2: Decide how to operationalize the concepts in the study into measurable variables.

First, we would need to decide who quali�ies as a “heart attack patient”: Would we include only those who had been hospitalized with severe heart attacks, or anyone with abnormal cardiac symptoms? These types of decisions will have implications for how we interpret the results.

We would also need to decide on the doses of antidepressant drugs to use and the time period to measure survival rates. How long would we need to follow patients to obtain an accurate sense of mortality rates? In this case, earlier research had focused on �ive-year mortality rates, so that would be a reasonable time period for this study as well.

Step 3: Measure the key concepts based on the decisions made in Step 2.

This step involves collecting data from participants and then conducting statistical analyses to test the hypothesis. We will cover the speci�ics of research designs beginning in Chapter 2 (2.1), but one good option would be to give antidepressant drugs to half of our sample and compare their survival rates with the half not given these drugs.

Step 4: Explain the results and tie the statistical analyses back into the hypothesis.

We would want to know whether antidepressant drugs did, indeed, bene�it heart-attack patients and increase their odds of survival for �ive years. If so, our hypothesis is supported. If not, we would go back to the drawing board and try to determine whether a) something went wrong with the study, or b) antidepressant drugs actually do not have any bene�its for this population. Answering these kinds of questions often involves conducting additional studies. Either way, the goal of this �inal step is to return to our research question and discuss the implications of antidepressant drug treatment for heart-attack patients.

Example 2—Language and Deception

In 1994, Susan Smith appeared on television claiming that her two young children had been kidnapped at gunpoint. Eventually, authorities discovered she had drowned her children in a lake and fabricated the kidnapping story to cover her actions. Before Smith was a suspect in the children’s deaths, she had told reporters, “My children wanted me. They needed me. And now I can’t help them” (The Washington Post, November 5, 1994, A15). Normally, relatives speak of a missing person in the present tense. The fact that Smith used the past tense in this context suggested to trained FBI agents that she already viewed them as dead (Adams, 1996).

Research Question

The story about Susan Smith highlights one way that people communicate differently when they are lying— they use past tense when present tense is more natural. This observation might lead us to ask, more broadly, “How do people communicate differently when they are lying versus when they are telling the truth?” We will again apply the HOME paradigm (or scienti�ic method) to design a study that will ideally provide insight into this question.

Step 1: Form a testable hypothesis from the research question.

This example is somewhat more challenging because “communicating” can be de�ined in many ways. Thus, we need a hypothesis that will narrow the focus of our study. It turns out several studies have been conducted on the ways that people communicate when they are lying, ranging from variations in speech rate to differences in the use of certain types of words (for a review, see Depaulo et al., 2003). Based on one of these studies, we could offer the following speci�ic prediction: “Liars communicate using more negative emotion (e.g., anger, fear) than truth-tellers do” (e.g., Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003). We have taken a general idea (“communicate differently”) and stated it in a way that can be directly tested in a research study (“use more negative emotion”).

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-… 10/154

Three young people prepare shots of tequila. Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Before a phenomenon can be explained it must �irst be described. For example, a survey might be used to collect information to describe the phenomenon of binge drinking.

Step 2: Decide how to operationalize the concepts in our study into measurable variables.

To determine measurable variables, we need to decide what counts as “using more negative emotion.” We could take the approach used in a previous study (Newman et al., 2003) and scan the words people use, looking for those re�lecting emotions such as anger, anxiety, and fear. The theory behind this approach posits that the words people use re�lect something about their underlying thought processes. In this case, people who are trying to lie will be more anxious and fearful as a result of the lie, and therefore use more words indicative of these negative emotions.

Step 3: Measure the key concepts based on the decisions made in Step 2.

To measure the variables identi�ied in Step 2, we must devise a way to determine whether and when people are lying. One way to do this in a research study is to instruct some people to lie and others to be truthful and then compare differences in the amount of negative emotion language between these groups.

Step 4: Explain the results and tie the statistical analyses back into the hypothesis.

We want to know whether people who were instructed to lie indeed used more words suggestive of negative emotion. If so, this outcome supports our hypothesis. If not, we would go back to the drawing board and try to determine whether a) the study design was �lawed, or b) people in fact do not use more negative emotion when they lie. Either way, the goal of this �inal step is to return to our research question and discuss the implications for understanding language-based indicators of deception.

Goals of Science

In addition to sharing an overall approach to answering questions, all forms of scienti�ic inquiry tend to adopt one of four overall goals. This section provides an overview of these goals, with a focus on how they apply to psychological research. We will encounter the �irst three goals throughout the course and use them to organize our discussion of different research methods.

Description One of the most basic research goals is to describe a phenomenon, including descriptions of behavior, attitudes, and emotions. Most people are probably very familiar with this type of research because it tends to crop up in everything from the nightly news to their favorite magazine. For example, if CNN reports that 60% of Americans approve of the president, it is describing a trend in public opinion. Descriptive research should always be the starting point when studying a new phenomenon. That is, before we start trying to explain why college students binge drink, we need to know how common the phenomenon is. We might, therefore, start with a simple survey that asks college students about their drinking behavior, and we might �ind that 29% of them show signs of dangerous binge drinking. Having described the phenomenon, we are in a better position to conduct more sophisticated research. (See Chapter 3 for more detail on descriptive research.)

Prediction A second goal of research is predicting a phenomenon. This goal takes us from describing the occurrence of binge drinking among college students to attempting to understand when and why they do it. Do students give in to peer pressure? Is drinking a way to deal with the stress of school? We could address these questions by using a more detailed survey that asked people to elaborate on the reasons that they drink. The goal of this approach is to understand the factors that make something more likely to occur. (See Chapter 4 for more detail on the process of designing surveys and conducting predictive research.)

Explanation

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-… 11/154

A third, and much more powerful, goal of research is to attempt to explain a phenomenon. This goal moves from predicting relationships to drawing stronger conclusions about causal links. Whereas predictive research attempts to �ind associations between two phenomena (e.g., college student drinking is more likely when students are stressed), explanatory research attempts to make causal statements about the phenomenon of interest (e.g., stress causes college students to drink more). This distinction may seem subtle at this point, but it is an important one, and closely related to the way that psychologists design their studies. (See Chapter 5 for more detail on explanatory research.)

Change The fourth and �inal goal of research is generally limited to psychology and other social-science �ields: When we are dealing with questions about behaviors, attitudes, and emotions, we can sometimes conduct research to try to change the phenomenon of interest. Researchers who attempt to change behaviors, attitudes, or emotions are essentially applying research �indings towards the goal of solving real-world problems.

In the 1970s, Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, was interested in ways to reduce prejudice in the classroom. Research conducted at the time was discovering that prejudice is often triggered by feelings of competition; in the classroom, students competed for the teacher’s attention. Aronson and his colleagues decided to change the classroom structure in a way that required students to cooperate in order to �inish an assignment. Essentially, students worked in small groups, and each person mastered a piece of the material. Aronson found that using this technique, known as the “jigsaw classroom,” both enhanced learning and decreased prejudice among the students (Aronson, 1978). Read the details of Aronson’s study here: http://www.jigsaw.org/ (http://www.jigsaw.org/) .

Aronson’s research also illustrates the distinction between two categories of research. The �irst three goals we have discussed fall mainly under the category of basic research, in which the primary goal is to acquire knowledge, with less focus on how to apply the knowledge. Scientists conducting basic research might spend their time trying to describe and understand the causes of binge drinking but stop short of designing interventions to stop binge drinking. Researchers more often involve for this fourth goal of research in applied research, in which the primary goal is to solve a problem, with less focus on why the solution works. Scientists conducting applied research might spend their time trying to stop binge drinking without becoming caught up in the details of why these interventions are effective. Aronson’s research serves as a great example of how these two categories can work together. The basic research on sources of prejudice informed his applied research on ways to reduce prejudice, which in turn informed further basic research on why this technique is so effective.

One �inal note on changing behavior: Any time researchers set out with the goal of changing what people do, their values enter the picture. Inherent in Aronson’s research was the assumption that prejudice was a bad thing that needed to be changed. Although few people would disagree with him, he risked the dif�iculty of remaining objective throughout the research project. As we suggested earlier, the more emotionally involved we are in the research question, the more we have to be aware of the potential for bias, and the more closely we must pay attention to the data.

Approaches to Science: Quantitative versus Qualitative Research

Imagine for a moment that a psychologist wants to study depression across the life span. The researcher might approach this research question in one of two ways. She could design a survey that asked people to report their experiences with depression, as well as how often they had experienced various positive and negative life events. By conducting statistical analyses of these reports, she could gain a broad understanding of the relationships between life events and the development of depression. Alternatively, the investigator could spend her resources interviewing people who had been diagnosed with depression. Her goal is trying to understand what the experience felt like and whether people believed that it started in response to some major life event. This approach would provide a very deep understanding of the experience of depression from the inside out.

These alternative approaches highlight the differences between quantitative research and qualitative research, respectively. Quantitative research is a systematic and empirical approach that attempts to generalize results to other contexts. By surveying the population using structured scales, our hypothetical psychologist could learn about depression and life events in general. Qualitative research, in contrast, is a more descriptive approach that attempts to gain a deep understanding of particular cases and contexts. By interviewing depressed people in detail, the hypothetical psychologist could learn a great deal about how individuals experience depression.

http://www.jigsaw.org/
1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-… 12/154

The two approaches have traditionally been popular with different social science �ields. For example, much of the current research in psychology is quantitative because the research aims for generalizable knowledge about behavior and mental processes. In contrast, much of the current research in sociology and political studies tends to be qualitative because research aims for a rich understanding of a particular context. To understand why college students around the country suffer from increased depression, quantitative methods are the better choice. To understand why the citizens of Egypt revolted against their government, then qualitative methods are more appropriate. However, many psychological phenomena are best understood by starting from the ground up, with a rich, qualitative understanding of people’s experiences. As later chapters will discuss, the qualitative approach has been used to gain insight into questions ranging from forming stigmatized identities to helping children cope with traumatic events.

In an ideal world, a true understanding of any phenomenon requires the use of both methods. That is, researchers can best understand depression if they both study statistical trends and conduct in-depth interviews with depressed people. Researchers can best understand binge drinking by conducting both surveys and focus groups. And investigators can best understand the experience of being bullied in school by both talking to the victims and collecting school-wide statistics. This text will discuss the ways that both approaches are used to shed light on pressing questions throughout the �ield of psychology. Table 1.2 compares the quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Table 1.2 Comparing quantitative and qualitative approaches

Quantitative Qualitative

Main Approach

Systematic, empirical, tries to generalize to other contexts

Descriptive, tries to gain rich understanding of a single context or example

Use of Hypotheses Starting point for all quantitative research

Not necessary; hypotheses sometimes the result of qualitative study

Examples of Research

Study depression by surveying the population Study bullying by comparing reported incidents between schools

Study depression by interviewing patients Study bullying by interviewing bullies to understand their motivation

1/30/2020 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Newman.2681.16.1?sections=navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoint-… 13/154

Getty Images/Handout

Nazi Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann’s claims during his trial that he was just “following orders” throughout the Holocaust inspired Stanley Milgram to conduct a groundbreaking study about obedience to authority.