w1 300wrds

1

Applications of Psychology

Chapter Learning Outcomes

After reading and studying this chapter, students should be able to:

• describe the scientific method and the assumptions and values of science.

• articulate the characteristics of critical thinking and exhibit critical thinking behavior.

• understand the dimensions upon which theories are evaluated.

• generate ideas and locate information relevant to an applied project in psychology.

Comstock/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 1 4/20/12 2:43 PM

2

CHAPTER 1Introduction

Introduction

Do you like roller coasters? Do you like the twists, turns, unexpected outcomes, loops, G-forces, anticipation of the climb to the top, and all the complexity of a 2-minute roller coaster ride? So much planning and detail goes into the experi- ence—there is the slow climb to the top, the rapid acceleration, the mutual joy and fear of coming up off your seat but being held in by the harness. In many ways, the tools of psychology can give you the ability to tell compelling stories, by setting the stage care- fully, revealing the action with its own twists and turns, and then the inevitable compari- son to prior stories (and roller coasters). If you are seriously interested in understanding the mysteries of human behavior from an objective and systematic perspective, then the ability to apply research methods in psychology is an essential tool for you to acquire and master. Like any complex tool, it will take time and practice to master, and the ultimate goal of this book is to help you start (or continue) your journey on this exciting path.

Fundamentally, psychology is an empirical (research-based) science, and if you want to have any understanding of psychology and what psychologists do, you should under- stand research and apply research methods. It’s our set of principles—principles that transcend different specialty areas and training approaches across psychology. Even if you have no desire to be a researcher in the future, you’re going to need to understand research and be a good consumer of psychological research. Some students will say that they only want to “help people” and that they do not want so much background and training in research. However, the cutting-edge areas of clinical and counseling psychol- ogy formulate new therapeutic approaches on evidence-based treatment (Kazdin, 2008). Think of it this way: If you want to help people, it would be nice to have both confidence and evidence that you are helping. Having a chance to demonstrate your knowledge and skills prior to graduation is an important opportunity for both you and your institution.

Voices from the Workplace

Your name: Courtnee R.

Your age: 29

Your gender: Female

Your primary job title: Special Investigator

Your current employer: Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co.

How long have you been employed in your present position?

3 1/2 years

What year did you graduate with your bachelor’s degree in psychology?

2001

Describe your major job duties and responsibilities.

I investigate suspicious/questionable and fraudulent claims submitted to my company on behalf of the insured party or claimant party. I handle varying forms of issues that range from auto accidents in which someone is claiming an injury that is questionable in nature or potentially pre-existing that they are claiming occurred as a result of the current accident, to home invasions resulting in damage to the property or theft of contents. I also investigate staged auto accident rings, fraudulent or (continued)

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 2 4/20/12 2:43 PM

3

CHAPTER 1Introduction

phony billing companies, stolen autos, and catastrophe claims resulting from tornadoes and/or hur- ricanes. I also conduct extensive background investigations and interviews.

What elements of your undergraduate training in psychology do you use in your work?

On a daily basis I am analyzing background data on people, medical documents, police reports, prior interviews, etc. Due to the finite and specific nature of the documents and information I am looking at, I have to have concentrated attention to detail. Many of my undergraduate psychology classes empha- sized training in this—giving me the skills I now utilize on a daily basis. Additionally, I conduct many interviews wherein I have to have a thorough understanding of human nature and behavior in order to obtain the information I need or am trying to uncover.

What do you like most about your job?

I love the independence and flexibility my job allows. My manager trusts and expects that I perform my job well, and without handholding. I’ve earned that privilege over time and now reap the benefits of leaving at noon if I am done for the day.

What do you like least about your job?

No one likes insurance companies, so I am constantly working against the mindset that it’s okay to steal a little or lie to an insurance company to get what you need. After all, insurance companies have tons of money, right. . . .

Beyond your bachelor’s degree, what additional education and/or specialized training have you received?

I have no other degrees besides my BS in Psychology. However, I have numerous specialized classes under my belt that I have taken in the course of my previous job and my current one. Prior to my cur- rent position, I worked as a Crime Scene Investigator with a police department. I received extensive specialized training with this position.

What is the compensation package for an entry-level position in your occupation?

My company is smaller, so they have great benefits and perks. I drive a company car that comes with free gas (personal or otherwise), insurance, and all maintenance. I have a free cell phone, and an unbelievable 401k/health insurance package.

What are the key skills necessary for you to succeed in your career?

Being able to work independently is the biggest item. Setting your own schedule, staying on task to get your cases taken care of without needing to be told or checked in on. I also work primarily with men, and as a female I have to have a lot of confidence and gumption to work in my environment.

Thinking back to your undergraduate career, can you think of outside of class activities (e.g., research assistantships, internships, Psi Chi, etc.) that were key to success in your type of career?

I didn’t belong to any clubs in college (although I probably should have). I worked all through college at the Attorney General’s Office as a legal assistant/paralegal and this has aided me so much in my career. So many people hurry up and get out of school in 4 years or less, and don’t work or do any outside activities during. If, once you graduate, all you have is your degree and no other experience to draw from, you are going to be hard-pressed to sell yourself to potential employers. They want to know that you can carry on a conversation with people outside the classroom and have real-life experience and skills other than sitting in a classroom. I can’t stress enough how important and beneficial it is to get to know your professors. If you just show up to class and sit in the back of the room, you will just be another name out of hundreds to that professor. Get to know him or her! Whether you go on to grad school, or start working, you will be required to have letters of recommendation. If no one knows who you are, he or she can’t write anything about you in a letter. Get to know your professors!

Voices from the Workplace (continued)

(continued)

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 3 4/20/12 2:43 PM

4

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 A Quick Refresher: The Scientific Method

1.1 A Quick Refresher: The Scientific Method Science is not the only way by which to understand the world—we use other approaches such as logic and intuition. But a scientific approach allows for conclusions to be drawn with a certain amount of confidence in the accuracy of those conclusions. The values of science can be summarized as follows:

• Science places high value on theories that have the largest explanatory power. If you have a theory that can explain the outcomes of a great many hypotheses, that theory is highly useful.

• Science values predictive power. The more we can predict future behavior based on scientific data, the more useful that data will be.

• Science values fecundity—that is, fruitfulness (the generation of new ideas). If a theory can help us generate new ideas about the world we live in, then that theory has value. Sometimes this characteristic is known as the heuristic value of a theory.

• Science values open-mindedness. Critical thinking and open mindedness are essential tools for success in science (more on critical thinking later in this chapter).

• Science values parsimony. When all else is held constant, scientists prefer sim- pler theories to more complex theories.

• Scientists require logical thinking in their explanations. By making our processes and results public, science must withstand public scrutiny and make cogent arguments for their conclusions.

• Scientists value skepticism. Although anecdotal evidence may be memorable (and often entertaining), scientists want evidence in such a way as to either sup- port or refute a claim (Smith & Scharmann, 1999).

• Science is self-correcting.

As an undergraduate, do you wish you had done anything differently? If so, what?

Slept a little more, and tried to get a little better at my math skills.

What advice would you give to someone who was thinking about entering the field you are in?

Basically everything I’ve outlined in the other questions, but be exceptional. Stand out. Make a path for yourself with dedication, smarts, and charisma.

If you were choosing a career and occupation all over again, what (if anything) would you do differently?

I’m not sure I would change a thing. My life has been interesting and filled with adventure and happi- ness. Maybe taken a few more statistics classes. . . .

Copyright . 2009 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission. The official citation that should be used in referencing this material is R. Eric Landrum, Finding Jobs With a Psychol- ogy Bachelor’s Degree: Expert Advice for Launching Your Career, American Psychological Association, 2009. The use of this information does not imply endorsement by the publisher. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from the American Psychological Association.

Voices from the Workplace (continued)

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 4 4/20/12 2:43 PM

5

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 A Quick Refresher: The Scientific Method

By sharing the methodology of research studies, erroneous find- ings and mistakes can be identi- fied and flaws in the literature can be corrected. Note the phrase “research studies”—it is a very broad term that applies when scientific methods are used to advance our understanding. An experiment is a specific type of research study, and naturalistic observation is another approach to conducting a research study. In due time (and in future chap- ters), you’ll explore these differ- ent type of research studies in further detail.

Understanding the structure of how (and why) we do research

will help you to become a better (and more informed) researcher. So what is the scientific method? The word “science” comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. But the word science has at least two different implications. First, science is a method of studying the world around us. Remember learning the five-step scientific method in a grade school science class? Those steps are listed on the left side of Figure 1.1. That sci- entific method that your grade school science teacher taught you is the same scientific method that is used today in chemistry, physics, biology, and psychology. So when psy- chologists write the introduction in a research paper, they are describing the problem to be solved by the research as well as formulating a hypothesis to be tested. More parallels are available in Figure 1.1.

Generate a problem

Introduction

Form a hypothesis

Conduct an experiment Method

Collect data Results

Draw a conclusion Discussion

The five steps of the scientific method that many of us learned in grade school are the same steps scientists use in real-world applications.

Figure 1.1: The scientific method and psychology

When the methodology of research studies is shared it becomes easier to find mistakes, promoting learning and improving methods.

Photodisc/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 5 4/20/12 2:43 PM

6

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 A Quick Refresher: The Scientific Method

The second implication for the word science involves the production of knowledge. This may seem redundant, but science produces scientific knowledge. Intuitively, you already know this. Haven’t you seen a TV advertisement or a news broadcast or magazine arti- cle or an Internet blog that mentions a non-scientific survey? That disclaimer is added because scientific survey results differ in method and outcome from a non-scientific sur- vey. Why is that distinction important? Because knowledge gained through a scientific approach has certain characteristics that are different from knowledge gathered in other ways. For example, consensus is the basis for scientific knowledge. We make our results known publicly through scholarly articles, books, websites, conference presentations, and so on. In addition, scientific conclusions are tentative, (hopefully) based on the best data available. So data that are gathered using the scientific method produce scientific informa- tion that differs from that gathered by other methods. Science will not always be the best method for gaining information. For now, it’s important to remember that science is both a method and a product.

Assumptions of Science

Two very commonly mentioned assumptions of science are determinism (or lawfulness of nature) and finite causation (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004; Underwood, 1957). To this traditional listing we can add a third assumption of science—empirical evidence. The notion of determinism is fundamental for scientists to make any sense of the world we live in. Determinism posits that events that occur are lawful events; that is, they are predictable. Determinism goes a bit further to state that if all the causes were known for an event, that event would be completely predictable. Maxwell and Delaney (2004) summarize this view in three parts: (a) nature is understandable, (b) nature is uniform, and (c) events in nature have specific causes. If you think about how this applies to human behavior, it makes sense. When you go to the doctor for an ailment and receive a prescription, you expect by taking the prescription that the ailment will be resolved. You already believe in cause and effect. You believe that if you take your medications, you will get better. Perhaps you also believe that going to college will result in a better life for you. Although free will certainly has a role to play in our lives (see Baumeister, 2008), scientists depend on this idea of determinism to help make sense of the world. If there weren’t causes and effects, then events and behaviors would be random and not very predictable at all.

This underlying belief in determinism is related to the second assumption of science— finite causation. Not only do scientists believe in cause and effect, but for practical rea- sons, there are a finite (limited) number of causes for any effect or event, and these causes are discoverable and understandable (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004; Underwood, 1957). “Sci- ence would be almost a hopeless undertaking if nature were so constituted that every- thing in it influenced everything else” (Underwood, 1957, p. 6). Of course the challenge to scientists is to identify which causes are leading to the effects and under what conditions those cause-and-effect relationships occur (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004).

The third underlying assumption of science is related to the type of knowledge it pro- duces—empirical evidence. Science, at its best, produces knowledge that is both reli- able and public. Reliability occurs in the form of self-correction, because consensus is

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 6 4/20/12 2:43 PM

7

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 A Quick Refresher: The Scientific Method

the foundation for scientific knowledge. In science, nothing is self-evident at first, and scientific claims must be supported. Knowledge is acquired through empirical (research- based) experience, and the claims of science are tentative, based on the best information currently available.

Cautions About Science

A theme expressed earlier in this chapter is that although science will be the primary lens used throughout this book, science is not the “magic bullet” that solves all problems and provides all-knowing insight. Science and the scientific approach clearly have cautions and limitations that you should know about so that you know “the rest of the story.” First, as scientists we deal in probabilities. Psychology is empirical, and psychologists gather data and analyze data and draw conclusions from the data. These conclusions should be thought of as tentative. Science isn’t perfect, and we acknowledge that the findings we settle on have a high probability of being correct, but with no guarantee.

Second, we are limited to what we can understand about our world based on the physical equipment we possess. We rely on our eyes to see, our ears to hear, and so on. We are only as accurate and precise as our sensory system and the tools we use to amplify our sensory perception. Thus, for the clearest view of how a neuron is shaped, we have to rely on the best microscopes available. There are light wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot “see” because our eyes are unable to do so. There are sound waves that we cannot “hear” because the frequency of those sounds is too high or too low for the capa- bilities of our auditory system.

Third, science is limited to the investigation of public knowledge—the observable and quantifiable. Thus, science cannot answer questions about value (Fancher, 2004)—for example, which is more valuable, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? These are opinion questions that each person must answer for him- or herself—science is not able to provide the right answer. Of course, scientists can certainly poll individuals and determine what prevailing beliefs are, but the most common answer would not necessarily be labeled the right answer. Related to questions of value, science is ill-equipped to answer questions of morality. Questions like “Is capital punishment wrong?” or “Does life begin at concep- tion or birth?” are important, but they are not good questions for science if you want the “right” answer. Science doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong; we decide that for ourselves (Fancher, 2004).

Finally, science is also limited to study of the natural and physical world—said another way, science cannot help us to answer questions about the supernatural (e.g., the occult, clairvoyance, witchcraft). By definition, scientists need to study what exists in nature. It is not that value-based, moral, and ethical questions are uninteresting, but the methods and approach of science are not well-suited for such judgments. The scientific approach has its strengths and its limitations.

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 7 4/20/12 2:43 PM

8

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 Thinking Like a Scientist

1.2 Thinking Like a Scientist

C ritical thinking is defined as a set of strate- gies designed to make us better consumers of information (Wade, 1990). Although you

may not become a scientist, you are and will con- tinue to be a consumer of information. It’s obvi- ous that you consume information from profes- sors and textbooks, but you are also a consumer of information at the supermarket, on the Inter- net, in front of the television, watching a YouTube video, and at the car dealership. Critical think- ing strategies outline an approach to consuming information that ideally helps a person be less gullible. Critical thinking applies to all aspects of decision making. A more specific version of critical thinking, the evaluation of theories, is pre- sented later with detailed guidelines for judging a theory on its merits. Being critical in this sense does not mean criticizing; it means carefully and meticulously examining the points and perspec- tives of information presented to you.

Critical Thinking Skills

The following critical thinking strategies will help you become a better consumer of information.

1. Be skeptical, ask questions, and be willing to wonder. A critical thinker is not duped into believing anything he or she is told; he or she respectfully questions the sources of information and asks questions when they are confronted with details that do not make sense. Given your interest in human behavior and psychol- ogy, asking “what if” questions should come naturally. For example, think about questions like (a) What would happen if I started studying the night before the test? (b) What would happen if I treated my mate the way I want to be treated? or (c) What would happen if politicians delivered on their promises? How would you like to be able to apply psychology? Your natural curiosity about behavior combined with practice and applied research methods skills can provide you with the framework and tools to begin to answer, scientifically, the questions of interest to you.

2. Define the problem, and examine the definition of terms. Defining the problem is one of the first key steps of the scientific method. If we want to understand or predict some sort of behavior, we need to be able to describe and define what that behav- ior is. In psychology, we rely on operational definitions to help us know what we are precisely measuring.

3. Examine the evidence. A critical thinker looks for and examines the evidence on an issue. In psychology, we tend to rely on empirical evidence, but other types of evidence can be useful at times. For example, anecdotal evidence (evidence based on a personal story or experience) can sometimes be useful in thinking about

Critical thinking is a set of strategies that help us to be better consumers and disseminators of information. When was the last time you used your critical thinking skills?

Creatas/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 8 4/20/12 2:43 PM

9

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 Thinking Like a Scientist

problems to solve or generating plausible hypotheses, but anecdotal evidence is generally not considered as scientific or empirical support for a hypothesis. In examining the evidence of others, we look for the standards of science to be met.

4. Be cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence. Two scientists looking at the same evidence might draw different conclusions. Often evidence is preliminary in nature and conclusions should be delayed until more evidence is available. Fur- thermore, some types of evidence only support some types of conclusions. For example, evidence from correlational studies suggests a statistical relationship between variables, and not a causal relationship. In other words, cause-and- effect conclusions are rarely drawn from correlational evidence. There is usually a positive correlation between height and weight, but it is awkward and incorrect to conclude that height causes weight or that weight causes height. Just because two variables are significantly correlated does not mean that values of one vari- able cause the values of the other variable to change. Age is typically correlated with net worth, but we know of young millionaires and of elderly who live in poverty. As scientists, we want evidence, but we need to be cautious about the types of conclusions we draw based on the type of evidence we have.

5. Consider alternative explanations for research evidence. One of our primary tasks is to consider alternative explanations in the interpretation of research findings. In fact, most researchers consider alternative explanations before conducting stud- ies—in later chapters you’ll learn more details about how to rule out alternative explanations. The psychologist is constantly looking for alternative explanations, ideally before the research is conducted; in reality, though, sometimes we specu- late about alternative explanations after a study is complete.

6. Examine biases and assumptions. The critical thinker must examine his or her own biases and assumptions as well as the biases and assumptions of others. Informa- tion comes to us from a source, and this source almost always has a certain slant, angle, or spin. That is, the messages we receive are sent for a purpose, and often that purpose is to influence our thinking, change our attitudes, or influence our behavior. It’s also important to remember that we are not always impartial, even when we think we are.

7. Avoid emotional reasoning as a substitute for reasoning. We are emotional beings— there is no denying that. Emotions can sometimes cloud and disturb our deci- sion-making skills, and the available evidence is not often utilized fully when emotions are peaking. Sometimes we get caught in the trap of “since I feel this way, it must be true.” We may focus too much on one element of the situation, without gaining the perspective to understand the multiple sides of an issue. Feelings and emotions are important, but they should not be substituted for care- ful examination of the evidence.

8. Try not to oversimplify or overgeneralize. We live in a complicated world and it is rare that we can condense an important issue down to a convenient (yet accurate) generalization. Oversimplifications and overgeneralizations are mental shortcuts that we all make to help us organize and understand the world, and to take a break from critical thinking. Some of our prejudices and stereotypes are based on unfair overgeneralizations. Living in a complicated society dictates that compli- cated solutions must be generated; simplistic either-or thinking usually doesn’t work well in the long run. Although there are times when we simplify and gener- alize for ourselves and others, trying to force the complexity of the world we live in into neat, organized cubbyholes leaves us with an oversimplified view of the world that is not that accurate.

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 9 4/20/12 2:43 PM

10

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 Thinking Like a Scientist

9. Tolerate uncertainty. Science is based on tentative answers formed from the best evidence available at the time. Key in on the phrase “at the time.” Given the reli- ance on evidence, the critical thinker from time to time may change position on a topic due to personal experience and the emergence of new evidence. In the sci- entific community, new evidence emerges frequently. When evidence and beliefs change, uncertainty is present. Consider the information we receive about our health. It is common, for example, to read a study that says oat bran is good for you and that it lowers your cholesterol, but six months later read another study that suggests that oat bran has no effect on cholesterol. What do you believe? The critical thinker must examine the evidence looking for alternative explanations, and if a different conclusion is warranted by the evidence, change his or her opinion. Sometimes this uncertainty is what causes anxiety and fear. Our ability to tolerate uncertainty suggests being open-minded to change yet still applying the rigorous standards of critical thinking.

Scientific Terms

The four terms listed here are precise terms when used in a scientific context, which varies from our more common usage of these terms (just as the terms “significant” and “power” have special meaning in an experimental context). A fact is the result of careful observa- tion; a fact does not offer an explanation of what has happened, but rather offers a descrip- tion of the event or behavior. A hypothesis is an educated guess that attempts to explain the facts that result from scientific studies (our “data”). A hypothesis can be tested utilizing

research methods, and the con- clusion drawn from a hypoth- esis test is that the hypothesis is either supported or refuted. We don’t prove hypotheses; a hypothesis can be disproved, however (Carrier, 2001).

A theory is an attempt to explain facts that are often tested as research hypotheses. That is, a theory tries to predict the facts or data that exist, often as a sum- mary of hypotheses that have been repeatedly tested. This the- ory continues to be held by sci- entists until contrary evidence is presented—in others words, theories can be disproved. The theory provides an inference about the data (facts) observed

and the explanations as to why the events occurred. A law is a generalization for a collec- tion of facts, but without explanation (the explaining is left up to the theories). Scientific laws are identified when no exceptions have been found to the law; scientific laws explain what has happened, but it is scientific theories that attempt to explain why something happened (Carrier, 2001).

A theory tries to explain facts often tested as a research hypothesis. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is an example of how theory and research can lead to a scientific law.

Hemera/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 10 4/20/12 2:43 PM

11

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

In psychology, theories are commonplace. Theories serve a number of useful functions in thinking about meaningful patterns of behavior. First, theories help us to organize the results of numerous studies. Tens of thousands of journal articles are published each year, and these articles contribute to our knowledge of human behavior. Theories help to organize these findings into more coherent groups of ideas. Second, theories often stimulate others to do research. A psychologist may set out to find evidence to either sup- port a theory or refute it, but the theory may provide some motivation in this process. Morris (1985) presented seven criteria to be used in evaluating theories, providing some basis for distinguishing between good theories and not-so-good theories. In addition, other advantages emerge when theories are used in psychology.

Intersubjective Testability/Falsifiability

Theories possess intersubjective testability when they generate hypotheses that are test- able from an empirical standpoint. That is, if a theory is falsifiable, evidence can be gath- ered to negate or deny the hypothesis. Theories should provide ideas that are testable, meaning the theory can be tested and found to be supported or not.

Internal Consistency

Often theories are complicated entities that have a number of stipulations to be used accurately. A theory that is internally consistent does not have contradictions maintained within the body of the theory. That is, predictions made by one part of the theory should not be contradicted by other parts of the theory. There should be minimal con- tradictions in the expected outcomes when the theory is applied in a variety of situations.

Subsumptive Power

A good theory has subsumptive power, which means it can account for the results of prior studies while offering a theoretical frame- work. Later theories need to be able to subsume (absorb, explain, account for) the findings of earlier research studies. If a theory lacks this explanatory power, the benefits of the theory may be limited. New research that emerges must be able to place the context of the past into the present. For example, if you want to pro- pose a new theory of cognitive development in children, you cannot just ask the scientific com- munity to discard 100-plus years of work in

Theories should have internal consistency, which means that new research findings should further support the theory and not contradict findings from past research.

BananaStock/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 11 4/20/12 2:43 PM

12

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

psychology (and other disciplines)—you need to fit your new theory into our existing framework of knowledge. If the new theory of cognitive development were to displace Piaget’s theories of cognitive development, you would have to show how your theory explains existing data better, or you might need to point out flaws in Piaget’s theory that your new theory avoids. In other words, new theories have to fit old data.

Parsimony

To say that a theory is parsimonious means that it is simple yet complete. When a theory is said to be simple (not simplistic), it explains the events or phenomena of interest in the least complicated terms. Good theories are parsimonious and they make sense. You may have heard the story about Clever Hans, a horse that could supposedly answer math problems, spell, solve word problems, etc. One theory for the horse’s ability was that it was an extraor- dinary animal capable of human-like problem-solving ability. Another more parsimonious (and correct) theory was that Clever Hans was incredibly sensitive to the nonverbal head movements of the people asking questions. For more on the story of Clever Hans, see the fol- lowing case study. Simple, parsimonious theories are superior to more complicated theories.

Case Study: The Story of Clever Hans

Sometime around 1902 a retired German schoolmas- ter, Herr von Osten, placed an advertisement in a couple of newspapers to sell a horse that could identify 10 colors and knew the 4 rules of arithmetic. Nothing happened when this ad was first placed, but when the ad was run again about a year later, a brigadier general in the German army noticed, and expressed an inter- est in the horse, named Clever Hans (der kluge Hans in German). The general’s attention brought wider atten- tion to Herr von Osten and Clever Hans.

The phenomenon of Clever Hans was well studied at the time, and published accounts exist of this story

(Fernald, 1984; Sanford, 1914). This was no hoax. People from around the countryside near Berlin gathered to see the horse complete remarkable arithmetic tasks. No money was taken from sightse- ers, and von Osten would not put the horse in a public exhibit. Clever Hans answered questions not only for von Osten, but for many others, including reputable individuals from neighboring communi- ties and learned individuals from the University of Berlin.

What types of problems would Clever Hans solve? When told to count to a number, Clever Hans tapped his forefoot that number of times. When given math problems, he tapped out his answer, which was often (but not always) correct. Using blackboards, Clever Hans would touch his nose to the answer to the question asked. Remember, these were not tricks—the horse was not receiving intentional signals, and in fact von Osten had spent over four years training the horse. As word spread about the prowess of Clever Hans, he gained more attention, eventually eliciting attention from faculty members from the University of Berlin.

So was the performance of Clever Hans a stunt? Initial investigations from learned individuals such as Dr. Pfungst and Professor Stumpf of the University of Berlin could detect no trickery, and it seemed that Clever Hans was indeed clever. But after multiple sessions of carefully crafted test- ing, utilizing some of the same research methods discussed throughout this book, Pfungst deter- mined that “if the questioner knew, Hans knew; if the questioner did not know, Hans did not know”

Mary Evans Picture Library/Everett Collection

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 12 4/20/12 2:43 PM

13

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

Communicability

For a theory to be useful it must be communicated in an understandable fashion. This is easier said than done. You may have discovered that much of the time articles from psychology journals are not easy to read. Psychology uses its own jargon, terminology, and style to communicate the results from research studies. This may seem obvious, but if a theory is going to be influential it must be communicated so that others reading it can understand it. If your theory is not very understandable and cannot be communicated effectively to others, how will they benefit from it?

Heuristic Value

Probably one of the most impor- tant characteristics of a theory is its heuristic value, that is, its abil- ity to motivate others to conduct research on the topic (also called fecundity). Often a theory can do poorly when evaluated against the other criteria discussed in this section, but if a theory has heuris- tic value, then even a poorly sup- ported theory can have value. An example of a theory that motivated a great deal of research was Rush- ton’s (1988) idea that the intelli- gence differences found between African-Americans and Caucasians were due to the genetic inferior- ity of the African-American race. Other researchers (and the public)

(Sanford, 1914, p. 10). Continued, careful research with Clever Hans determined that his real gift was his ability to detect faint nonverbal cues. Imagine if we were gathered in a semicircle in a courtyard listening to von Osten or Pfungst, and the questioner were told to ask Clever Hans “What is the cube root of 8?” If the questioner did not know the answer (2), then Hans would not answer correctly either. But when asked for the answer to 2 + 2, you can imagine us in the crowd looking up at Clever Hans and gasping when he tapped his forefoot to 4, and then stopped. Think of how amazed we would be, watching this performance! Clever Hans was adept at detecting the subtle, nonverbal cues given off by the crowd or the questioner, and as soon as he noticed head movements or heard non- verbal cues, he stopped what he was doing (e.g., pointing with his nose, tapping with his foot).

Inadvertently, the researchers were causing an experimenter expectancy artifact; Clever Hans was not as intelligent as first believed but rather was sensitive to the nonverbal cues emitted by his question- ers. An artifact describes something that happens during a research study that was not intended to be a part of the research study yet has the capability to influence the outcomes of the study. As research- ers, we want a fair and unbiased test of our hypothesis—we do not want to influence (artifactually) the outcomes of our experiment.

Case Study: The Story of Clever Hans (continued)

When Rushton proposed that differences between whites and African-Americans were due to genetic inferiority it had an inherent heuristic value because it inspired other researchers to disprove his theory.

Lifesize/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 13 4/20/12 2:43 PM

14

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

were outraged about the theory, and many psychologists began studying the sources of intelligence differences between races. Many alternative explanations were found, such as family structure and environment, socioeconomic status, and cultural bias in intelligence testing. Though Rushton’s original theory was supported by few, the theory was useful in that it inspired others to pursue this line of research; that is, the theory had heuristic value. Sometimes a bad idea or negative beliefs can inspire good work.

Modifiability

The last component of evaluating a theory is judging its modifiability. For a theory to stand the test of time, it must be flexible and modifiable enough to incorporate the studies of the future as well as the studies of the past (subsumptive power). A theory that is rigid and narrow and based on very situation-specific evidence usually does not last very long. A good theory is able to incorporate past research and anticipate future research.

Classic Studies in Psychology: On Memory (1885) by Hermann Ebbinghaus

How does one person early in the history of psychological research not only make such a lasting impact but also influence so many aspects of psychology today? How remarkable is it that Hermann Ebbinghaus’s lasting contributions range back to 1885? First, Hermann Ebbinghaus’ classic work (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experi- mental Psychology (this is the translated title from the original Ger- man) is truly one of the first—if not the first—systematic psychological studies of memory. Second, Ebbinghaus used innovative techniques to study memory. Third, and perhaps most impressively, Ebbinghaus’ methodological techniques were so rigorous that his conclusions from over 120 years ago are still meaningful today. His classic forget- ting curve is often featured in the memory chapter in introductory psychology textbooks. So what was Ebbinghaus’ approach to studying memory that made his results truly stand the test of time?

Ebbinghaus began his now-classic series of memory experiments in 1879, and his research lasted into 1880 (Ebbinghaus, 1885). So

methodical and precise, Ebbinghaus replicated (repeated) the entire sequence of year-long studies 1883–1884 before publishing his 1885 book, Über Das Gedächtnis (translated from German as “On Memory” or “Concerning Memory”). Continuing with the theme of the time (introspection), Ebbing- haus selected himself as the participant in his memory studies (Plucker, 2007). His inventions for meth- odological rigor are perhaps unparalleled in psychology.

Ebbinghaus realized early on that he would not be able to use real words in his memory testing because the associations of these words would be helpful retrieval cues, and not provide an accurate test of memory processes such as forgetting. So Ebbinghaus created nonsense syllables composed of a consonant-vowel-consonant combination that was pronounceable but had no inherent meaning. Ebbinghaus created 2,300 nonsense syllables that he used over the course of his memory research on himself.

Another of Ebbinghaus’ lasting contributions is his forgetting curve. Systematically over time he would memorize a list of nonsense syllables to perfection, let a period of time pass, and check to see how much he had forgotten and how much he could remember. Then he would relearn the list to perfec- tion, noting how much time it would take. Relearning the list the second time was quicker

Corbis/AP Images

(continued)

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 14 4/20/12 2:43 PM

15

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 How to Scientifically Evaluate a Theory

than the original list learning, and Ebbinghaus called this advantage to learning the list a second time savings. Figure 1.2 shows the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve based on his actual 1885 data.

That Ebbinghaus was able to systematically study memory using an empirical approach and sophisti- cated laboratory-like controls is a tribute to his rigor. That his methods and his findings are still cited throughout psychology today is amazing. As one scholar put it (Shakow, 1930, p. 509), Ebbinghaus published high-quality work at the time but did not publish the quantity that other similar scholars published at the time for “. . . the fact that Ebbinghaus probably had no typewriter.”

Reflection Questions

1. What characteristics led to the lasting impact (i.e., legacy) of Ebbinghaus’ success? How might leaving a legacy based on work conducted in 1885 be different from leaving a legacy in today’s world?

2. The work of Ebbinghaus is often called the first significant psychological study of memory. How does being the first change the nature of the contribution? Are there advantages to being first in a field? Are there disadvantages to being first in a field? For each question, please describe.

3. Think about your own work flow and how you optimally use (or do not optimally use) technology. Then consider that for Ebbinghaus’ prolific career, he probably did not have access to a type- writer. In thinking about your coursework and past and present employment, describe any work situations where your actual work may have benefited from less technology? How does your use of technology affect the quality of your work? Can you think of work/school situations where the quality of your work might improve if you relied on technology less? Relied on technology more?

Retention (percent)

Immediate recall

20 minutes

1 hour

9 hours

Elapsed time (days)

100

80

60

40

20

2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 31

This is the classic Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, which demonstrates that as time passes less of what was originally learned is retained. That is, as time passes, the accuracy of memories decline.

Source: Adapted from Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology.

Figure 1.2: Ebbinghaus forgetting curve

Classic Studies in Psychology: On Memory (1885) by Hermann Ebbinghaus (continued)

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 15 4/20/12 2:43 PM

16

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 Planning for an Applied Project

1.4 Planning for an Applied Project

Depending on the course structure, you may be given a paper topic to write about, or you may have some leeway in the topic you can select for your research paper. If you are given your topic, well, of course, write about that topic. If you want to do something non-mainstream with the assigned topic, check with your instructor first. You don’t want to go to a lot of trouble to do something you think is unique and fascinat- ing just to find out that the instructor won’t accept it.

But what will your research be about if you have some choice in the matter? I have a few suggestions for you. The first rule is, of course, to satisfy the instructor’s assignment. But beyond that rule, how do you select your topic? First, try to select a topic that you are passionate about. If you had free time in college and could study any topic that you want, what would that be? Perhaps you have a relative who was just diagnosed with Alzheim- er’s disease, and you’d like to know more about how behavior changes over time with Alzheimer’s. Do research about that topic. Or perhaps you just went through a painful breakup with your significant other, and you are having a hard time coping. Why not do research about coping skills and how people recover from stressful life events? If you can connect your research paper topic to something in your life that is relevant, then the task of doing all the work that goes into a project might not seem so daunting.

Generating Ideas

First, find a topic that is relevant to you and that you are passionate about—but remember that you must be open-minded enough as a critical thinker to look for evidence on all sides of an issue, including sides that you do not necessarily agree with. If you cannot put your passions aside to see both sides of an issue, then perhaps that’s not a good topic for a research study.

Second, before you submit your idea to your instructor, do a quick search of the existing litera- ture. Be sure to inquire about what databases your institutional library subscribes to. Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) is also a good place to start a literature search. The goal of a litera- ture search is to see what research is already out there. If there is almost nothing about your topic in the published literature, this could make your research more difficult (however, if there is a rela- tively small amount of literature, this is also the case where a single study can make a relatively large contribution). If there are tens of thousands of articles available on your topic, you’ll have to narrow your search so that you can review a manageable number of previous studies. Once you have identified potentially valuable sources

When choosing your idea before submitting it to the instructor, do a quick search of available literature at your library or use the library’s existing databases like Google Scholar.

Creatas/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 16 4/20/12 2:43 PM

17

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 Planning for an Applied Project

of information, see if your journal articles and book chapters are available with an easy mouse-click to download a PDF, or figure out if you will need to access your resources through your library. Some may be available in your campus library, electronically, or available through interlibrary loan. Do your homework on your topic before you fully commit to it, especially if there are tight deadlines for your project. Consult with your teacher or reference librarian for more ideas about databases to search.

Third, if you are struggling to find a topic you are passionate about, look around at your life and those in your life to find something interesting. Hopefully you have a keen inter- est in human behavior already, so follow that lead. If you want ideas about what aspects of human behavior to explore, watch people. Spend a couple of hours on a bench in your local mall, and you’ll be exposed to all sorts of interesting behaviors that might be worthy of a research study. Or select a topic that is of personal interest to you. For instance, you may not be too thrilled with the company that provides a television signal to your house. So a relevant research topic might be about identifying the factors that lead to one’s satis- faction with TV services and having people rate the importance of factors like cost, quality of picture, variety of channels available, frequency of outages, and value for the service.

You can make your research into an applied question of interest to you, just as the TV example. My own line of research tends to follow an applied path of answering relevant questions. For example, a few years ago a student asked me about how a withdrawal (W) on her transcript might hurt her chances of attending graduate school in psychology. I did not know the answer, but we designed a national study of psychology graduate admis- sions committee directors and looked at the impact of Ws on graduate admissions (to find out what happened, see Landrum, 2003). More recently, I had a student who applied to a regional conference to present some of our research that we had completed together. The conference rejected the paper (which happens) but provided no reason as to why the paper was rejected. Personally, I think student attendance at a conference should be about the learning experience, but not everyone agrees. So this student and I did a national study of psychology instructors to ask them about the role of student participation at

conferences, as well as what cri- teria are important for student success at regional conferences. Most faculty see undergradu- ate participation at conferences as more of a learning experi- ence for the student than as the advancement of psychology as a discipline (see Haines & Lan- drum, 2008, for more details). The moral to this story—select a research topic that is relevant to you, and you may be able to answer a question of interest.

You have an idea for your research paper that your instruc- tor approves of, and you have reviewed the literature, devel- oped your measures, collected

After you have an idea for your research paper, have it approved by your instructor and start your research. What possible research topics are relevant to you?

Creatas/Thinkstock

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 17 4/20/12 2:43 PM

18

CHAPTER 1Chapter Summary

data, analyzed the results—so now what? The major sections of your research paper (introduction, method, results, discussion) will tell (or retell) your story from start to fin- ish. See Chapter 2 for tips on how to prepare each of these sections. But remember that there is an important difference between designing and proposing a research project, and actually conducting that project. Part of the confusion comes from the word “research.” For instance, you are doing research when you are reviewing the literature and reading about past studies. But if you are collecting survey data, you are also doing research. The collection of data as part of a research project is usually accompanied by term “empirical.” Empirical research is the type of research where you are collecting new data from research participants.

Applying Psychology

Understanding tools like statistics and research methods can assist you in studying any topic in psychology that you want to. There is a classic saying that goes like this: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Certainly the content of psychology is important, but if you can learn, practice, utilize, and apply the methods of psychology, the journey ahead has endless possibilities. You might even be poised for a career as a psychologist or in a psychology-related profession—more about this in a later chapter. It is important to understand some of the basic core ideas of research designs. Students can hopefully become more confident in the skills and abilities they are developing, as well as gain content knowledge. If a student can learn to like (or at least appreciate) what research methods are all about, then that student has a good glimpse of what psychology is all about. If you are a practitioner of psychology (and not a researcher), you still need to be able to read and critically consume psychological literature.

Chapter Summary

Psychology is the science of human behavior, and psychologists rely on the processes and outcomes of the scientific method to inform and enlighten us about why we think, feel, and behave as we do. When we believe in the scientific method and follow its tenets, the conclusions we draw from science are powerful and informative. Scientific thinking is a specialized version of critical thinking that involves healthy skep- ticism, precise definitions, an appropriate reliance on evidence, serious self-reflection, and the acceptance of uncertainty. When psychological theories are formed following the research methods of science, our understanding of human behavior is advanced through the testing of specific hypotheses that can lead to insights about attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Psychologists (as well as psychology majors) can apply the research methods of science to applied questions of interest, which become hypotheses to be researched and tested. Specialized databases allow researchers to review the available literature on a topic to help shape the questions to be answered by new research. The process of using research methods and a critical thinking approach provides us with valuable tools that can be applied not only to research questions of interest but also in the decision making that is required in everyday life.

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 18 4/20/12 2:43 PM

19

CHAPTER 1Concept Check

Concept Check

1. Which of the following is NOT an assumption of science, according to your text?

A. Determinism B. Finite causation C. Empirical evidence D. Immediacy

2. Tilly wants to operationalize “anxiety.” To do this, she would

A. remove anxiety from her research. B. consider anxiety to be the focus of her research. C. compare types of anxiety experienced in surgeries. D. define anxiety as it will be measured in her research.

3. It was determined that Clever Hans

A. was well trained by his handler to count and do complex math problems. B. responded to subtle cues from humans about the correct answer. C. could read sophisticated hand signals from his handler and “cheated.” D. could add and subtract, but not do more advanced math problems.

4. A theory that accounts for previous studies’ findings and provides a theoretical framework is said to have

A. subsumptive power. B. modifiability. C. internal consistency. D. parsimony.

5. The study conducted by the author regarding the effect of withdrawal grades on admission to graduate programs (Landrum, 2003) illustrated the idea that research may be

A. related to the university experience. B. easily falsified through empirical evidence. C. an applied question of personal interest. D. conducted over a long period of time.

Answers 1. D. Immediacy. The answer can be found in Section 1.1.

2. D. Define anxiety as it will be measured in her research. The answer can be found in Section 1.2.

3. B. Responded to subtle cues from humans about the correct answer. The answer can be found in Section 1.3.

4. A. Subsumptive power. The answer can be found in Section 1.4.

5. C. An applied question of personal interest. The answer can be found in Section 1.5.

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 19 4/20/12 2:43 PM

20

CHAPTER 1Key Terms to Remember

Questions for Critical Thinking

1. Which characteristics of critical thinking mentioned in this chapter do you think you would like to improve for yourself? Which of those characteristics do you see as current strengths, and which do you see as potential areas for improvement?

2. The story of Clever Hans is pertinent to hypothesis testing because a particular working hypothesis was believed until it was disproven. Do you think a work- ing hypothesis can be detrimental to the research/critical thinking process? Do you think it is better to go into a research situation with a completely open mind, and just look to see what might happen, or is it better to go into a research situ- ation with a working hypothesis and look for evidence that confirms or refutes your hypothesis?

3. Why is it so hard to tolerate uncertainty? By now you’ve taken a number of courses in psychology and in other subjects. Thinking broadly, what makes uncertainty so difficult to handle? Why do we need to know how the story turns out—can’t we just enjoy the journey without knowing the precise destination? Can you think of specific instances in your life where you tolerated high levels of uncertainty well, and can you think of a situation or two where you did not handle high levels of uncertainty so well? What were the key differences between those situations, and what can you learn from studying your own reactions to uncertainty?

Key Terms to Remember

anecdotal evidence Evidence based on a personal story or experience that is gener- ally not considered to be scientific or empir- ical support for a hypothesis, but could contribute to hypothesis development.

causal relationship A direct relationship where an event occurs as a consequence of a previous event taking place.

critical thinking A set of strategies designed to make an individual a better consumer of information through inquiry, interpretation, and problem solving.

determinism The theory that all events are predictable and that if all the causes were known for an event, that event would be completely predictable. Also known as the “lawfulness of nature.”

empirical evidence Evidence produced by science.

fact The result of careful observation that offers a description of an event or behavior.

fecundity The generation of new ideas; fruitfulness. See heuristic value.

finite causation The concept that there are a limited number of causes for any effect or event, and that these causes are discov- erable and understandable.

heuristic value A theory’s ability to motivate others to conduct research on the topic and generate new ideas about the world that we live in. See fecundity.

hypothesis An educated guess that attempts to explain the facts that result from scientific studies.

intersubjective testability When a theory generates hypotheses that are testable from an empirical standpoint.

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 20 4/20/12 2:43 PM

21

CHAPTER 1Web Resources

law A generalization for a collection of facts, but without explanation. Scientific laws are identified when no exceptions have been found to the law; scientific laws explain what has happened.

nonsense syllables A consonant-vowel- consonant combination that is pronounce- able but has no inherent meaning, created by Ebbinghaus for memory research on himself.

parsimony When a theory or idea is simple, yet complete.

psychology The science of human behavior.

savings Established by Ebbinghaus, the difference in time between when something is first learned and when it is re-learned.

scientific method A method of studying the world around us by observing and developing theories through scientific hypotheses.

skepticism The potential doubt that others may feel regarding the findings of scientific analysis. Scientists value this because they want evidence to either sup- port or refute a claim.

statistical relationship A relationship between two variables that is found through the analysis of statistical measures.

subsumptive power The ability of a the- ory to account for the results of prior stud- ies while offering a theoretical framework.

theory An attempt to explain facts that are often tested as research hypotheses.

values of science Outlined values that state that science places high value on theories that have the largest explanatory power; science values fecundity; science values open-mindedness; scientists require logical thinking in their explanations; science values skepticism; and science is self-correcting.

Web Resources

Access scholarly articles that a researcher may use for the purposes of developing his or her own independent research. This search engine allows for broad searches among numerous academic disciplines including, but not limited to, academic journals, gradu- ate theses,or professional publications. http://scholar.google.com/

This website provides access to a critical thinking community where the concept of criti- cal thinking is both defined and analyzed. It further goes on to explain the benefit of critical thinking technique and provides resources related to the topic. http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

This website outlines ways for psychological researchers to develop original, successful research ideas based on the paper by William J. McGuire. http://manyitems.tripod.com/miscellany/ideas.html

Association of Psychological Science website. Use this resource to get involved with the association as well as be kept up to date on news, employment networks, and upcoming conferences and events. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 21 4/20/12 2:43 PM

22

CHAPTER 1Web Resources

American Psychological Association (APA) website. Use this resource to investigate top- ics in psychology, as well as be involved with the APA and be kept up to date on current research and topics in the field. http://www.apa.org/

lan66845_01_c01_p001-022.indd 22 4/20/12 2:43 PM