why is it important in psychological research

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jun 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

PSYCH101: Introduction to Psychology

Why research is important.

Read this text, which introduces the scientific method, which involves making a hypothesis or general premise, deductive reasoning, making empirical observations, and inductive reasoning,

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth's continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession (Figure 2.2). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

A skull has a large hole bored through the forehead.

Figure 2.2 Some of our ancestors, across the world and over the centuries, believed that trephination - the practice of making a hole in the skull, as shown here - allowed evil spirits to leave the body, thus curing mental illness and other disorders.

Use of Research Information

Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores. Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills. Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health. In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on "scientific evidence" when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives. We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents' tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life.

While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective. While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants. If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund. Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that your sister Maria's child, Umberto, was recently diagnosed with autism. There are many treatments for autism that help decrease the negative impact of autism on the individual. Some examples of treatments for autism are applied behavior analysis (ABA), social communication groups, social skills groups, occupational therapy, and even medication options. If Maria asked you for advice or guidance, what would you do? You would likely want to review the research and learn about the efficacy of each treatment so you could best advise your sister. In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

Notable Researchers

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work (Figure 2.3). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition. Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States. Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University's department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the "Father of Black Psychology". Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser's research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional.

Figure a is a portrait of Margaret Floy Washburn. Figure b is the front page of the Implementation Decree from the Supreme Co

Figure 2.3 (a) Margaret Floy Washburn was the first woman to earn a doctorate degree in psychology. (b) The outcome of Brown v. Board of Education was influenced by the research of psychologist Inez Beverly Prosser, who was the first African American woman to earn a PhD in psychology.

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method. Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas (Figure 2.4). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

A diagram has a box at the top labeled "hypothesis or general premise" and a box at the bottom labeled "empirical observation

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization - one hypothesis - that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive. Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits - apples, bananas, and oranges - all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes. For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning. We've stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5.

A diagram has seven labeled boxes with arrows to show the progression in the flow chart. The chart starts at "Theory" and mov

Figure 2.5 The scientific method involves deriving hypotheses from theories and then testing those hypotheses. If the results are consistent with the theory, then the theory is supported. If the results are not consistent, then the theory should be modified and new hypotheses will be generated.

(a)A photograph shows Freud holding a cigar. (b) The mind's conscious and unconscious states are illustrated as an iceberg fl

Figure 2.6 Many of the specifics of (a) Freud's theories, such as (b) his division of the mind into id, ego, and superego, have fallen out of favor in recent decades because they are not falsifiable. In broader strokes, his views set the stage for much of psychological thinking today, such as the unconscious nature of the majority of psychological processes.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2. Psychological Research

Why is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behaviour
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession (see Figure 2). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

Some of our ancestors, across the world and over the centuries, believed that trephination—the practice of making a hole in the skull, as shown here—allowed evil spirits to leave the body, thus curing mental illness and other disorders. (credit: “taiproject”/Flickr)

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behaviour, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behaviour. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behaviour of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behaviour is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behaviour. However, the reason for the behaviour is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behaviour by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behaviour. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building. Several professional organizations view media violence exposure as a risk factor for actual violence, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools (see Figure 3). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. According to D.A.R.E. BC, since its inception, more than 100,000 school children in British Columbia have gone through the program (http://darebc.com/) . Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

Figure 1.2 The D.A.R.E. program continues to be popular in schools around the world despite research suggesting that it is ineffective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning, empirical observations lead to new ideas (see Figure 4). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

Figure 1.3 Psychological research relies on both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favourite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

Figure 1.4 The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviours (see Figure 6). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

Figure 1.5 Many of the specifics of (a) Freud's theories, such as (b) his division of the mind into id, ego, and superego, have fallen out of favor in recent decades because they are not falsifiable. In broader strokes, his views set the stage for much of psychological thinking today, such as the unconscious nature of the majority of psychological processes.

Activities: Watch a Video

OpenStax , Psychology. OpenStax CNX. Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

DARE BC. http://darebc.com/

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10 Why is Research Important?

Learning Objectives

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behaviour
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure PR.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behaviour, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behaviour. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behaviour of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : it is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student’s acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the Premier of your province. One of your responsibilities is to manage the provincial budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new Premier, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children’s development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

LINK TO LEARNING

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure PR.3 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

A diagram has a box at the top labeled “hypothesis or general premise” and a box at the bottom labeled “empirical observations.” On the left, an arrow labeled “inductive reasoning” goes from the bottom to top box. On the right, an arrow labeled “deductive reasoning” goes from the top to the bottom box.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is supported, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favourite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

A diagram has seven labeled boxes with arrows to show the progression in the flow chart. The chart starts at “Theory” and moves to “Generate hypothesis,” “Collect data,” “Analyze data,” and “Summarize data and report findings.” There are two arrows coming from “Summarize data and report findings” to show two options. The first arrow points to “Confirm theory.” The second arrow points to “Modify theory,” which has an arrow that points back to “Generate hypothesis.”

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Theories and Explanations in Psychology

Anna m. borghi.

1 Department of Dynamic and Clinical Pyshcology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

2 Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Rome, Italy

Chiara Fini

Research in psychology has undergone many changes in the last 20 years. The increased and tighter relationship between psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy, the emergence and affirmation of embodied and grounded cognition approaches, the grow of interest on new research topics, the strengthening of new areas, such as the social, cognitive, and affective neuroscience, the spread of Bayesian models, and the recent debates on the replication crisis, represent some of the pieces of the new emerging landscape.

In spite of these novelties, one character of the discipline remains stable: its focus on empirical investigation. While we think this is an important and distinctive feature of our discipline, all too often this fascination for empirical data is accompanied by the absence of an equally deep interest for theory development. Noteworthy, while other scientific disciplines are endowed with a theoretical branch—think of the role of “theoretical physics” for physics—psychology does not have an equally institutionalized theoretical branch. This lack of theoretical interest is testified also by the fact that only few journals (Frontiers represents an exception) accept theoretical articles, i.e., articles that systematize existing evidence to inform a model or develop a new theory.

Here we argue that a strongly theoretical approach, that takes into account and seeks to identify the mechanisms underlying brain and mental processes, and that aims to build formal theories and computational models, can contribute to address the current limitations of psychological research helping it to face important challenges.

In the following we will highlight some limitations of psychological research, that a strong theoretical and philosophically informed approach can contribute to face.

A pivotal role in promoting interdisciplinarity can be played by philosophy—and in particular by philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of neuroscience, and of cognitive science. Although not a natural science, empirically-informed philosophy can play a crucial integrative role, helping to build a more comprehensive view of the field and identifying links that cross disciplinary boundaries.

In a different way, computational models and simulations are instruments that boost interdisciplinarity: a good model has a cumulative character, it helps in theory building and in validation of empirical data coming from different sources and disciplines and obtained with different methods (Caligiore et al., 2010 ; Pezzulo et al., 2011 ).

One of the most debated issues in recent psychological research is the replication crisis, and in particular the reliability of scientific results. We do not intend to under-evaluate the attempts to strengthen the results and we really appreciate the recent tendency to distinguish confirmatory and exploratory research. We namely think that research in psychology needs to follow two strategies: a more explorative, and a more confirmative one-science has indeed two different sides, a creative and a monitoring one. Exerting either an inductive or a deductive logic might allow to build strong and reliable empirical-based psychological models.

However, we think that more resources and more effort should be devoted to find explanations of phenomena [see Van Rooij ( 2018 ) for convincing arguments on this]. As argued by Cummins ( 2000 ), “a substantial proportion of research effort in experimental psychology isn't expended directly in the explanation business; it is expended in the business of discovering and confirming effects.”

Based on these considerations, we believe that more emphasis should be given to the ability to plan and construct experiments with the aim of theory building rather than simply to find reliable effects. Not only the tendency to publish unsound results, but also the tendency to search “originality” at all costs without theory should be contrasted. This approach should clearly impact training, education, and also selection of young researchers.

The objective of ascribing a more crucial role to the theoretical foundations of our discipline can be reached in multiple ways. We will mention just a couple of them.

One possible strategy is to focus more on core mechanisms, adopting a synthetic approach. As clearly explained by Hommel and Colzato ( 2017 ) in a recent grand challenge, a mature science should “learn to value theoretical frameworks that track down core mechanisms in as many phenomena as possible,” and a more parsimonious approach should be promoted. One example is the role played by goals in influencing action representation, imitation, etc.

Another way to promote a synthetic approach consists in fostering the use of computational models. Computational models can namely help formulating clearer experimental hypotheses, refining theories, and validating them. Particularly promising are dynamic systems approach, neural networks models, Bayesian models.

Epistemological awareness . It is important to understand where the field is going. Recent years have seen a variety of pivotal changes and modifications. The spread of embodied and grounded cognition has represented a real revolution in the areas of cognition and social cognition, and has determined an important paradigm change. In addition, we have assisted to the introduction of extended mind proposals, the increased role of social neuroscience and overall the development of a very tight relationship between psychology and neuroscience, the increased importance of Bayesian models. Experiments in psychology typically support or disconfirm field theories, but in many cases they do not explicitly relate to these more general approaches or theories. We instead believe that it is important for scientists to situate their own research within a broad theoretical framework, a general theory; this can namely help to form a cumulative baggage of knowledge.
Key methodological challenges of psychology . The hotly debated replication crisis in science has been particularly deep in psychology. Addressing it in a proper way certainly requires methodological improvements, but also a clear epistemological vision of the specificity of psychological research. The field is divided between scientists who think it is important to address them improving replication, and scientists who think that research should be more focused on innovation and discovery. A strong theoretical approach can provide means to address this crisis, adopting synthetic methods that facilitate the identification of some basic mechanisms rather than focusing on a variety of more or less fashionable effects. It is important to foster debate on this topic, since its outcome may influence the future of our discipline. In addition, it is important to promote the discussion and use of different kinds of computational models, aimed at strengthening theoretical approaches.
Cross-cultural research . Scholars are starting to recognize that psychological processes are far from being universal (Henrich et al., 2010 ; Prinz, 2012 ; Barrett, 2017 ; Hruschka et al., 2018 ). As a consequence, psychologists are starting to propose more and more cross-cultural research. The research instruments we now possess, allowing to perform online experiment, allow scientists to perform more easily studies that include multicultural samples. It is important to promote these practices, encouraging researchers of different nations and backgrounds to collaborate. Old debates, such as that related to the influence of language and languages on cognition, have acquired a new fresh status. A mature reflection on these topics is important and crucial for the development of our discipline. Cross-cultural research should be promoted and fostered.
Dear old themes . Some topics are crucial for the understanding of mind, brain, behavior. Unluckily debates on some apparently old-fashioned topics are sometimes abandoned, but focusing on them can offer new insights and open new research venues. A strong theoretical and philosophical approach, firmly based on scientific evidence, can offer fresh perspectives and exciting new ideas on these topics. Some examples include the nature-nurture debate; the role of notions such as simulation and representation for psychological understanding; the mechanisms underlying the ability of abstraction/abstractness in animal and human cognition; how concepts are acquired and represented in the brain; the effects of language on perception, categorization, and thought; our sense of body; the theories of narrative self; the role of interoceptive and emotional experience, of religious experience, of mindfulness; penetrability of cognition/perception; how consciousness work; the mechanisms underlying the formation of beliefs and their influence on decision making; how we represent others, e.g., through stereotypes and implicit biases, comprehend them, e.g., through mindreading and perspective taking, and act with them, e.g., through joint action; how we represent morality, social norms, and institutions.

To conclude: How do we dream the psychology of the future? First, we dream of a psychology focusing on theoretically solid, explanation-based accounts, and on the identification of key principles rather than on fashionable effects. Second, we dream of a psychology open to diversity,-characterized by an interdisciplinary approach, and more open to methodological contaminations and to the possibility to perform studies on different populations.

Author Contributions

Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Fausto Caruana, Felice Cimatti, Federico DaRold, and Luca Tummolini for suggestions, discussions, and comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

Barrett L. F. (2017). How Emotions are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain . New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [ Google Scholar ]
Barsalou L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols . Behav. Brain Sci. 22 , 637–660. 10.1017/S0140525X99532147 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Caligiore D., Borghi A. M., Parisi D., Baldassarre G. (2010). TRoPICALS: a computational embodied neuroscience model of compatibility effects . Psychol. Rev. 117 , 1188–228. 10.1037/a0020887 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cummins R. (2000). How does it work? “versus” what are the laws?": two conceptions of psychological explanation,” in Explanation and Cognition , eds Keil F., Wilson Robert A. (Cambridge: MIT Press; ), 117–144. [ Google Scholar ]
Henrich J., Heine S. J., Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 , 61–83. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hommel B., Colzato L. S. (2017). The grand challenge: integrating nomothetic and ideographic approaches to human cognition . Front. Psychol. 8 :100. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00100 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hruschka D. J., Medin D. L., Rogoff B., Henrich J. (2018). Pressing questions in the study of psychological and behavioral diversity . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 , 11366–11368. 10.1073/pnas.1814733115 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pezzulo G., Barsalou L. W., Cangelosi A., Fischer M. H., Spivey M., McRae K. (2011). The mechanics of embodiment: a dialog on embodiment and computational modeling . Front. Psychol. 2 :5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Prinz J. J. (2012). Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives . London: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
Van Rooij I. (2018). Available online at: https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/psychological-science-needs-theory-development-before-preregistration/ (accessed January 18, 2018).

Science of Psychology

The Go-To Science

Curiosity is part of human nature. One of the first questions children learn to ask is “why?” As adults, we continue to wonder. Using empirical methods, psychologists apply that universal curiosity to collect and interpret research data to better understand and solve some of society’s most challenging problems.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to think of a facet of life where psychology is not involved. Psychologists employ the scientific method — stating the question, offering a theory and then constructing rigorous laboratory or field experiments to test the hypothesis. Psychologists apply the understanding gleaned through research to create evidence-based strategies that solve problems and improve lives.

The result is that psychological science unveils new and better ways for people to exist and thrive in a complex world.

Psychologists in Action

Jack Stark, PhD, Performance Psychologist

Helping Businesses

Dr. Jack Stark uses psychological science to help NASCAR drivers achieve optimal performance and keep their team in the winner’s circle.

Dr. Strayer helps place an electroencephalogram (EEG) cap on a study participant.

Improving Lives

Dr. David Strayer uses psychological science to study distracted driving by putting people through rigorous concentration tests during driving simulations.

Dr. Tate gives a study participant an armband to monitor activity levels.

Promoting Health

Dr. Deborah Tate uses psychological science to identify strategies for improving weight loss . Her research brings the proven benefits of face-to-face weight loss programs to more people through technology.

Dr. Salas sits in a helicopter with pilots.

Helping Organizations

As an organizational psychologist, Dr. Eduardo Salas studies people where they work — examining what they do and how they make decisions.

Kathleen Kremer, PhD, Research Psychologist

Working in Schools

Dr. Kathleen Kremer knows a thing or two about fun. Using psychological science, she studies user attitudes, behaviors and emotions to learn what makes a child love a toy.

Science in Action

Psychology is a varied field. Psychologists conduct basic and applied research, serve as consultants to communities and organizations, diagnose and treat people, and teach future psychologists and those who will pursue other disciplines. They test intelligence and personality.

Many psychologists work as health care providers. They assess behavioral and mental function and well-being. Other psychologists study how human beings relate to each other and to machines, and work to improve these relationships.

The application of psychological research can decrease the economic burden of disease on government and society as people learn how to make choices that improve their health and well-being. The strides made in educational assessments are helping students with learning disabilities. Psychological science helps educators understand how children think, process and remember — helping to design effective teaching methods. Psychological science contributes to justice by helping the courts understand the minds of criminals, evidence and the limits of certain types of evidence or testimony.

The science of psychology is pervasive. Psychologists work in some of the nation’s most prominent companies and organizations. From Google, Boeing and NASA to the federal government, national health care organizations and research groups to Cirque du Soleil, Disney and NASCAR — psychologists are there, playing important roles.

Brain science and cognitive psychology

Climate and environmental psychology

Clinical psychology

Counseling psychology

Developmental psychologists focus on human growth and changes across the lifespan, including physical, cognitive, social, intellectual, perceptual, personality and emotional growth.

Developmental psychology

Experimental psychologists use science to explore the processes behind human and animal behavior.

Experimental psychology

Forensic and public service psychology

Health psychology

Human factors and engineering psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology

Psychology of teaching and learning

Quantitative psychology

Rehabilitation psychologists study and work with individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions to help them overcome challenges and improve their quality of life.

Rehabilitation psychology

Social psychology

Sport and performance psychology

Psychology Careers: What to Know

Why the reliance on data? Findings and statistics from research studies can impact us emotionally, add credibility to an article, and ground us in the real world. However, the importance of research findings reaches far beyond providing knowledge to the general population. Research and evaluation studies — those studies that assess a program’s impact — are integral to promoting mental health and reducing the burden of mental illness in different populations.

Mental health research identifies biopsychosocial factors — how biological, psychological and social functioning are interacting — detecting trends and social determinants in population health. That data greatly informs the current state of mental health in the U.S. and around the world. Findings from such studies also influence fields such as public health, health care and education. For example, mental health research and evaluation can impact public health policies by assisting public health professionals in strategizing policies to improve population mental health.

Research helps us understand how to best promote mental health in different populations. From its definition to how it discussed, mental health is seen differently in every community. Thus, mental health research and evaluation not only reveals mental health trends but also informs us about how to best promote mental health in different racial and ethnic populations. What does mental health look like in this community? Is there stigma associated with mental health challenges? How do individuals in the community view those with mental illness? These are the types of questions mental health research can answer.

Data aids us in understanding whether the mental health services and resources that are available meet mental health needs. Many times the communities where needs are the greatest are the ones where there are limited services and resources available. Mental health research and evaluation informs public health professionals and other relevant stakeholders of the gaps that currently exist so they can prioritize policies and strategies for communities where gaps are the greatest.

Research establishes evidence for the effectiveness of public health policies and programs. Mental health research and evaluation help develop evidence for the effectiveness of healthcare policies and strategies as well as mental health promotion programs. This evidence is crucial for showcasing the value and return on investment for programs and policies, which can justify local, state and federal expenditures. For example, mental health research studies evaluating the impact of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) have revealed that individuals taking the course show increases in knowledge about mental health, greater confidence to assist others in distress, and improvements in their own mental wellbeing. They have been fundamental in assisting organizations and instructors in securing grant funding to bring MHFA to their communities.

The findings from mental health research and evaluation studies provide crucial information about the specific needs within communities and the impacts of public education programs like MHFA. These studies provide guidance on how best to improve mental health in different contexts and ensure financial investments go towards programs proven to improve population mental health and reduce the burden of mental illness in the U.S.

In 2021, in a reaffirmation of its dedication and commitment to mental health and substance use research and community impact, Mental Health First Aid USA introduced MHFA Research Advisors. The group advises and assists Mental Health First Aid USA on ongoing research and future opportunities related to individual MHFA programs, including Youth MHFA, teen MHFA and MHFA at Work.

Through this advisory group and evaluation efforts at large, Mental Health First Aid USA will #BeTheDifference for mental health research and evaluation across communities in the US.

Learn more about MHFA Research Advisors and how you can share your research with us.

Get the latest MHFA blogs, news and updates delivered directly to your inbox so you never miss a post.

Share and help spread the word.

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research. Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent. Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
Purpose of the research.
All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
Procedures involved in the research.
Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress. Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to. The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent. No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b) IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

The research question or hypothesis.
The treatment of individual participants.
The institutional context.
How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”. American Psychologist , 19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children. Child development , 65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. American psychologist , 43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

How Psychological Science is Benefiting the World

Perspectives on Psychological Science

why is it important in psychological research

Technological advances have allowed psychological scientists to measure everything from cognitive impairments to everyday decision-making. Now, the scientists are using their research to inform tools, programs, and interventions that are helping to cultivate a healthier, happier, and more sustainable world.

In a special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science , a journal of the Association for Psychological Science , more than 25 psychological researchers write about expanding their research beyond academic articles and applying it to the betterment of society and the environment.

“Their work spans ways to make the world a better place by considering individuals, relationships and interactions among people, and broad-scale social and national policies,” June Gruber, the journal’s interim editor and an assistant professor at University of Colorado Boulder, writes with her associate editors in an introduction to the issue .

Gruber and her colleagues highlight the importance of psychological scientists’ involvement in addressing societal challenges, including mental illness, isolation and loneliness, sexual harassment, policies that harm vulnerable refugees, lack of concern for animals, and environmental deterioration. The issue highlights how psychological science has helped disadvantaged youth achieve academic success, improved the efficacy of psychotherapy, helped military officers surmount errors and biases in their decision-making, and fostered peace and reconciliation in ethnic conflicts, among other impacts.

Among the contributors to the issue are some of the world’s most eminent scientists.

Albert Bandura, widely described as one of the greatest living psychologists, discusses the use of social cognitive theory to change behaviors and create sustainable social and environmental futures.

Acclaimed psychiatrist Aaron Beck describes how his pioneering work on cognitive behavioral therapy has led to one of the most widely used interventions for increasing individual well-being.

University of Pennsylvania researcher and author Angela Duckworth, known for investigating the science of “grit”, examines her path from school teacher to scientist in helping children and adults persist and succeed in the face of challenges.

Stanford University professor Carol Dweck shares how she took her prominent research on mindsets into educational settings and other real-world environments.

Longtime collaborators Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff detail their success at designing public spaces to foster learning.

University of Delaware social psychologist James Jones details his research on diversity, race, and racism and his efforts to expand graduate programs for students of color.

Ervin Staub, a well-known researcher on peace and violence, discusses applying his findings to workshops and educational programs for reconciliation in Rwanda.

And organizational researcher and best-selling author Adam Grant calls attention to the importance of disseminating scientific findings to the general public

Gruber and her colleagues say the special issue is intended to inspire future and current scientists who are hoping to make a positive difference in the world.

The issue is available for free to the public online for a short time.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

For a copy of the research article and access to other Perspectives on Psychological Science research findings, please contact: - 202.293.9300

Presenter speaking to a room full of people.

Does Psychology Need More Effective Suspicion Probes?

Suspicion probes are meant to inform researchers about how participants’ beliefs may have influenced the outcome of a study, but it remains unclear what these unverified probes are really measuring or how they are currently being used.

Scientists Discuss How to Study the Psychology of Collectives, Not Just Individuals

In a set of articles appearing in Perspectives on Psychological Science, an international array of scientists discusses how the study of neighborhoods, work units, activist groups, and other collectives can help us better understand and respond to societal changes.

How Science Can Reward Cooperation, Not Just Individual Achievement

Two social scientists propose a different approach to scientific recognition and rewards: shifting the focus away from individual scientists and toward the larger groups in which scientists are embedded.

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	30 minutes	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.

Cookie	Duration	Description
AWSELBCORS	5 minutes	This cookie is used by Elastic Load Balancing from Amazon Web Services to effectively balance load on the servers.

Cookie	Duration	Description
at-rand	never	AddThis sets this cookie to track page visits, sources of traffic and share counts.
CONSENT	2 years	YouTube sets this cookie via embedded youtube-videos and registers anonymous statistical data.
uvc	1 year 27 days	Set by addthis.com to determine the usage of addthis.com service.
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_3507334_1	1 minute	Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

Cookie	Duration	Description
loc	1 year 27 days	AddThis sets this geolocation cookie to help understand the location of users who share the information.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	A cookie set by YouTube to measure bandwidth that determines whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC	session	YSC cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt-remote-device-id	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.
yt.innertube::requests	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.

8 Why Is Research Important?

[latexpage]

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( [link] ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building. Several professional organizations view media violence exposure as a risk factor for actual violence, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools ( [link] ). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

A D.A.R.E. poster reads “D.A.R.E. to resist drugs and violence.”

Watch this news report to learn more about some of the controversial issues surrounding the D.A.R.E. program.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning , empirical observations lead to new ideas ( [link] ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

Play this “Deal Me In” interactive card game to practice using inductive reasoning.

A diagram has four boxes: the top is labeled “theory,” the right is labeled “hypothesis,” the bottom is labeled “research,” and the left is labeled “observation.” Arrows flow in the direction from top to right to bottom to left and back to the top, clockwise. The top right arrow is labeled “use the hypothesis to form a theory,” the bottom right arrow is labeled “design a study to test the hypothesis,” the bottom left arrow is labeled “perform the research,” and the top left arrow is labeled “create or modify the theory.”

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( [link] ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

(a)A photograph shows Freud holding a cigar. (b) The mind’s conscious and unconscious states are illustrated as an iceberg floating in water. Beneath the water’s surface in the “unconscious” area are the id, ego, and superego. The area just below the water’s surface is labeled “preconscious.” The area above the water’s surface is labeled “conscious.”

Visit this website to apply the scientific method and practice its steps by using them to solve a murder mystery, determine why a student is in trouble, and design an experiment to test house paint.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. In this way, research enables scientists to separate fact from simple opinion. Having good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives.

Review Questions

Scientific hypotheses are ________ and falsifiable.

________ are defined as observable realities.

Scientific knowledge is ________.

A major criticism of Freud’s early theories involves the fact that his theories ________.

were too limited in scope
were too outrageous
were too broad
were not testable

Critical Thinking Questions

In this section, the D.A.R.E. program was described as an incredibly popular program in schools across the United States despite the fact that research consistently suggests that this program is largely ineffective. How might one explain this discrepancy?

There is probably tremendous political pressure to appear to be hard on drugs. Therefore, even though D.A.R.E. might be ineffective, it is a well-known program with which voters are familiar.

The scientific method is often described as self-correcting and cyclical. Briefly describe your understanding of the scientific method with regard to these concepts.

This cyclical, self-correcting process is primarily a function of the empirical nature of science. Theories are generated as explanations of real-world phenomena. From theories, specific hypotheses are developed and tested. As a function of this testing, theories will be revisited and modified or refined to generate new hypotheses that are again tested. This cyclical process ultimately allows for more and more precise (and presumably accurate) information to be collected.

Personal Application Questions

Healthcare professionals cite an enormous number of health problems related to obesity, and many people have an understandable desire to attain a healthy weight. There are many diet programs, services, and products on the market to aid those who wish to lose weight. If a close friend was considering purchasing or participating in one of these products, programs, or services, how would you make sure your friend was fully aware of the potential consequences of this decision? What sort of information would you want to review before making such an investment or lifestyle change yourself?

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

News & Highlights

Publications and Documents
Education in C/T Science
Browse Our Courses
C/T Research Academy
K12 Investigator Training
Harvard Catalyst On-Demand
Translational Innovator
SMART IRB Reliance Request
Biostatistics Consulting
Regulatory Support
Pilot Funding
Informatics Program
Community Engagement
Diversity Inclusion
Research Enrollment and Diversity
Harvard Catalyst Profiles

News & Highlights

Topics: Community Engagement , Five Questions

How to Make Research More Relevant to All

Five questions with courtney beard on engaging communities in research..

Courtney Beard with her her lab co-workers.

Courtney Beard , PhD, faced a problem familiar to many Harvard Medical School researchers: How to diversify your research studies to make them more applicable to the general population.

In Beard’s case, she was planning a study in the general population to evaluate a mental health app she developed as a cognitive-behavioral tool for so-called interpretation bias, which studies suggest is an important factor in anxiety and depression. The app was first tested at McLean Hospital, which serves a mostly white, well-educated population. She wanted to make sure her app also worked well for people historically under-represented in research studies, including people who identify as Black, Hispanic, and Latinx.

Serendipitously, Beard learned from a colleague about the study review service offered by the Community Coalition for Equity in Research , and immediately signed up. She filled out a two-page equity-focused template describing her study and made a 10-minute video outlining her research interests. Shortly thereafter, she found herself video-conferencing with a panel of community-embedded experts who provided individualized advice and guidance on how to make her study more equitable.

Beard, a clinical psychologist with expertise in anxiety disorders and cognitive behavior therapy, is associate professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School (HMS), and director of the Cognition and Affect Research and Education (CARE) Laboratory at McLean Hospital.

The app you’ve developed, HabitWorks, supports new ways of thinking for people facing mental health problems. How does this fit into the CARE lab?

Much of our work involves identifying mechanisms that keep people anxious or depressed, such as mental habits, and then developing treatments to target those very specific mental habits. Habit Works is a perfect example of that. It focuses on how people interpret the countless ambiguous situations they face throughout the day. We know that interpretation bias plays a big role in how people feel in the moment, and it impacts what they do, especially if they’re feeling anxious.

HabitWorks has been developed and tested over a number of years in people who have lived experience with these conditions. The aim is to help people become more aware of how they’re interpreting situations and consider opening to alternative interpretations. Perhaps they become a little more flexible in their thinking, or at least start to pause when they notice themselves jumping to a particular type of conclusion.

Your second HabitWorks study plan was reviewed by the Community Coalition for Equity in Research in September of 2022. Did your approach change at all as a result of the review?

Yes, it changed substantially. We originally planned to jump right into a pilot study to test our app in a general population and recruit a few hundred people. As a result of the review, we decided to take a step back and do a much smaller study specifically with people who identify as Black, Hispanic, or Latinx. We wanted to understand how they were experiencing the intervention and make sure it was acceptable to them before testing it more broadly, precisely because it had been first developed and tested in the primarily white population served by McLean. At the end of the study, we interviewed participants to clearly understand how they were using and experiencing the app.

“That warm handoff is critical. It has enabled us to be much more successful in getting people to respond to us. Otherwise, I’m just another Harvard professor wanting something from them.”

A particular concern was that the app presents day-to-day situations that are uncertain or ambiguous in some way. For people from minoritized backgrounds, those types of situations may bring up discrimination experiences or questions of identity in addition to the anxiety-related interpretations that are being targeted for reframing. We wanted to be sure the app wasn’t bringing up thoughts about discrimination, causing stress, or creating a perception that we were asking people to reappraise certain types of situations, which could be invalidating and unhelpful.

With changes recommended by the Coalition, we were able to answer many of those questions in advance of the bigger study in a broader population, which we’ve now just started. We found the app itself was easily accepted. People enjoyed using it and it didn’t cause harm. That was very reassuring.

In response to the Coalition’s recommendations, we also expanded and revamped the resources we provide to people along with the app. We added more resources around finding a therapist based on various aspects related to identity, as well as information on topics such as financial supports and coping with discrimination. We now have an exhaustive resource list that we give people.

You’re also working with the new Community Ambassador Initiative on a separate research program that uses the HabitWorks app to tackle parental transference of anxiety. What does that entail?

The community ambassadors have been helping us form connections and spread the word about an NIMH-funded trial that is testing how parents’ interpretation bias might get passed down and ultimately cause anxiety in kids.

Quite a bit of data supports the idea that anxieties are passed down, and parenting behaviors might be even more important than genetics. Some data suggests that how parents interpret threat in their world leads them to engage in parenting behaviors that teach the child that the world is threatening, that maybe they can’t handle it and should avoid it. Those behaviors can keep the parent anxious as well as transfer anxiety to the children.

We’re using the HabitWorks app to manipulate parents’ interpretations and examine the downstream effects on their anxiety and their parenting behaviors related to anxiety. Then we bring in their kids and assess their own interpretations and anxiety.

What were some of the challenges you faced that the community ambassadors have been helping address?

We’re trying to enroll 300 parent-child dyads and would like at least 30% of those to be parents of color, mostly focusing on Black, Hispanic, and Latinx families. We also want fathers to represent 30% of our cohort because they have been largely ignored in this literature so far.

“Everyone’s hopefully realizing that if we want our research to have an impact, community-engaged research is something everyone should be trained in and conducting.”

We’ve been partnering with different organizations in the Springfield area in Western Massachusetts. We’re still early in the process, but we hope to expand the reach of our study beyond the populations of Boston and its affluent suburbs. The goal is to have a representative sample from which we can draw meaningful conclusions for all groups of people.

The people we’re working with are deeply embedded in their communities. They’re very well connected across many different community-based organizations and have helped us identify which might be a good fit for our outreach. When I reach out to these organizations, I can say I’m working with someone they already know.

That warm handoff is critical. It has enabled us to be much more successful in getting people to respond to us. Otherwise, I’m just another Harvard professor wanting something from them. That’s not a good way to start.

Community-engaged research has become such a buzzword. What does it mean to you and what do you think it means to other researchers?

It’s something I wish I had learned about when I was in graduate school. A subset of people have been doing this type of research for a long time, but it was not necessarily viewed as relevant to all researchers. I think that is changing now. Everyone’s hopefully realizing that if we want our research to have an impact, community-engaged research is something everyone should be trained in and conducting.

In my work developing treatments for depression and anxiety, I’ve always included the perspectives of people with lived experience. A patient advisory board helped us develop the app, and we’ve asked people about their experiences. But our community engagement had always been specific to the clinic I was partnering with, whether at McLean or primary care clinics. Working with the Coalition has helped me go even further.

I’m eager to get to know these communities, to learn more from them, and to have them inform our future studies. So far, what we research has always been led by my team and me. I’m eager to realize the next phase of this process, to really listen to what research the community thinks is important to conduct.

Sign up to receive our newsletter: courses, funding, events, and resources.

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Sweepstakes
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

What Is Educational Psychology?

Studying the Process of How People Learn Most Effectively

Major Perspectives
Topics of Study

Frequently Asked Questions

Educational psychology is the study of how people learn and retain information. It mainly focuses on the learning process of early childhood and adolescence; however, learning is a lifelong endeavor. People don't only learn at school; rather, they learn through all of their life experiences, including at home, with friends, at work, through social media, and through culture.

Educational psychologists study the biological, cognitive, emotional, and social factors involved in learning and deepen our understanding of instructional strategies, individual learning styles, and the importance of the environmental context. They may specialize in children with specific learning challenges and develop teaching methods that help students succeed in school.

Educational psychology incorporates several other psychology disciplines , including developmental psychology , behavioral psychology , and cognitive psychology . Over time, five main schools of thought have emerged, including behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, experientialism, and social contextual learning theories.

This article discusses some of the different perspectives taken within the field of educational psychology, topics that educational psychologists study, and career options in this field.

8 Things to Know About Educational Psychology

Perspectives in educational psychology.

As with other areas of psychology, researchers within educational psychology tend to take on different perspectives when considering a problem. These perspectives focus on specific factors that influence learning, including thoughts, emotions, behaviors, experiences, and more.

Five main schools of thought dominate this field of research, including behavioral, developmental, cognitive, constructivist, and experiential perspectives.

The Behavioral Perspective

This perspective suggests that all behaviors are learned through conditioning, such as positive reinforcement . Psychologists who take this perspective rely firmly on the principles of operant conditioning to explain how learning happens.

For example, teachers might reward learning by giving students tokens that can be exchanged for desirable items such as candy or toys. The behavioral perspective operates on the theory that students will learn when rewarded for desirable behavior and punished for bad behavior.

While such methods can be useful in some cases, the behavioral approach has been criticized for failing to account for internal processes such as attitudes , emotions, and intrinsic motivations for learning.

The Developmental Perspective

The developmental perspective includes studying biological, cognitive, emotional, and social development throughout the lifespan. This perspective focuses on how children acquire new skills and knowledge as they grow and develop.

For developmental psychologists, there is a balance between nature and nurture in the learning process. This means that as the brain develops, the capacity for learning, problem-solving, and memory increases, and at the same time, life experiences with family, playmates, teachers, and mentors facilitate the learning process and acquisition of knowledge.

Jean Piaget's stages of cognitive development are one example of an important developmental theory that examines how children grow intellectually.

By understanding how children think at different stages of development, educational psychologists can better understand what children are capable of at each point of their growth. This can help educators create instructional methods and materials aimed at specific age groups.

The Cognitive Perspective

The cognitive approach has become much more widespread, mainly because it accounts for factors such as thinking, attention, information processing, and memory formation.

Cognitive psychologists value constructs such as individual beliefs, perspectives, emotions , and motivations that contribute to the learning process. This theory supports the idea that a person learns because of their own intrinsic motivation , not because of external rewards as a behaviorist would view it.

Cognitive psychology aims to understand how people think, learn, remember, and process information.

Educational psychologists who take a cognitive perspective are interested in understanding how kids become motivated to learn, how they remember the things that they learn, and how they solve problems, among other topics.

The Constructivist Approach

This perspective focuses on how we actively construct our knowledge of the world. Constructivism accounts for the social and cultural influences that affect how we learn.

Those who take the constructivist approach believe that what a person already knows significantly influences how they learn new information. This means that new knowledge can only be added to and understood in terms of existing knowledge.

This perspective is heavily influenced by the work of psychologist Lev Vygotsky , who proposed ideas such as the zone of proximal development and instructional scaffolding.

Experiential Perspective

This perspective emphasizes that a person's life experiences influence how they understand new information. This method is similar to constructivist and cognitive perspectives in that it considers the learner's experiences, thoughts, and feelings.

This method allows someone to find personal meaning in what they learn instead of feeling that the information doesn't apply to them.

Different perspectives on human learning can be helpful when looking at topics within the field of educational psychology. Each school of thought provides a unique perspective that adds to our overall understanding of the learner and the learning environment.

Topics in Educational Psychology

From the materials teachers use to the individual needs of students, educational psychologists delve deep to more fully understand the learning process. Some of these topics of study in educational psychology include:

Educational technology : Looking at how different types of technology can help students learn
Instructional design : Designing effective learning materials
Special education : Helping students who may need specialized instruction
Curriculum development : Creating coursework that will maximize learning
Organizational learning : Studying how people learn in organizational settings, such as workplaces
Gifted learners : Helping students who are identified as gifted learners

Careers in Educational Psychology

Educational psychologists work with educators, administrators, teachers, and students to analyze how to help people learn best. This often involves identifying students who may need extra help, developing programs for struggling students, and even creating new learning methods.

School system . Many educational psychologists work directly with schools . Some are teachers or professors, while others help teachers try new learning methods for their students and develop new course curricula.
Counselor . An educational psychologist may even become a counselor, directly helping students cope with learning barriers.
Research . Other educational psychologists work in research. For instance, they might work for a government organization such as the U.S. Department of Education, influencing decisions about the best resources and programs for kids to learn in schools nationwide.
Administration . In addition, an educational psychologist may work in school or university administration. In each of these roles, they can influence educational methods and help students learn in a way that best suits them.

A bachelor's degree and master's degree are usually required for careers in this field; if you want to work at a university or in school administration, you may also need to complete a doctorate.

Educational psychologists often work in schools to help students and teachers improve the learning experience. Other professionals in this field conduct research to investigate the learning process and evaluate programs designed to foster learning.

History of Educational Psychology

Educational psychology is a relatively young subfield that has experienced tremendous growth. Psychology did not emerge as a separate science until the late 1800s, so earlier interest in educational psychology was largely fueled by educational philosophers.

Many regard philosopher Johann Herbart as the father of educational psychology.

Johann Herbart. He believed that a student's interest in a topic had a tremendous influence on the learning outcome. He believed teachers should consider this when deciding which type of instruction is most appropriate.
William James. Psychologist and philosopher William James made significant contributions to the field. His seminal 1899 text "Talks to Teachers on Psychology" is considered the first textbook on educational psychology.
Alfred Binet. In the early 1900s, French psychologist Alfred Binet was developing his famous IQ tests. The tests were originally designed to help the French government identify children who had developmental delays and create special education programs.
John Dewey. In the United States, John Dewey had a significant influence on education. Dewey's ideas were progressive; he believed schools should focus on students rather than on subjects. He advocated active learning, arguing that hands-on experience was an important part of the process.
Benjamin Bloom. More recently, educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom developed an important taxonomy designed to categorize and describe different educational objectives. The three top-level domains he described were cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning objectives.

Other Significant Figures

Throughout history, several additional figures have played an important role in the development of educational psychology. Some of these well-known individuals include:

John Locke : Locke is an English philosopher who suggested the concept of tabula rasa , or the idea that the mind is essentially a blank slate at birth. This means that knowledge is developed through experience and learning.
Jean Piaget : A Swiss psychologist best known for his highly influential theory of cognitive development, Piaget's influence on educational psychology is still evident today.
B.F. Skinner : Skinner was an American psychologist who introduced the concept of operant conditioning, which influences behaviorist perspectives. His research on reinforcement and punishment continues to play an important role in education.

Educational psychology has been influenced by a number of philosophers, psychologists, and educators. Some thinkers who had a significant influence include William James, Alfred Binet, John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Benjamin Bloom, and many more.

Final Thoughts

Educational psychology offers valuable insights into how people learn and plays an important role in informing educational strategies and teaching methods. In addition to exploring the learning process itself, different areas of educational psychology explore the emotional, social, and cognitive factors that can influence how people learn. If you are interested in topics such as special education, curriculum design, and educational technology, then you might want to consider pursuing a career in the field of educational psychology.

A master's in educational psychology can prepare you for a career working in K-12 schools, colleges and universities, government agencies, community organizations, and counseling practices. A career as an educational psychologist involves working with children, families, schools, and other community and government agencies to create programs and resources that enhance learning.

The primary focus of educational psychology is the study of how people learn. This includes exploring the instructional processes, studying individual differences in how people learn, and developing teaching methods to help people learn more effectively.

Educational psychology is important because it has the potential to help both students and teachers. It provides important information for educators to help them create educational experiences, measure learning, and improve student motivation.

Educational psychology can aid teachers in better understanding the principles of learning in order to design more engaging and effective lesson plans and classroom experiences. It can also foster a better understanding of how learning environments, social factors, and student motivation can influence how students learn.

Parsonson BS. Evidence-based classroom behaviour management strategies . Kairaranga . 2012;13(1):16-20.

Welsh JA, Nix RL, Blair C, Bierman KL, Nelson KE. The development of cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families . J Educ Psychol . 2010;102(1):43-53. doi:10.1037/a0016738

Babakr ZH, Mohamedamin P, Kakamad K. Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory: Critical review . Asian Institute of Research: Education Quarterly Reviews. 2019;2(3). doi:10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.84

Roediger HL III. Applying cognitive psychology to education . Psychol Sci Public Interest . 2013;14(1):1-3. doi:10.1177/1529100612454415

Dennick R. Constructivism: Reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education . Int J Med Educ . 2016;7:200-205. doi:10.5116/ijme.5763.de11

Binson B, Lev-Wiesel R. Promoting personal growth through experiential learning: The case of expressive arts therapy for lecturers in Thailand . Front Psychol. 2018;8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02276

Duque E, Gairal R, Molina S, Roca E. How the psychology of education contributes to research with a social impact on the education of students with special needs: The case of successful educational actions . Front Psychol. 2020;11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00439

Barbier K, Donche V, Verschueren K. Academic (under)achievement of intellectually gifted students in the transition between primary and secondary education: An individual learner perspective . Front Psychol. 2019;10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02533

American Psychological Association. Careers in psychology .

Greenfield PM. The changing psychology of culture from 1800 through 2000 . Psychol Sci. 2013;24(9):1722-1731. doi:10.1177/0956797613479387

Johanningmeier EV. Herbart, Johann Friedrich . In: Encyclopedia of the History of Psychological Theories . Springer; 2012:508-510. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0463-8_134

Sutinen A. William James’s educational will to believe . In: Theories of Bildung and Growth . SensePublishers; 2012:213-226. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-031-6_14

Michell J. Alfred Binet and the concept of heterogeneous orders . Front Psychol . 2012;3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00261

Talebi K. John Dewey - Philosopher and educational reformer . Eur J Educ Stud. 2015;1(1):1-4.

Anderson LW. Benjamin S. Bloom: His life, his works, and his legacy . In: Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH, eds., Educational Psychology: A Century of Contributions . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003:367-389.

Androne M. Notes on John Locke’s views on education . Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;137:74-79. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.255

Overskeid G. Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior? Front Psychol . 2018;9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

American Psychological Association. Understanding educational psychology .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

09 Aug The Importance Of Research In Counseling

Image Source

Counseling stands as a pivotal element in the sphere of mental health and personal development. Its impact stretches far beyond the confines of therapy rooms, influencing numerous aspects of everyday life and societal well-being. At the heart of effective counseling lies a strong commitment to research, which serves as the backbone for developing, refining, and validating therapeutic methods. Research ensures that counseling practices are not just based on theoretical knowledge or subjective experience but are grounded in scientifically proven techniques that offer real benefits to clients. In this blog, we will share insights into how research enriches the counseling profession, enhancing outcomes for both counselors and their clients.

The Role of Research in Professional Development

The counseling field is ever-evolving, driven by continual discoveries and advancements in human psychology and behavioral sciences. For counseling professionals, staying updated with the latest research is not just a requirement but a necessity to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of their practice. Research empowers counselors with new insights and techniques that can significantly improve their therapeutic skills. Furthermore, it plays a critical role in the continuing education and certification processes, helping professionals maintain their credentials and stay competitive in the field. Engaging with scholarly articles, attending conferences, and participating in workshops are a few ways counselors can integrate research findings into their daily practice, ultimately leading to more informed and effective client interventions.

Related Degrees and Research

Incorporating research into counseling degrees is essential for preparing students to handle the complexities of real-world counseling scenarios. Academic programs that emphasize research teach future counselors not only to understand existing methods but also to critically evaluate and apply these approaches in practice. Students learn to design and conduct research, which is crucial for discovering new knowledge and improving existing therapeutic techniques. This foundation allows them to confidently navigate and contribute to the field upon graduation. For instance, a curriculum that integrates case studies and research projects encourages students to engage directly with data and findings, applying them to theoretical and practical counseling problems.

Evidence-Based Practices

The foundation of modern counseling is evidence-based practice (EBP) , which integrates the best research evidence with clinical expertise and client values. EBPs are developed through rigorous research and regularly updated to reflect new scientific knowledge. By employing EBPs, counselors can provide the most effective strategies for client care. Techniques like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) are examples of EBPs that have been extensively studied and shown to be effective in treating a variety of mental health issues. Research in these areas not only validates the practices but also refines them, ensuring that they are adaptable to different client needs and cultural contexts.

Research and Client Outcomes

The ultimate goal of any counseling intervention is to improve client outcomes, which include enhanced well-being, resolved psychological issues, and improved quality of life. Research plays a fundamental role in achieving these outcomes by providing evidence that certain therapeutic approaches are more effective than others. Studies comparing different therapies, analyzing long-term effects, and assessing the impact of counselor training all contribute to a body of knowledge that counselors can draw from to optimize their practice. Moreover, research helps identify which strategies work best for specific issues such as depression, anxiety, or relationship problems, allowing counselors to tailor their approaches to each client’s unique situation.

The Ethics of Research in Counseling

Conducting research within the counseling field is bound by strict ethical guidelines designed to protect participants and maintain the integrity of the data. Ethical research practices ensure that all participants give informed consent, understand the nature of the study, and are free from coercion. Confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time are also paramount. These ethical considerations are crucial not only for the safety and comfort of participants but also for the credibility of the research outcomes. Ethical research builds trust among the community and lays the groundwork for findings that can genuinely benefit the field and the clients it serves.

The Impact of Technology on Counseling Research

Technology has revolutionized the way research is conducted in the counseling field. Digital tools facilitate the collection, analysis, and sharing of data more efficiently than ever before. Online platforms and software enable researchers to gather large amounts of data from diverse populations across different geographical locations. This technology-driven approach not only speeds up the research process but also increases its accuracy and reliability. Additionally, advancements in teletherapy tools have allowed researchers to study the effectiveness of online counseling sessions, expanding the scope of what can be achieved through virtual interventions.

Challenges in Counseling Research

Despite the progress in counseling research, several challenges persist that can impede the development and application of findings. One major challenge is securing adequate funding, which is crucial for conducting large-scale studies. Another is ensuring participant diversity to make the research applicable to a broader audience. In addition, translating research into practice can be slow, and findings often take time to be incorporated into standard counseling practices. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders in the field, including educational institutions, research organizations, and policy-makers.

Future Directions in Counseling Research

Looking forward, counseling research is poised to explore new territories that could further improve therapeutic outcomes. One promising area is the integration of genetic and biometric data, which could lead to more personalized counseling approaches. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research involving psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences holds the potential to provide deeper insights into complex human behaviors and mental health issues. As research methodologies evolve and new technologies emerge, the field of counseling research will likely continue to uncover innovative solutions to age-old problems.

Training the Next Generation of Counselors

It is vital for counseling programs to instill a strong research orientation in their students. Future counselors must be adept not only at applying research findings but also at contributing to the ongoing body of research. This can be achieved through curriculum elements that emphasize research literacy, critical thinking, and hands-on research experiences. By cultivating these skills, educational institutions prepare their graduates to be both practitioners and innovators, capable of driving the field forward through their unique contributions.

Community Outreach and Education

Counselors and researchers have a responsibility to engage with the community to enhance public understanding of the benefits of research-informed counseling. By conducting outreach and educational programs, professionals can demystify the counseling process and promote mental health awareness. Such initiatives can also provide practical advice on finding and utilizing research-based counseling services, thereby improving public health outcomes.

All in all, the role of research in counseling cannot be overstated. It provides the foundation for developing effective, ethical, and innovative therapeutic practices that significantly improve client care. As the field continues to evolve, it is crucial that all involved—counselors, researchers, and educators—commit to a continuous cycle of learning, application, and improvement. The insights shared in this blog underscore the importance of a research-driven approach in counseling, which not only benefits the professionals in the field but also the individuals they serve. Moving forward, embracing research will remain key to advancing the counseling profession and ensuring the highest standards of client care.

The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition.

Some links may be sponsored. Products are not endorsed.

Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website.

Last Updated on August 9, 2024 by Marie Benz MD FAAD

Privacy Overview

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

Science News
Meetings and Events
Social Media
Press Resources
Email Updates
Innovation Speaker Series

Revolutionizing the Study of Mental Disorders

March 27, 2024 • Feature Story • 75th Anniversary

At a Glance:

The Research Domain Criteria framework (RDoC) was created in 2010 by the National Institute of Mental Health.
The framework encourages researchers to examine functional processes that are implemented by the brain on a continuum from normal to abnormal.
This way of researching mental disorders can help overcome inherent limitations in using all-or-nothing diagnostic systems for research.
Researchers worldwide have taken up the principles of RDoC.
The framework continues to evolve and update as new information becomes available.

President George H. W. Bush proclaimed the 1990s “ The Decade of the Brain ,” urging the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and others to raise awareness about the benefits of brain research.

“Over the years, our understanding of the brain—how it works, what goes wrong when it is injured or diseased—has increased dramatically. However, we still have much more to learn,” read the president’s proclamation. “The need for continued study of the brain is compelling: millions of Americans are affected each year by disorders of the brain…Today, these individuals and their families are justifiably hopeful, for a new era of discovery is dawning in brain research.”

An image showing an FMRI machine with computer screens showing brain images. Credit: iStock/patrickheagney.

Still, despite the explosion of new techniques and tools for studying the brain, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), many mental health researchers were growing frustrated that their field was not progressing as quickly as they had hoped.

For decades, researchers have studied mental disorders using diagnoses based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)—a handbook that lists the symptoms of mental disorders and the criteria for diagnosing a person with a disorder. But, among many researchers, suspicion was growing that the system used to diagnose mental disorders may not be the best way to study them.

“There are many benefits to using the DSM in medical settings—it provides reliability and ease of diagnosis. It also provides a clear-cut diagnosis for patients, which can be necessary to request insurance-based coverage of healthcare or job- or school-based accommodations,” said Bruce Cuthbert, Ph.D., who headed the workgroup that developed NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria Initiative. “However, when used in research, this approach is not always ideal.”

Researchers would often test people with a specific diagnosed DSM disorder against those with a different disorder or with no disorder and see how the groups differed. However, different mental disorders can have similar symptoms, and people can be diagnosed with several different disorders simultaneously. In addition, a diagnosis using the DSM is all or none—patients either qualify for the disorder based on their number of symptoms, or they don’t. This black-and-white approach means there may be people who experience symptoms of a mental disorder but just miss the cutoff for diagnosis.

Dr. Cuthbert, who is now the senior member of the RDoC Unit which orchestrates RDoC work, stated that “Diagnostic systems are based on clinical signs and symptoms, but signs and symptoms can’t really tell us much about what is going on in the brain or the underlying causes of a disorder. With modern neuroscience, we were seeing that information on genetic, pathophysiological, and psychological causes of mental disorders did not line up well with the current diagnostic disorder categories, suggesting that there were central processes that relate to mental disorders that were not being reflected in DMS-based research.”

Road to evolution

Concerned about the limits of using the DSM for research, Dr. Cuthbert, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Minnesota at the time, approached Dr. Thomas Insel (then NIMH director) during a conference in the autumn of 2008. Dr. Cuthbert recalled saying, “I think it’s really important that we start looking at dimensions of functions related to mental disorders such as fear, working memory, and reward systems because we know that these dimensions cut across various disorders. I think NIMH really needs to think about mental disorders in this new way.”

Dr. Cuthbert didn’t know it then, but he was suggesting something similar to ideas that NIMH was considering. Just months earlier, Dr. Insel had spearheaded the inclusion of a goal in NIMH’s 2008 Strategic Plan for Research to “develop, for research purposes, new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measures.”

Unaware of the new strategic goal, Dr. Cuthbert was surprised when Dr. Insel's senior advisor, Marlene Guzman, called a few weeks later to ask if he’d be interested in taking a sabbatical to help lead this new effort. Dr. Cuthbert soon transitioned into a full-time NIMH employee, joining the Institute at an exciting time to lead the development of what became known as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Framework. The effort began in 2009 with the creation of an internal working group of interdisciplinary NIMH staff who identified core functional areas that could be used as examples of what research using this new conceptual framework looked like.

The workgroup members conceived a bold change in how investigators studied mental disorders.

“We wanted researchers to transition from looking at mental disorders as all or none diagnoses based on groups of symptoms. Instead, we wanted to encourage researchers to understand how basic core functions of the brain—like fear processing and reward processing—work at a biological and behavioral level and how these core functions contribute to mental disorders,” said Dr. Cuthbert.

This approach would incorporate biological and behavioral measures of mental disorders and examine processes that cut across and apply to all mental disorders. From Dr. Cuthbert’s standpoint, this could help remedy some of the frustrations mental health researchers were experiencing.

Around the same time the workgroup was sharing its plans and organizing the first steps, Sarah Morris, Ph.D., was a researcher focusing on schizophrenia at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. When she first read these papers, she wondered what this new approach would mean for her research, her grants, and her lab.

She also remembered feeling that this new approach reflected what she was seeing in her data.

“When I grouped my participants by those with and without schizophrenia, there was a lot of overlap, and there was a lot of variability across the board, and so it felt like RDoC provided the pathway forward to dissect that and sort it out,” said Dr. Morris.

Later that year, Dr. Morris joined NIMH and the RDoC workgroup, saying, “I was bumping up against a wall every day in my own work and in the data in front of me. And the idea that someone would give the field permission to try something new—that was super exciting.”

The five original RDoC domains of functioning were introduced to the broader scientific community in a series of articles published in 2010 .

To establish the new framework, the RDoC workgroup (including Drs. Cuthbert and Morris) began a series of workshops in 2011 to collect feedback from experts in various areas from the larger scientific community. Five workshops were held over the next two years, each with a different broad domain of functioning based upon prior basic behavioral neuroscience. The five domains were called:

Negative valence (which included processes related to things like fear, threat, and loss)
Positive valence (which included processes related to working for rewards and appreciating rewards)
Cognitive processes
Social processes
Arousal and regulation processes (including arousal systems for the body and sleep).

At each workshop, experts defined several specific functions, termed constructs, that fell within the domain of interest. For instance, constructs in the cognitive processes domain included attention, memory, cognitive control, and others.

The result of these feedback sessions was a framework that described mental disorders as the interaction between different functional processes—processes that could occur on a continuum from normal to abnormal. Researchers could measure these functional processes in a variety of complementary ways—for example, by looking at genes associated with these processes, the brain circuits that implement these processes, tests or observations of behaviors that represent these functional processes, and what patients report about their concerns. Also included in the framework was an understanding that functional processes associated with mental disorders are impacted and altered by the environment and a person’s developmental stage.

Preserving momentum

An image depicting the RDoC Framework that includes four overlapping circles (titled: Lifespan, Domains, Units of Analysis, and Environment).

Over time, the Framework continued evolving and adapting to the changing science. In 2018, a sixth functional area called sensorimotor processes was added to the Framework, and in 2019, a workshop was held to better incorporate developmental and environmental processes into the framework.;

Since its creation, the use of RDoC principles in mental health research has spread across the U.S. and the rest of the world. For example, the Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers project (PRISM) , which receives funding from the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative, is seeking to link biological markers of social withdrawal with clinical diagnoses using RDoC-style principles. Similarly, the Roadmap for Mental Health Research in Europe (ROAMER) project by the European Commission sought to integrate mental health research across Europe using principles similar to those in the RDoC Framework.;

Dr. Morris, who has acceded to the Head of the RDoC Unit, commented: “The fact that investigators and science funders outside the United States are also pursuing similar approaches gives me confidence that we’ve been on the right pathway. I just think that this has got to be how nature works and that we are in better alignment with the basic fundamental processes that are of interest to understanding mental disorders.”

The RDoC framework will continue to adapt and change with emerging science to remain relevant as a resource for researchers now and in the future. For instance, NIMH continues to work toward the development and optimization of tools to assess RDoC constructs and supports data-driven efforts to measure function within and across domains.

“For the millions of people impacted by mental disorders, research means hope. The RDoC framework helps us study mental disorders in a different way and has already driven considerable change in the field over the past decade,” said Joshua A. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., director of NIMH. “We hope this and other innovative approaches will continue to accelerate research progress, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure.”

Publications

Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Medicine , 11 , 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-126

Cuthbert B. N. (2014). Translating intermediate phenotypes to psychopathology: The NIMH Research Domain Criteria. Psychophysiology , 51 (12), 1205–1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12342

Cuthbert, B., & Insel, T. (2010). The data of diagnosis: New approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry , 73 (4), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2010.73.4.311

Cuthbert, B. N., & Kozak, M. J. (2013). Constructing constructs for psychopathology: The NIMH research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 122 (3), 928–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034028

Garvey, M. A., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2017). Developing a motor systems domain for the NIMH RDoC program. Schizophrenia Bulletin , 43 (5), 935–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbx095

Kozak, M. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2016). The NIMH Research Domain Criteria initiative: Background, issues, and pragmatics. Psychophysiology , 53 (3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12518

Morris, S. E., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2012). Research Domain Criteria: Cognitive systems, neural circuits, and dimensions of behavior. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience , 14 (1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2012.14.1/smorris

Sanislow, C. A., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., Kozak, M. J., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., Wang, P. S., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2010). Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 119 (4), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020909

Presidential Proclamation 6158 (The Decade of the Brain)
Research Domain Criteria Initiative website
Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers (PRISM)

It’s Time to Bring Dreamwork Back Into Therapy

The science of why working with dreams makes therapy more effective..

Posted August 12, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

Despite therapy’s early emphasis on dreams, modern therapy has parted ways with dreamwork.
Research shows that dreamwork is an effective form of therapy that many clients prefer over other forms.
Dreamwork can be done within or without therapy, but doing it as part of therapy can be more effective.

In my last post , I provided a brief, broad overview of some of the most prominent theoretical frameworks about dreams since the late 19th century, beginning with Freud and Jung, moving on to the modern era with the advent of modern dream research, and the eventual synthesis between the former and the latter. While theories about dreams are fascinating intellectually, they are intended to serve as the foundation for real-life application and practice, which is what we will begin exploring in this post. We’ll start by reviewing some links between modern dream research and Freud and Jung, particularly Jung, and how the research validates the therapeutic importance they placed on dreams. We’ll then look at how dreams stopped becoming a prominent part of psychotherapy , generally speaking, and make an evidence-based case for why dreamwork should be reintegrated into therapy.

The Neuroscientific Support for Dreamwork

Freud believed that dreams were, predominantly, a form of wish fulfillment and that their function was to protect sleep by obscuring the true meanings of repressed, often taboo desires so that they don’t disturb the dreamer into waking. In contrast, Jung saw the function of dreams as essentially being one of revealing rather than obscuring, and that what often gets revealed are the parts of one’s psyche that need to be integrated into the self for more wholeness or what Jung called individuation.

Contemporary empirical research has supported some of Freud’s ideas such as dreams being linked to unconscious desires and wish fulfillment. 1 However, it has questioned other ideas, including his belief that dreams serve a concealing role. 2 Similarly, the research supports many, though not all, of Jung’s theories such as his conviction that dreams reveal rather than conceal information. 3 Research has confirmed Jung’s theory that dreams provide a picture of the current situation of the psyche and that they express aspects of one’s psyche that have not yet been integrated into the personality and are therefore causing internal conflict. 4

For example, many patients dream about performing an aggressive or violent act. Often, a patient who feels ashamed or worried about this imagery will tell me they are "not a violent person" or "would not dream of hurting someone in real life." So why, they ask, are they dreaming about it? The aggressive or violent act in the dream could reveal the person's struggles to have a healthy relationship with normal aggression and reflect their need to bring more of this energy into their life in a healthier way. This idea illustrates Jung's concept of "compensation." That is, wherever one's psyche is out of balance — in this example, with aggression — the dream compensates for what is deficient or out of balance in one's waking life by producing this imagery and, thereby, draws attention to this part of their psyche and the deficient, excessive, or imbalanced quality which can be explored in treatment.

How Psychotherapy Lost Its Dreams

Given Freud and Jung’s belief in the psychological importance of dreams, dreamwork was a regular part of psychoanalysis in its early years. Since the development of psychotherapy is intertwined with psychoanalysis , it used to incorporate dreamwork quite regularly but over time this has diminished. This divergence coincided with the development of modern psychological research and therapeutic approaches that emphasized brevity, symptom management , and solutions over the more time-consuming and complex methods of therapy and analysis that accent presence, engagement, and relationship. At the time, it was widely perceived that dreamwork lacked an empirical basis, a perception which largely persists today. Most therapists do not typically use dreams in their work and have limited education and training about dreams and methods of dreamwork.

However, it is not true that dreamwork lacks an empirical basis. We have a significant body of research showing that dreams are psychologically meaningful, provide accurate reflections of the dreamers’ psyche, and can be a source of valuable information that may be applied to personal growth and creative problem-solving. 5 Research shows which specific methods of working with dreams are effective and conducive to the goals of therapy, which further supports its use in contemporary practice, leading to a growing push to reincorporate dreamwork into therapy.

The Clinical Case for Working With Dreams

Simply knowing that dreams are indeed meaningful may not incentivize the field to reintegrate dreamwork. This is where the research specifically showing dreamwork is a powerful and beneficial tool for therapy may be useful.

In a 2004 review of studies on this topic, Nicholas Pesant and Antonio Zadra found that when therapists conduct dreamwork with their clients, it raises their clients’ level of self-awareness and also boosts their commitment to therapy (being committed to the process of therapy is one of the most important factors for its success). 6 In a different review of the research in 2005, Erin M. Eudell-Simmons and Mark J. Hilsenroth corroborated Pesant and Zadra’s findings, but they also found that dreamwork was an effective way to track the client’s progress and provide valuable information about the client to the therapist, especially if the client is unable or unwilling to reveal that information through ordinary, non-dreamwork interaction. 7 Eudell-Simmons and Hilsenroth conclude that dreamwork doesn’t necessarily replace other interventions or forms of therapy but can be another highly beneficial tool to incorporate in the therapeutic process. And finally, in a 2004 study, Clara Hill found that many therapy clients enjoyed and benefited from dreamwork even more than other forms of therapy. 8

Dreamwork Within or Outside of Therapy?

Knowing that research supports the effectiveness of dreamwork, people may question if it should be practiced as part of their therapy or on their own. The answer is that it depends. Both approaches are effective and beneficial but are vastly different experiences. Research suggests that participants benefited even more when the dreamwork was facilitated by a therapist. The vast majority of clients also preferred therapist-guided dreamwork sessions over self-guided ones. 9 Pursuing therapy or analysis with a therapist who is versed in the language of dreams and well-trained in dreamwork can significantly enhance, improve and deepen your therapeutic work.

As mentioned earlier, the use of dreamwork in modern therapy is more limited. Clients who want to integrate dreamwork may want to bring up the subject with their therapists and see what kind of training they have undergone, if any, and how experienced they are in working with dreams. Their answer may help you decide if you wish to change your therapist.

If your therapist has had enough training and experience to do effective dreamwork, what approaches are optimal? Fortunately, research and clinical data provide illuminating answers which we will explore next time.

To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory .

1. Solms, M. (2021). The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. W.W. Norton & Company.

2. Fiss, H. A 21st century look at Freud’s dream theory. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 28(2), 321-340.

3. Roesler, C. (2020). Jungian theory of dreaming and contemporary dream research - findings from the research project ‘Structural Dream Analysis.’ Analytical Psychology, 65(1), 44-62.

4. Wilkinson, M. The dreaming mind-brain: a Jungian perspective. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51(1), 43-59.

5. Roesler, C. (2023). Dream interpretation and empirical dream research - an overview of research findings and their connections with psychoanalytic dream theories. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 104(2), 301.

6. Pesant, N. & Zadra, A. (2004). Working with dreams in therapy: What do we know and what should we do? Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 489-512.

7. Eudell-Simmons, E.M. & Hilsenroth, M.J. (2005). A review of empirical research supporting four conceptual uses of dreams in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12(4), 255-269.

8. Hill, C.E. & Goates, M.K. (2004). Research on the Hill cognitive-experiential dream model. In Hill, C.E. (ed.), Dream Work in Psychotherapy: Facilitating Exploration, Insight and Action (pp. 245-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

9. Heaton, K.J., Hill, C.E., Petersen, D.A., Rochlen, A.B., & Zack, J.S. (1998). A comparison of therapist-facilitated and self-guided dream interpretation sessions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 115-122.

Helen Marlo, Ph.D., is Dean of the School of Psychology at Notre Dame de Namur University.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
International
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Please log in to save materials. Log in

Deductive Reasoning
Drug Abuse Resistance Education
Falsifiable
Inductive Reasoning
Scientific Method
Scientific Research

Why Is Research Important?

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building. Several professional organizations view media violence exposure as a risk factor for actual violence, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools ( Figure ). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

Watch this news report to learn more about some of the controversial issues surrounding the D.A.R.E. program.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning , empirical observations lead to new ideas ( Figure ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

Play this “Deal Me In” interactive card game to practice using inductive reasoning.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

Visit this website to apply the scientific method and practice its steps by using them to solve a murder mystery, determine why a student is in trouble, and design an experiment to test house paint.

Review Questions

Scientific hypotheses are ________ and falsifiable.

________ are defined as observable realities.

Scientific knowledge is ________.

A major criticism of Freud’s early theories involves the fact that his theories ________.

were too limited in scope
were too outrageous
were too broad
were not testable

Critical Thinking Questions

There is probably tremendous political pressure to appear to be hard on drugs. Therefore, even though D.A.R.E. might be ineffective, it is a well-known program with which voters are familiar.

The scientific method is often described as self-correcting and cyclical. Briefly describe your understanding of the scientific method with regard to these concepts.

Personal Application Questions

Version History

IMAGES

PPT
Why is Research Important?
Psychological Research Methods Why is Research Important Method
PPT
An Introduction to the Types Of Psychological Research Methods
PPT

COMMENTS

2.1 Why is Research Important
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact ...
2.1 Why Is Research Important?
Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as ...
Why Is Research Important?
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact ...
PSYCH101: Why Research Is Important
Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ...
Why is Research Important?
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact ...
Why is Research Important?
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact ...
PDF Why research is important
ion of everyday practice. In this chapter, research is offered, and examples are provided of the some of the ways in which research knowledge and skills contribute to effective counselling and psychotherapy.
2.1 Psychologists Use the Scientific Method to Guide Their Research
Psychologists use the scientific method to generate, accumulate, and report scientific knowledge. Basic research, which answers questions about behavior, and applied research, which finds solutions to everyday problems, inform each other and work together to advance science.
The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised
Research methods play an imperative role in research quality as well as educating young researchers, however, the application thereof is unclear which can be detrimental to the field of psychology. Therefore, this systematised review aimed to determine what research methods are being used, how these methods are being used and for what topics in ...
Research Methods In Psychology
Research methods in psychology are systematic procedures used to observe, describe, predict, and explain behavior and mental processes. They include experiments, surveys, case studies, and naturalistic observations, ensuring data collection is objective and reliable to understand and explain psychological phenomena.
Theories and Explanations in Psychology
Theories and Explanations in Psychology. Research in psychology has undergone many changes in the last 20 years. The increased and tighter relationship between psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy, the emergence and affirmation of embodied and grounded cognition approaches, the grow of interest on new research topics, the strengthening of ...
Science of Psychology
Applied psychology and the science of psychology benefit society. Psychologists conduct basic and applied research, serve as consultants to communities and organizations, diagnose and treat people, teach future psychologists, and test intelligence and personality.
The Importance of Mental Health Research and Evaluation
Mental health research identifies biopsychosocial factors — how biological, psychological and social functioning are interacting — detecting trends and social determinants in population health. That data greatly informs the current state of mental health in the U.S. and around the world.
Methodology: What it is and why it is so important.
These foci may seem obvious—after all, everyone knows what methodology is and why it is needed. Perhaps so, but the answers are not all so obvious. It is useful to give the rationale for what we do and why because it provides the common base we as psychologists and social scientists share with all of the sciences.
Ethical Considerations in Psychology Research
The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research. Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:
How Psychological Science is Benefiting the World
Perspectives on Psychological Science highlights the many ways that psychology research is helping to cultivate a healthier, happier, and more sustainable world.
The Importance of Evidence-based Practice
The term is commonly used in two related but distinct ways. Evidence-based practice can denote a decision-making process in which practice (i.e., instruction) is informed by credible research ...
Why Is Research Important?
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact ...
5.1 Understanding Psychological Measurement
An important goal of scientific research is to conceptually define psychological constructs in ways that accurately describe them. For any conceptual definition of a construct, there will be many different operational definitions or ways of measuring it.
How to Make Research More Relevant to All
Courtney Beard, PhD, faced a problem familiar to many Harvard Medical School researchers: How to diversify your research studies to make them more applicable to the general population.. In Beard's case, she was planning a study in the general population to evaluate a mental health app she developed as a cognitive-behavioral tool for so-called interpretation bias, which studies suggest is an ...
What Is Educational Psychology?
Educational psychology is devoted to the study of how people learn. Educational psychologists may work in schools or perform research on the learning process.
MedicalResearch.com
In this blog, we will share insights into how research enriches the counseling profession, enhancing outcomes for both counselors and their clients. The Role of Research in Professional Development. The counseling field is ever-evolving, driven by continual discoveries and advancements in human psychology and behavioral sciences.
Understanding the Importance of Credibility in Research: A
Why Does Credibility Authority Matter in The research Process? In the information age, there is a lot of easily accessible information. However, not all information is true, credible and liable. Therefore, when doing research, it is crucial that one has the skills to evaluate what they're reading and determine if the information is credible. There are two main types of credibility.
Revolutionizing the Study of Mental Disorders
The Research Domain Criteria Initiative (RDoC) represented a new way to conceptualize the study of mental illnesses. In celebration of NIMH's 75th Anniversary, we reflect on the beginning and progress of this initiative.
It's Time to Bring Dreamwork Back Into Therapy
Over the years therapists have largely overlooked dreamwork as a form of therapy. The research suggests we should bring it back.
A Psychologist Explains How The 'Lion's Gate Portal' Can ...
Research published in 2023 also indicates that certain psychological constructs, like being in a "flow state," mirror spiritual experiences. The study further argues that incorporating ...
'Baby talk:' Decoding how children's vocal and cognitive cues sway
Research shows that while facial expressions are important, they are less effective than vocal and cognitive signals. ... Department of Psychology within FAU's Charles E. Schmidt College of ...
Fragile and complex, female friendships hinge on the three S's, a new
Danielle Bayard Jackson: In studying the research on women's friendships, I noticed that it didn't matter what discipline I was looking at — anthropology, sociology, psychology ...
Why your help is unhelpful: A multistage mediation model exploring
Recent occupational health research has begun exploring unhelpful workplace social support (UWSS). UWSS refers to actions taken by a colleague that the recipient believes are intended to be helpful but are perceived as ineffective. For example, a colleague may provide help that is not wanted or do something incorrectly while providing aid. Despite the perceived good intentions of UWSS ...
Psychology, Psychological Research, Why Is Research Important?
Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to ...