Chapter Two: Research Ideas, Critiquing Research, and Hypotheses

1. Chapter Two: Research Ideas, Critiquing Research, and Hypotheses

2. The Research Idea • You find a research idea when you find a gap in the current knowledge or an unanswered question that interests you.

3. Characteristics of Good Research Ideas • The most important characteristic of a good research idea is that it is testable. • A second characteristic of the good research idea is that your chances for success are increased when your view of nature approximates reality as closely as possible. When reality is approximated there is a good likelihood of success.

4. Sources of Research Ideas • Nonsystematic Sources • Include those occurrences that give us the illusion that a research idea has dropped out of the sky.

5. Sources of Research Ideas • Nonsystematic Sources • Inspiration • Ideas that pop into one’s mind from (seemingly) nowhere. Inspiration usually comes more easily after one has been working on a particular problem for some time.

6. Sources of Research Ideas • Nonsystematic Sources • Serendipity • Refers to those situations where we look for one phenomenon but find another.

7. Sources of Research Ideas • Nonsystematic Sources • Everyday Occurrences • The people and/or situations one encounters daily provide some of the best possibilities for research.

8. Sources of Research Ideas • Systematic Sources • Research ideas from systematic sources are carefully organized and logically thought out.

9. Sources of Research Ideas • Systematic Sources • Past Research • A careful survey of the research done in a specific area will highlight any knowledge gaps or unanswered questions in that area. • A failure to replicate a previous finding raises additional questions that only continued research will be able to answer.

10. Sources of Research Ideas • Systematic Sources • Theory • The guidance function of a theory provides an endless panorama of projects for researchers who take the time and trouble to master the theory and understand its implications.

11. Sources of Research Ideas • Systematic Sources • Classroom Lectures • Lectures often include a systematic review of the relevant literature on a particular topic and as such are a good source of research ideas.

12. Developing a Research Question • Regardless of the source of your research idea, your first goal should be to turn it into a question. • Once you have a question, you need to survey the literatureto find out what is already known about the question

13. Surveying the Psychological Literature • Selection of Index terms • Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms • Is a collection of index terms taken from abstracts of all published psychological research.

14. Surveying the Psychological Literature • Computerized Searches of the Literature • Your next step is to familiarize yourself with the computerized research databases (such as PsycINFO) available at your school. Enter your index terms into the search box of the database. • Internet can be useful tool, but be cautious when selecting information to use. Web pages present additional evaluation challenges. While there are no universally accepted guidelines, the following criteria are useful: authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, coverage, and navigation/design.

15. Surveying the Psychological Literature • Obtaining the Relevant Publications • You need to assemble all of your original source materials in one place. • Interlibrary loan • If your library does not have the relevant journals or books, you can request them through interlibrary loan. There is sometimes a small fee for this service and the amount of time it takes to get your materials will vary. • Requests for reprints • You can write or e-mail the author of a journal article directly and ask for a copy of the article (reprint). Many colleges and universities have searchable faculty e-mail databases. This makes it very easy to e-mail the author and ask for a reprint.

16. Surveying the Psychological Literature • Integrating the results of the Literature Search • This is the process of making sense of the materials you have assembled. • Taking good notes from articles read and summarizing information under APA headings on a single page is a helpful technique.

17. Critiquing Psychological Research • Important to examine studies reviewed closely to spot flaws • Do think critically about methods, results, and the conclusions. • Do question assumptions the researchers seem to make. • Do wonder if there are other ways of defining and measuring the variables used

18. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Does the literature review adequately describe the research area? Is this material consistent with the specific research question? • As a research project evolves, the literature review and the actual experiment diverge somewhat over time. • After you complete your project and work on the report, double-check to make certain that the actual project still shows a direct link with your research literature. • Because most researchers carry out programmatic research, their new research ideas are likely to build directly on their (and others’) previous research.

19. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Is the research question stated clearly? Do you have a clear idea concerning the research to be reported? • The title and abstract of a research report should give you an indication of the research’s topic, although they may not contain the specific question per se. • You will find the author’s review of relevant literature in the article’s introduction. As you read further into the introduction, the literature should apply more specifically to the particular research question. The research question will often be in the last paragraph of the introduction.

20. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • In view of the research area and research question, are the hypotheses appropriate, clearly stated, and able to be stated in general implication form? • Appropriate hypotheses are those that follow logically from the literature review. • If you find a hypothesis that seems to come from nowhere and surprises you, it may be inappropriate – reread the introduction to make sure. • A clearly stated hypothesis is one that you can easily understand without having to guess what the researcher is predicting. • Remember that general implication form is the “if….then” format.

21. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Are the key terms operationally defined? • The reader should not have to guess what a researcher means when he or she refers to a specific independent, dependent, or extraneous variable. • Remember that operational definitions mean that you should define your variables in terms of the operations you use to manipulate, measure, or control them.

22. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Are the IV’s and their levels appropriate? • Be sure to pick a manipulation that is actually appropriate to the IV – don’t choose something merely because it is easy or convenient to use. • Be sure to choose the levels of your IV appropriately. Choose levels of the IV to answer your experimental question, but do so economically (remember the principle of parsimony).

23. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Is the DV appropriate for this research? Should the researcher have included more than one DV if only one was recorded? • If a researcher wishes to study a particular outcome, the behavior chosen for measuring (the dependent variable) should be a good indicator of that outcome. • The operational definition of the DV should be one that other researchers would judge to be valid. • A researcher with broad interests should use multiple DV’s to get a better sense of the concept he or she is measuring.

24. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Are the controls sufficient and appropriate? Are there any uncontrolled variables that could affect the results of the experiment? • Leaving variables uncontrolled can result in a confounded experiment which leaves the researcher unable to draw a conclusion. • As you look for possible extraneous variables, you should concentrate on variables that have a legitimate or reasonable chance to actually make a difference. • Look for extraneous variation, but don’t go overboard and find variation that most researchers would consider negligible.

25. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Did the author(s) use an appropriate research design to test the specific hypotheses and answer the general research question? • With poor planning, it is possible to gather data for which there is no appropriate research design and, thus, no appropriate statistical test. • Make sure that research reports use designs that match the question(s) they sought to answer. • For example, if the researcher asked a question involving multiple IV’s, the experiment should involve a factorial design.

26. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Assuming you had access to the appropriate equipment and materials, could you replicate the research after reading the method section? • The method section should contain enough detail about the variables and procedures of the experiment to enable a reader to replicate the experiment. • The reader should not have to guess about any of the manipulations, measurements, or controls the researcher used. • The reader must have all the vital details of the experiment in order to evaluate the operational definitions, the variables, and the procedures used in the experiment.

27. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Did the researcher(s) use appropriate sampling procedures to select the participants and assign them to groups? • Random sampling and assignment in creating independent groups or the appropriate matching or repeated measures approach for correlated groups are important for both internal and external validity. • If a researcher uses sampling techniques that result in biased samples, the internal validity of the experiment is threatened because the groups are likely to be different before the experiment. • Biased samples also threaten external validity.

28. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • What procedures were used to ensure group equivalence prior to the experiment? • Poor sampling techniques can result in biased samples. • Biased samples are usually not equivalent before the experiment begins, so it would be impossible to draw valid conclusions about the effects of the IV (internal validity would be compromised). • If you have reason to doubt the equivalence of your groups beforehand, you would be wise to use a pretest.

29. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Did the research use a sufficient number of participants? • With small numbers of participants, statistical tests are simply less powerful to detect differences – the differences between groups have to be quite large for the difference to turn out significant. • Don’t back yourself into a corner so that you use the age-old student lament after your experiment: “If I had run more participants, my differences might have been significant.”

30. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Were there any history, instrumentation, statistical regression, or mortality effects that might have influenced the results? • For history, be alert to outside events that occur that could affect the results. • Be sure to check the operation of your equipment before each session to avoid instrumentation effects. • Choosing extreme high- or low-scoring participants can result in lower or higher scores, respectively, simply due to statistical regression. • If many participants drop out of one condition in the experiment (i.e., mortality), the participants who are left in that condition may differ in some important way(s) from the participants in other conditions.

31. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Were the appropriate statistical tests used, and are they reported correctly? • You may need to consult a statistic text or someone who teaches statistics to help you answer this question. • On the other hand, this guideline points out the importance of becoming statistically knowledgeable so that you can evaluate this guideline on your own. • Remember that statistics are merely a tool experimenters use to decipher the results they obtained – you should be well armed with the proper tools as you evaluate and conduct research.

32. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Did the author(s) report means, standard deviations, and a measure of effect size? • Group means may allow the reader to compare participants’ performance against existing norms. • Standard deviations may allow the reader to determine that nonsignificant findings are due to extreme variability between groups rather than small differences between means. • Effect sizes give standard comparison units so that readers can compare significant differences from several different experiments.

33. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Are the tables and figures clearly and appropriately labeled and presented accurately? • Tables and figures should present a large amount of data than is possible in writing. • Just as paragraph after paragraph of statistical results can be confusing, a poorly constructed table or figure can confuse the reader.

34. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Does the author(s) correctly interpret the results? Does the discussion follow logically from the results? • Did the researcher correctly interpret p < .05 as significant and p > .05 as nonsignificant? • Did the researcher give a correct interpretation of his or her results in light of previous research? • Does the discussion “make sense” given the data the researcher just presented. • Authors should make it clear when conclusions follow from data and when they are engaging in speculation.

35. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Are the conclusions and generalizations valid and justified by the data? Did the author(s) consider other possible interpretations of the results? • This difficulty often comes when researchers have a favorite theory that they espouse. • Sometimes, this theoretical leaning is so strong that it seems to blind them to any alternative explanations. • Alternative explanations for findings may provide you with the impetus for a new experiment.

36. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Do all references cited in the text appear in the reference section, and vice versa? • It is highly unlikely you would find this problem in a published study. • There should be a one-to-one correspondence of the citations in the text and the references at the end of the study. • The reference section of an APA-format report consists only of material that you have read and included in the report.

37. Guidelines for Critiquing Psychological Research Literature • Did the experimenter follow appropriate ethical procedures during all phases of the experiment? • To evaluate this guideline, you man need to refresh your memory of the ethical principles that psychologists follow in conducting research. • Some older research involves some procedures that have been hotly debated as far as their ethical nature is concerned. • It is doubtful that any ethically questionable study would receive approval from an institutional review board.

38. Formulating the Research Hypothesis • A research hypothesis is simply a formal statement of your research question, taking into account what you learned from searching the literature. • The research or experimental hypothesis is our prediction about the relation that exists between the independent variable that we are going to manipulate and the dependent variable that we will record.

39. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Statements • Synthetic • Analytic • Contradictory

40. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Statements • Synthetic Statements • Are those statements that can be either true of false (e.g. “Abused children have lower self-esteem”).

41. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Statements • Analytic Statements • Are those statements that are always true (e.g. I am making an “A” or I am not making an “A”).

42. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Statements • Contradictory Statements • Are those statements that are always false (e.g. I am making an “A” and I am not making an “A”).

43. Psychological Detective • Which type of statement is best suited for use in our research hypothesis?

44. Psychological Detective • Which type of statement is best suited for use in our research hypothesis? • Synthetic Statement

45. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • General Implication Form • you must be able to state (or restate) the research hypothesis in general implication (“if…then”) form. • The “if” portion of such statements refers to the independent variable manipulation(s) that we are going to make, whereas the “then” portion of the statement refers to the dependent variable changes we expect to observe.

46. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Principle of falsifiability • When an experimental hypothesis is stated in general implication form, it is possible that a result is true (supported by the results of the study) or false (not supported by the results of the study).

47. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Reasoning • Inductive Logic • Deductive Logic

48. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Reasoning • Inductive Logic • Involves reasoning from specific cases to general principles. Inductive logic is the process that is involved in the construction of theories.

49. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • Types of Reasoning • Deductive Logic • Involves reasoning from general principles to specific conclusions or predictions.

50. Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis • A New View of Hypothesis Testing • Proctor and Capaldi (2001) contend that hypothesis testing not simple affair. • Hypothesis testing involving a theory can be harmful if done too soon in its development. • Argue that researchers never able to obtain a clear-cut test of a hypothesis anyway. • Suggest that researchers use more inductive logic when a theory is new.