How do Psychologist Learn about Human Behaviour? | Psychology

How do psychologists actually go about the task of adding to our knowledge about human behavior? Primarily, you’ll soon see, through the use of three basic procedures: observation, correlation and experimentation.

1. Observation: Describing the World around Us:

One basic technique for studying behavior—or any other aspect of the world—involves carefully observing it as it occurs. Such observation is not the kind of informal inquiry that all of us practice from childhood on; rather, in science, it is observation accompanied by careful, accurate measurement.

For example, scientists studying the formation of tornadoes often drive hundreds of miles in order to be present at spots where tornadoes are likely to form. They do this because they wish to make careful observations of the physical events that occur as tornadoes actually take shape. The use of such systematic observation takes several different forms in the study of behavior.

Naturalistic Observation: Observing Behavior Where it Normally Occurs:

Bonobo chimpanzees are a fascinating species. These small primates live in the tropical forests of Zaire and a few other countries, and they have recently been the subject of scientific interest. Why primarily because, in contrast to other primate species, including our own, they seem to live together in almost total harmony. Fights, bullying, and all other forms of aggression are almost unknown.

What accounts for their calm and peaceful existence? One possibility involves their sexual behavior. Bonobos win the prize among all primates for high interest in sex. They often have sexual relations twenty or more times a day, and females are just as enthusiastic about these activities as males; indeed, females have twenty different gestures for signaling to males that they are interested! Bonobos seem to use sexual relations as a means of reducing tension or anxiety: Whenever they are frightened or upset, they quickly pair up and begin mating. Is there a lesson here for our own species—evidence that the 1970s slogan “Make love, not war” may well have some validity? No one knows for sure, but research on bonobos carried out through naturalistic observation—systematic study of their behavior in natural settings has certainly provided us with much food for thought.

While naturalistic observation is often used in the study of animal behavior, it is sometimes applied to human beings as well—especially to behavior in public places such as airports, shopping malls, and hotel lobbies. Who touches whom in such locations? How do people use gestures? Information on these and many other forms of behavior can often be obtained from naturalistic observation.

Case Studies: Generalizing from the Unique:

Every human being is unique; each of us possesses a distinctive combination of traits, abilities, and character­istics. Given this fact, is it possible to learn anything about human behavior from detailed study of one indi­vidual or perhaps a few persons? Several famous psychologists have suggested that it is. They have adopted the case method, in which detailed information is gathered on specific individuals.

The researchers then use this information to formulate principles or reach conclusions that, presumably, apply to large numbers of persons— perhaps to all human beings. By far the most famous practitioner of the case method was Sigmund Freud, who used a small number of cases as the basis for his famous theories of person­ality and mental illness.

Is the case method really useful? In the hands of talented researchers such as Freud, it does seem capable of providing insights into various aspects of behavior. Moreover, when the behavior involved is very unusual, the case method can be quite revealing.

These cases involve individuals who experienced specific kinds of damage to the brain and, as a result, showed certain kinds of memory loss. By studying the pattern of such losses, psychologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of how memories are stored in the brain.

So, much can sometimes be learned from the case method. However, this method suffers from several important drawbacks. First, if the persons studied are unique, it can be misleading to generalize from them to other human beings. Second, because researchers using the case method often have repeated contact with the individuals they study, there is the real risk that they will become emotionally involved with these persons and so lose their scientific objectivity, at least to a degree. Because of such drawbacks, the case method is not widely used by psychologists today.

Surveys: The Science of Self-Report:

At the opposite end of the scale where systematic observation is concerned is the survey method. Here, instead of focusing in detail on a small number of persons, researchers obtain a very limited sample of behavior from large numbers of individuals, usually through their responses to questionnaires. Surveys are used for many purposes—to measure attitudes toward specific issues, voting preferences, and consumer reactions to new products, to mention just a few.

Surveys can also be repeated over long periods of time in order to track changes in public opinion or other aspects of behavior. For instance, surveys of job satisfaction—individuals’ attitudes toward their jobs—have continued for more than forty years. And changing patterns of sexual behavior have been followed by the Kinsey Institute since the 1940s.

The survey method offers several advantages. Information can be gathered quickly and efficiently from many thousands of persons. I used it myself recently to obtain information on the kinds of workplace ag­gression people encounter in their jobs, and results were clear: Most of the workplace aggression respondents witnessed or experienced was subtle and covert—not the kind of violence often emphasized by the mass media. Further, since surveys can be constructed quickly, public opinion on new issues can be obtained almost as soon as the issues arise.

To be useful as a research tool, however, a survey must meet certain requirements. First, if the goal is to predict some event (for example, the outcome of an election), great care must be devoted to the issue of sampling—how the persons who will participate in the survey are selected. Unless these persons are representative of the larger population about which predictions will be made, serious er­rors can result.

Another issue deserving careful attention is the way in which surveys are worded. Even changing a single word in a question can sometimes shift the meaning—and strongly influence the results. Recently, for example, the governor of the state where one of the authors lives reduced the num­ber of state employees in the capital by 450. How did people react to these reductions?

In one poll they were asked to indicate how they felt about the governor’s “slashing” of the workforce; in another, they were asked to indicate how they felt about the governor’s “pruning” of the workforce. You can guess what happened: Results of the “slashing” poll suggested that the public was strongly against this action, while the responses to “pruning” indicated public support for the governor’s action!

In sum, the survey method can be a useful approach for studying some aspects of human behavior, but the results obtained are accurate only to the extent that issues relating to sampling and wording are carefully addressed.

2. Correlation: The Search for Relationships:

At various times, you have probably noticed that some events appear to be related to each other. As one chang­es, the other appears to change too. For instance, you have probably observed that as people grow older, they often seem to gain weight; that when interest rates drop, the stock market rises; and that the richer people are, the more conservative they tend to be.

When such relationships between events exist, we say that the events are correlated with each other (or that a correlation between them exists). This means that as one changes, the other tends to change too. Psychologists and other scientists refer to aspects of the natural world that can take different values as variables, so from now on that’s the term we will use here.

From the point of view of science, the existence of a correlation between two variables can be very useful. This is so because when a correlation exists, it is possible to predict one variable from information about one or more other variables. The ability to make such predictions is one important goal of science, and psychologists often attempt to make predictions about human behavior.

To the extent predictions can be made accurately, important benefits follow. For instance, consider how useful it would be if we could predict from current infor­mation such future outcomes as a person’s success in school or in various occupations, effectiveness as a parent, length of life, or likelihood of developing a serious mental disorder.

The discovery of correlations between variables allows us to make such predictions. In fact, the stronger such correlations are, the more accurate the predictions that can be made. These facts constitute the basis for an important method of research—the correlational method. In this ap­proach, psychologists or other scientists attempt to determine whether, and to what extent, variables are related to each other.

This involves making careful observations of each variable and then performing statistical analyses to determine whether and to what extent the variables are correlated—to what extent changes in one are related to changes in the other. Correla­tions range from -1.00 to +1.00, and the more they depart from zero, the stronger the correlation. For instance, a correlation of -.82 is stronger than one of +.23. Positive correlations indicate that as one variable increases, the other increases too.

For instance, the greater the number of hours students study for their psychology tests, the higher their grades tend to be. Negative correlations indicate that as one variable increases, the other decreases. For example, the less satisfied people are with their jobs, the more likely they are to search for another one and to leave. As job satisfaction decreases, in other words, quitting increases. Now let’s examine a concrete example of how psychologists actually use the correlational method.

The Correlational Method of Research: An Example:

Suppose that a psychologist wanted to test the following hypothesis: Use of small magnets strapped to various parts of one’s body reduces joint and muscle pain. How could research on this topic be conducted by the cor­relational method? Many possibilities exist, but one approach would be to measure both variables: the extent to which people used magnets and the amount of muscle or joint pain they experienced.

The psychologist could measure magnet use by asking individuals to report the number of hours they wore magnets each day, or perhaps the number of magnets they used. Pain could be assessed by means of a rating scale on which the research participants would rate the intensity of the pain they experienced (e.g., from 1 for little or no pain, to 5 for intense pain).

The researcher would then analyze these two sets of numbers through statistical proce­dures (statistics are a form of mathematics) to determine if they were correlated. If a positive correlation were obtained, this would offer support for the hypothesis, and would suggest that magnet use may indeed be linked to pain reduction.

So far, so good. But watch out, for we are approaching a real danger zone—one in which many people seem to get confused. On the basis of findings indicating that as the use of magnets increased, pain decreased, many people would then jump to the following conclusion, wearing magnets causes reductions in pain.

This seems to make sense; after all, the greater people’s use of magnets, the less pain they reported experiencing. But, in fact, such conclusions would not be justified, because correlational research does not, by itself, provide strong or direct evidence about cause-and-effect relationships.

Indeed, this is one of the major drawbacks of such research. In this case, we may find that as magnet use increases, pain decreases—but we do not know whether these effects result from magnet use or from some other variable that is related to both magnet use and pain reduction.

For instance, it is quite possible that wearing magnets restricts people’s movement. As a result, the more they wear them, the less they move around. This, in turn, might allow their injured muscles or joints to heal. If this were true, then it would not be the magnets themselves that cause pain reductions, but rather physical rest. Similarly, it could be the case that the more people use magnets, the stronger their beliefs that magnets work.

These beliefs, not magnets themselves, may be responsible for reported reductions in pain. In short, although the correlational method of research can be very valuable—and is, for reasons we’ll soon describe, sometimes the only method psychologists can use to study a specific topic or question—it cannot answer the question “Why?” (as in “Why is magnet use related to pain reduction?”) in a very definitive way. For this reason, psychologists often use another research method, to which we’ll now turn.

3. The Experimental Method: Knowledge through Systematic Intervention:

In its most basic form, the experimental method in psychology involves two key steps:

(1) The presence or strength of some variable believed to af­fect behavior is systematically altered, and

(2) The effects of such alterations (if any) are carefully measured.

The logic behind these steps is this- If the variable that is systematically changed does indeed influence some aspect of behavior, then individuals exposed to different levels or amounts of that fac­tor should differ in their behavior. For instance, exposure to a low amount of the variable should result in one level of behavior, while exposure to a higher amount should result in a different level, and so on.

The factor systematically varied by the researcher is termed the independent variable, while the aspect of behavior studied is termed the dependent variable. In a simple experiment, then, different groups of participants are exposed to contrasting levels of the independent variable (such as low, moderate, and high). The researcher then carefully measures the research participant’s behavior to determine whether it does in fact differ depending on the level of the independent variable to which they are exposed.

To illustrate the basic nature of experimentation in psychological research, let’s return to the possible effects of magnets on muscle or joint pain. One way in which a psychologist could study this topic through the experimental method is as fol­lows. First, the psychologist would recruit persons who had considerable muscle or joint pain as participants in the research; this could be accomplished through ads in local newspapers, by referrals from physicians, or in other ways.

These persons would make appointments to come to the psychologist’s office or laboratory; there, the psychologist would give them metal disks and ask them to wear these for some specific amount of time (e.g., for one hour). One group would receive real mag­nets, while another group (known as a control condition) would receive disks that looked exactly the same but were not magnets. This is the independent variable—whether people wear magnets or non-magnetized metal disks.

At the end of the hour, participants would be asked to rate the amount of muscle or joint pain they felt as they performed a series of simple movements (e.g., raising their arms, moving their legs). They would rate their pain on a simple rating scale (e.g., 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and so on); pain level would be the dependent variable.

The psychologist would then compare the pain reported by the two groups. If the group that received the real magnets reported less pain, this would provide evidence that magnets are effective; if the two groups reported identical levels of pain, this would suggest that perhaps magnets are ineffective.

This, of course, is the simplest form of experiment the psychologist could perform. The researcher could make the study more informative by varying the number of magnets (or metal disks) participants wear (e.g., one disk, two, four, and so on) or by varying the number of hours they wear the disks (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 hours). In addition, other variables such as the strength of the magnets or their specific placement on the body could also be introduced and varied systematically.

The data from such expanded studies would provide more evidence concerning whether, and under what conditions, magnets reduce pain. But the basic logic would remain the same. The experimenter would vary each factor systematically in order to determine whether it had any effect on participants’ pain.

Experimentation: Two Requirements for Its Success:

In order to provide clear information on cause-and-effect relationships, experiments must meet two key re­quirements. The first involves what is termed random assignment of participants to conditions. This means that all participants in an experiment must have an equal chance of being assigned to each group in the study— an equal chance of being exposed to each level of the independent variable.

The reason for this rule is simple: If participants are not randomly assigned to each condition, it may later be impossible to tell whether differ­ences in their behavior stem from differences they brought with them to the study, from the impact of the independent variable, or both. Imagine that in the study on magnets just described, all of the persons who receive the real magnets are strong believers in the benefits of these devices, while all those who receive the nonmagnetic metal disks are skeptical of such effects.

Now assume that those receiving the magnets report less pain. Is this difference due to the effects of the magnets, the participants’ belief in the benefits of magnets, or both factors? We can’t tell. If, in contrast, the believers and the skeptics are randomly assigned to each condition, a difference between the conditions will be revealing: It will suggest that the magnets really may have some real, measurable effects.

The second requirement essential for successful experimentation is this: To as great degree as possible, all factors other than the indepen­dent variable that might also affect participants’ behavior must be held constant. To see why this is, consider what may happen in the study on magnets if those who get the real magnets are treated in a kind and soothing manner by the experimenter, while those who get the nonmagnetic disks are treated in a rude and harsh fashion. Again, those who get the real magnets report less pain.

Why? We can’t tell, because of confound­ing of variables. The independent variable (exposure to real magnets or blank metal disks) is confounded with another variable (the way in which the experimenter treats the participants). Kind, soothing treatment may help reduce pain, while rude, harsh treatment may increase stress and so intensify pain. The moral is clear- To the extent that variables other than the independent variable are permitted to change in an experiment, the value of the study may be greatly reduced or even totally eliminated.

But why, you may be wondering, would a psychologist (or any other type of scientist) make such a mess of her or his own study? The answer, of course, is that no researcher would do so on purpose. But sometimes confounding of variables occurs because researchers aren’t aware of the “other” variable and don’t realize that it may be influencing the behavior they are studying. For example, suppose magnets can reduce pain, but only for people below the age of forty.

Not realizing this, a researcher assigns more people over age forty to the magnet condition, and fewer people over age forty to the no-magnet group. Now, no difference be­tween the conditions is found. Does this mean that magnets don’t reduce pain? The researcher may accept this conclusion but will be on shaky ground, because of the potential influence of the confounding variable of which she or he is unaware.

One important source of confounding is subtle differences in experimenters’ behavior that can influence research participants. For instance, a researcher who believes that magnets do have beneficial effects may act in a slightly friendlier or more reassuring manner toward participants who receive real magnets than toward ones who do not. These sub­tle differences may be unintentional and unconscious, but they can still affect participants’ behavior.

Such unintended effects produced by researchers are known as experimenter effects, and they can be deadly to the scientific value of a research project. This is one reason why many studies in psychology employ a double-blind procedure, in which researchers who have contact with participants do not know the hypothesis under investigation or the condition to which partici­pants have been assigned.

In sum, experimentation is, in several respects, the crown jewel among psychology’s research methods. Why, then, isn’t it the only method used by psychologists? One reason is that the other methods do indeed offer advantages (e.g., the vast amount of information that can be collected quickly through the survey method, or the high generalizability provided by naturalistic observation). Another reason is that in many cases, practical and ethical constraints prevent psychologists from using experimentation.

While experimentation is a powerful tool and one often preferred by psychologists, it cannot be used to in­vestigate all questions about behavior.

Ethical Issues in Psychological Research:

All research conducted by trained psychologists is currently performed in accordance with strict ethical stan­dards designed to protect the safety, privacy, and well-being of all research participants.

These standards, which were developed both by government agencies and by the American Psychological Association, are carefully enforced in all settings where research occurs. Thus, many safeguards are built into the system, and together these assure that the disturbing image of psychological research mentioned above has little connec­tion to reality.

Having said this, we should note that two ethical issues deserving of careful attention do remain. One has to do with the use of deception the temporary withholding of information about a study from the persons who participate in it. The other issue has to do with the use of animals in psychological research.

Deception: The Ethics of Misleading Research Participants:

Suppose you are a participant in a study designed to test the following hypothesis: The more attractive people are, the better first impressions they make on others. To test the hypothesis, the experimenter arranges for you to meet several people, one who is unattractive, and another who is average in appearance, and a third who is a real knockout and then asks you to rate your liking for each.

Suppose that before the study begins, the psychologist explains the hypothesis to you. Do you think this knowledge could influence your behavior? Perhaps. One possibility is that, knowing what the psychologist hopes to find, you decide to “help”; this means that you express even greater liking for the attractive person than you might normally do. Another possibility is that you decide to show the researcher that you are not so easy to predict, so you actually report liking the unattractive person most.

It is in order to avoid such effects that psy­chologists sometimes choose to withhold infor­mation about the hypothesis they are investigat­ing and other details of the research. They believe that such information may change participants’ behavior and so render the results of the research useless.

While this reasoning is sound, the use of deception also raises important ethical issues. Is it appropriate for psychologists to withhold infor­mation from research participants, or even to mis­lead them? Although this issue remains somewhat controversial, most psychologists believe that de­ception is permissible, provided that two basic principles are followed.

The first involves obtaining informed consent—providing research participants with as much information as possible about events and procedures a study will involve before they agree to participate in it. This must be coupled with a clear statement that they are completely free to leave at any time during the study.

The second principle, known as debriefing, requires that research participants be given full information about all aspects of a study, including deception, after they have participated in it. The goal is for participants to leave a study possessing a clear understanding of its major purposes and feeling at least as good as when they entered.

Existing evidence suggests that informed consent and thorough debriefing go a long way toward eliminating any adverse effects of temporary deception. However, despite such findings, there is still the possibility—confirmed by recent research that exposure to deception can leave participants with increased feelings of suspicion about what researchers tell them.

Thus, it is definitely unwise to take the safety or appropriateness of deception for granted. On the contrary, psychologists must always be vigilant to protect the rights and well-being of persons who, by offering their time, effort, and cooperation, help to advance our understanding of human behavior.

Research with Animals:

While most research conducted by psychologists involves human participants, some studies (about 8 percent) are performed with animas. Why do psychologists conducts such research? For several reasons. First, they may want to study the behavior of endangered species so that they can assist in protecting them from extinction.

Research on the mating habits of the giant panda of China has helped to increase the world population of these beautiful animals, which do not readily reproduce in zoos. Second, psychologists conduct research on animals in order to examine the generality of basic principles of behavior—for example, certain forms of learning.

Does learning occur in much the same manner across many different species, or does the unique evolutionary history of each species alter this process in important ways? Research conducted with several species can help answer such questions.

The most important reason for conducting research with animals, however, is also the one that raises important ethical issues: some research exposes animal subjects to conditions or treatments that could not be used with human beings. For obvious ethical and legal reasons, researchers cannot operate on the brains of healthy people in order to study the roles of various parts of their brains in memory, learning, or other aspects of behavior.

Similarly, researchers cannot place human beings on diets lacking in important nutrients in order to determine how deficiencies affect their development. In these and many other cases, there appears to be no choice. If the research is to be conducted, it must be conducted with animals.

But is it appropriate to expose rats, pigeons, monkeys, or other animals to such treatment? This is a complex issue on which different persons hold sharply contrasting views. Supporters of animals rights contend that the procedures employed in research with animals expose them to harsh or dangerous treatment; this, they contend, makes such research unethical.

Psychologists respond in two ways. First, they note that harsh procedures are virtually never used in their research; such conditions are much more frequent in medical studies, in which researchers do indeed inject animals with dangerous microbes or drugs in order to develop improved medical treatments. Second, psychologists not that research with animals has contributed to human welfare in many important ways.

For example, it has led to improved means for treating emotional problems, controlling high blood pressure, and reducing chronic pain. In addition, psychological research with animals has increased our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying memory loss, senility, and various addictions. Many persons would contend that these benefits far outweigh the risks to animal’s studies in psychological research.

This issue is a complex one, so there are no easy answers. Whether the benefits of research with animals- medical or psychological-justify such studies is a value judgment, largely outside the realm of science. Only you, as an individual who thinks critically, can make up your own mind.

Qualitative Methods:

These methods involve interpretive study of a problem or issue in which the researcher is the key to the whole process of research. They yield data that are in the form of words, pictures, artifacts, etc. By providing thick or rich description and explanation of the underlying processes as they unfold in specific context the qualitative researcher enables us to experience the chronological flow or sequence of events leading to certain outcomes. Thus, meaning and emergent reality gets more attention.

While conducting qualitative studies, the subjectivity plays a key role as it makes interpretation and reflection possible. The approach to understanding and descrip­tion is context dependent. Instead of emphasis on why question it gives more emphasis on what happens, when happens, and how happens. The goal of such studies is to enable holistic view from the perspective of the insider.

Below given are the qualitative methods that have some interesting properties that need attention:

1. They reduce the power differential between researcher and participants.

2. By using negative case analysis these methods expand the scope of explanation.

3. The researcher is not a detached observer of some objective reality. Instead his/her position is explicitly recognized and his/her values are taken as vantage points.

4. Reality is considered as constructed through the processes of communication and negotiation.

Qualitative data comes in various forms and from diverse sources. The qualitative data are used indepen­dently or to supplement some quantitative study. They may be obtained with the help of diverse methods including case study, interview, discourse analysis, ethnography, conversational analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory.

Qualitative methods invite to come to our senses so that we can fully listen to people, and expand our repertoires of expand our repertoire of strategies of knowledge generation, to include emotional sensitivity, intuitive understanding, and reflective awareness. The researcher remains open and attentive to the unfolding moment.

Qualitative research challenges the objectivist view that there is a concrete knowable reality that exists independently of our thought processes. It maintains that the meaning making is embedded in the values, preferences, and understanding of the inquirer. As a result, knowledge is subject to differing viewpoints and interpretations and also subject to revision as a result of changing circumstances.