The Scientific Method
Psychology is the “scientific study of behavior and mental processes.” We will spend quite a lot of time on the behavior and mental processes part throughout this book and in relation to mental disorders. Still, before we proceed, it is prudent to further elaborate on what makes psychology scientific. It is safe to say that most people outside of our discipline or a sister science would be surprised to learn that psychology utilizes the scientific method at all. That may be even truer of clinical psychology, especially in light of the plethora of self-help books found at any bookstore. But yes, the treatment methods used by mental health professionals are based on empirical research and the scientific method.
As a starting point, we should expand on what the scientific method is.
The scientific method is a systematic method for gathering knowledge about the world around us.
The keyword here is systematic, meaning there is a set way to use it. What is that way? Well, depending on what source you look at, it can include a varying number of steps. I like to use the following:
Table 1.1: The Steps of the Scientific Method
| Step |
Name |
Description |
| 0 |
Ask questions and be willing to wonder. |
To study the world around us, you have to wonder about it. This inquisitive nature is the hallmark of critical thinking —our ability to assess claims made by others and make objective judgments that are independent of emotion and anecdote and based on hard evidence —and a requirement to be a scientist. |
| 1 |
Generate a research question or identify a problem to investigate. |
Through our wonderment about the world around us and why events occur as they do, we begin to ask questions that require further investigation to arrive at an answer. This investigation usually starts with a literature review, or when we conduct a literature search through our university library or a search engine such as Google Scholar to see what questions have been investigated already and what answers have been found, so that we can identify gaps or holes in this body of work. |
| 2 |
Attempt to explain the phenomena we wish to study. |
We now attempt to formulate an explanation of why the event occurs as it does. This systematic explanation of a phenomenon is a theory and our specific, testable prediction is the hypothesis. We will know if our theory is correct because we have formulated a hypothesis that we can now test. |
| 3 |
Test the hypothesis. |
It goes without saying that if we cannot test our hypothesis, then we cannot show whether our prediction is correct or not. Our plan of action of how we will go about testing the hypothesis is called our research design. In the planning stage, we will select the appropriate research method to answer our question/test our hypothesis. |
| 4 |
Interpret the results. |
With our research study done, we now examine the data to see if the pattern we predicted exists. We need to see if a cause and effect statement can be made, assuming our method allows for this inference. More on this in Section 2.3. For now, it is essential to know that statistics have two forms. First, there are descriptive statistics which provide a means of summarizing or describing data and presenting the data in a usable form. You likely have heard of mean or average, median, and mode. Along with standard deviation and variance, these are ways to describe our data. Second, there are inferential statistics that allow for the analysis of two or more sets of numerical data to determine the statistical significance of the results. Significance is an indication of how confident we are that our results are due to our manipulation or design and not chance. |
| 5 |
Draw conclusions carefully. |
We need to interpret our results accurately and not overstate our findings. To do this, we need to be aware of our biases and avoid emotional reasoning so that they do not cloud our judgment. How so? In our effort to stop a child from engaging in self-injurious behavior that could cause substantial harm or even death, we might overstate the success of our treatment method. |
| 6 |
Communicate our findings to the broader scientific community. |
Once we have decided on whether our hypothesis was correct or not, we need to share this information with others so that they might comment critically on our methodology, statistical analyses, and conclusions. Sharing also allows for replication or repeating the study to confirm its results. Communication occurs via scientific journals, conferences, or newsletters released by many of the organizations mentioned in Module 1.6. |
Science has at its root three cardinal features that we will see play out time and time again throughout this book. They are:
- Observation – To know about the world around us, we have to be able to see it firsthand. When a mental disorder afflicts an individual, we can see it through their overt behavior. An individual with depression may withdraw from activities he/she enjoys, those with social anxiety disorder will avoid social situations, people with schizophrenia may express concern over being watched by the government, and individuals with dependent personality disorder may leave major decisions to trusted companions. In these examples and numerous others, the behaviors that lead us to a diagnosis of a specific disorder can easily be observed by the clinician, the patient, and/or family and friends.
- Experimentation – To be able to make causal or cause and effect statements, we must isolate variables. We must manipulate one variable and see the effect of doing so on another variable. Let’s say we want to know if a new treatment for bipolar disorder is as effective as existing treatments, or more importantly, better. We could design a study with three groups of bipolar patients. One group would receive no treatment and serve as a control group. A second group would receive an existing and proven treatment and would also be considered a control group. Finally, the third group would receive the new treatment and be the experimental group. What we are manipulating is what treatment the groups get – no treatment, the older treatment, and the newer treatment. The first two groups serve as controls since we already know what to expect from their results. There should be no change in bipolar disorder symptoms in the no-treatment group, a general reduction in symptoms for the older treatment group, and the same or better performance for the newer treatment group. As long as patients in the newer treatment group do not perform worse than their older treatment counterparts, we can say the new drug is a success. You might wonder why we would get excited about the performance of the new drug being the same as the old drug. Does it really offer any added benefit? In terms of a reduction of symptoms, maybe not, but it could cost less money than the older drug and that would be of value to patients.
- Measurement – How do we know that the new drug has worked? Simply, we can measure the person’s bipolar disorder symptoms before any treatment was implemented, and then again once the treatment has run its course. This pre-post test design is typical in drug studies.
Research Methods
Step 3 called on the scientist to test his or her hypothesis. Psychology as a discipline uses five main research designs. They are:
1.5.2.1. Naturalistic and laboratory observation. In terms of naturalistic observation, the scientist studies human or animal behavior in its natural environment, which could include the home, school, or a forest. The researcher counts, measures, and rates behavior in a systematic way and, at times, uses multiple judges to ensure accuracy in how the behavior is being measured. The advantage of this method is that you see behavior as it happens, and the experimenter does not taint the data. The disadvantage is that it could take a long time for the behavior to occur, and if the researcher is detected, then this may influence the behavior of those being observed.
Laboratory observation involves observing people or animals in a laboratory setting. The researcher might want to know more about parent-child interactions, and so, brings a mother and her child into the lab to engage in preplanned tasks such as playing with toys, eating a meal, or the mother leaving the room for a short time. The advantage of this method over the naturalistic method is that the experimenter can use sophisticated equipment to record the session and examine it later. The problem is that since the subjects know the experimenter is watching them, their behavior could become artificial. Clinical observation is a commonly employed research method to study psychopathology; we will talk about it more throughout this book.
1.5.2.2. Case studies. Psychology can also utilize a detailed description of one person or a small group based on careful observation. This was the approach the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, took to develop his theories. The advantage of this method is that you arrive at a detailed description of the investigated behavior, but the disadvantage is that the findings may be unrepresentative of the larger population, and thus, lacking generalizability. Again, bear in mind that you are studying one person or a tiny group. Can you possibly make conclusions about all people from just one person, or even five or ten? The other issue is that the case study is subject to researcher bias in terms of what is included in the final narrative and what is left out. Despite these limitations, case studies can lead us to novel ideas about the cause of abnormal behavior and help us to study unusual conditions that occur too infrequently to analyze with large sample sizes and in a systematic way.
1.5.2.3. Surveys/Self-Report data. This is a questionnaire consisting of at least one scale with some questions used to assess a psychological construct of interest such as parenting style, depression, locus of control, or sensation-seeking behavior. It may be administered by paper and pencil or computer. Surveys allow for the collection of large amounts of data quickly, but the actual survey could be tedious for the participant and social desirability, when a participant answers questions dishonestly so that they are seen in a more favorable light, could be an issue. For instance, if you are asking high school students about their sexual activity, they may not give genuine answers for fear that their parents will find out. You could alternatively gather this information via an interview in a structured or unstructured fashion.
1.5.2.4. Correlational research. This research method examines the relationship between two variables or two groups of variables. A numerical measure of the strength of this relationship is derived, called the correlation coefficient. It can range from -1.00, a perfect inverse relationship in which one variable goes up as the other goes down, to 0 indicating no relationship at all, to +1.00 or a perfect relationship in which as one variable goes up or down so does the other. In terms of a negative correlation, we might say that as a parent becomes more rigid, controlling, and cold, the attachment of the child to parent goes down. In contrast, as a parent becomes warmer, more loving, and provides structure, the child becomes more attached. The advantage of correlational research is that you can correlate anything. The disadvantage is that you can correlate anything, including variables that do not have any relationship with one another. Yes, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage. For instance, we might correlate instances of making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with someone we are attracted to sitting near us at lunch. Are the two related? Not likely, unless you make a really good PB&J, but then the person is probably only interested in you for food and not companionship. The main issue here is that correlation does not allow you to make a causal statement.
A special form of correlational research is the epidemiological study in which the prevalence and incidence of a disorder in a specific population are measured (See Section 1.2 for definitions).
1.5.2.5. Experiments. This is a controlled test of a hypothesis in which a researcher manipulates one variable and measures its effect on another variable. The manipulated variable is called the independent variable (IV), and the one that is measured is called the dependent variable (DV). In the example under Experimentation in Section 1.5.1, the treatment for bipolar disorder was the IV, while the actual intensity or number of symptoms serve as the DV. A common feature of experiments is a control group that does not receive the treatment or is not manipulated and an experimental group that does receive the treatment or manipulation. If the experiment includes random assignment, participants have an equal chance of being placed in the control or experimental group. The control group allows the researcher (or teacher) to make a comparison to the experimental group and make a causal statement possible, and stronger. In our experiment, the new treatment should show a marked reduction in the intensity of bipolar symptoms compared to the group receiving no treatment, and perform either at the same level as, or better than, the older treatment. This would be the initial hypothesis made before starting the experiment.
In a drug study, to ensure the participants’ expectations do not affect the final results by giving the researcher what he/she is looking for (in our example, symptoms improve whether the participant is receiving treatment or not), we might use what is called a placebo, or a sugar pill made to look exactly like the pill given to the experimental group. This way, participants all are given something, but cannot figure out what exactly it is. You might say this keeps them honest and allows the results to speak for themselves.
Finally, the study of mental illness does not always afford us a large sample of participants to study, so we have to focus on one individual using a single-subject experimental design. This differs from a case study in the sheer number of strategies available to reduce potential confounding variables, or variables not originally part of the research design but contribute to the results in a meaningful way. One type of single-subject experimental design is the reversal or ABAB design. Kuttler, Myles, and Carson (1998) used social stories to reduce tantrum behavior in two social environments in a 12-year old student diagnosed with autism, Fragile-X syndrome, and intermittent explosive disorder. Using an ABAB design, they found that precursors to tantrum behavior decreased when the social stories were available (B) and increased when the intervention was withdrawn (A). A more recent study (Balakrishnan & Alias, 2017) also established the utility of social stories as a social learning tool for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using an ABAB design. During the baseline phase (A), the four student participants were observed, and data recorded on an observation form. During the treatment phase (B), they listened to the social story and data was recorded in the same manner. Upon completion of the first B, the students returned to A, which was followed one more time by B and the reading of the social story. Once the second treatment phase ended, the participation was monitored again to obtain the outcome. All students showed improvement during the treatment phases in terms of the number of positive peer interactions, but the number of interactions reduced in the absence of social stories. From this, the researchers concluded that the social story led to the increase in positive peer interactions of children with ASD.
1.5.2.6. Multi-method research. As you have seen above, no single method alone is perfect. All have strengths and limitations. As such, for the psychologist to provide the most precise picture of what is affecting behavior or mental processes, several of these approaches are typically employed at different stages of the research study. This is called multi-method research.
