August 18 2021
Experimental Psychology
Experimental Psychology and the Scientific Method
We are considered soft science. Because some of the theories can’t
provide law (ex. Law of the gravity) more on theories. More on
theories in Psychology.
What is Psychology?
 The psychology process is based from science evidences
 Science method when we conduct psychological research
 Example: When we try to assess the behavior of a
person, when we’re trying to diagnose; or that we run a
battery of test, measurement we observe. Not a diagnose
that you tell them they have depression. We are like a
scientist, we try to look for evidence to prove, or say that
they have a disorder.
 We take scientific approach when we try to look for
information about the psychological process about
people.
 Psychology is the science of behavior.
 As psychologist, we take a scientific approach to
understanding behavior, and our knowledge about
psychological processes is based on scientific evidence
accumulated through research,
 We rely on scientific methods when we conduct
psychological research, such as specifying the conditions
under which we make our observations, observing in a
systematic or orderly way, and accepting or rejecting
alternative explanative explanations of behaviors on the
basis of what we observe.
 We should have a Time Stamp to identify what time a
situation happens. That could help
 Science comes from the latin word scientia, which
simply means knowledge, It has two meanings- content
and process;
o The content of science is what we know, such
as the facts we learn in our psychology or
chemistry courses.
o Process that ism an activity that includes the
systematic ways in which we go about
gathering data, nothing relationships, and
offering explanations.
 We study Methodology, the scientific techniques use to
collect and evaluate psychological data (the facts and
figures gathered in research studies.)
 All areas of psychology rely on scientific research
methods.
o Example; collect data in formal laboratory
experiments designed to provide the most
precise information.
o Psychologist interested in under controlled
laboratory conditions; at other times, they
conduct surveys in the community or observe
and record people’s behavior in natural
settings.
o Psychologist studying human development
might observe young children’s reactions under
different conditions in the laboratory or in real-
world settings,
o In Clinical psychologist may collect data by
administering psychological test or by
observing personality functioning during
sessions with patients.
o Whether the data come form laboratory
experiments, real-world settings, or therapy
sessions, all psychologist use scientific criteria
to evaluate their data.
The Need for Scientific Methodology
In our daily loves, we all collect and use psychological data to
understand the behavior of others and to guide out own behavior.
- Ex. When you notice that your roommate is in a bad
mood, you don’t ask for favor.
- You dress up when you are going for job interview
because first impressions are important.
- You don’t invite John and Evan to the same party
because they don’t like each other.
The kind of everyday, nonscientific data gathering that shape out
expectations and beliefs and directs our behavior toward other has
been called Commonsense Psychology
- Everyday non-scientific data gathering that shape your
expectations and beliefs, our behavior toward others.
- Collecting information’s from our own experiences,
- Unreliable source of informations.
o There is no scientific study to relay.
An understanding of the characteristics and limitations of
commonsense psychology might not help with dilemmas like this
one, but it may help you become a better psychological scientist- if
only because it clearly demonstrates the need for more scientific
approach
As commonsense psychologist, we find that our ability
to gather data in a systematic and impartial way is constrained by
two very important factors: the sources of psychological
information and our inferential strategies.
Commonsense beliefs about behavior are derived from
data we collect from our own experience and what we have learned
from others. The data we collect in our everyday lives have been
generated from very small sample of behaviors, and conclusions
we draw from them are subject to a number of inherent tendencies,
or biases, that limit their accuracy and usefulness. Often the
sources of our commonsense beliefs about behavior can be
unreliable, and explanations and predictions that we derive form
them are likely to be imperfect.
Nonscientific Sources of Data
The data we gather as commonsense psychologist come
from sources that seem credible the trustworthy- friends and
relatives, people in authority, people we admire, reports from the
media, books we have read and so forth- but, actually these sources
are not always very food ones for obtaining valid information about
behavior.
Nevertheless, psychological information, particularly
when it offered by people we like, respect, or admire, is typically
accepted without questions,
Once we believe we know something, we tend to
overlook instances that might disconfirm out beliefs and we seek,
instead, confirmatory instances that might disconfirms our beliefs,
and we seek, instead, confirmatory instances of behavior. This has
been termed the Confirmation bias.
Research has shown that we are more likely to believe
information if it comes form certain kinds of individuals: People
who are popular attractive, high in status, seemingly experts, or
who appear highly confident are more powerful sources of
information that others are.
Nonscientific Inference
All commonsense psychologists are trait theorist- at least
when it comes to explaining the behavior of others. When we
understand other people’s behavior, there is a strong bias to
overlook situational data in favor of data that substantiate train
explanations.
Perceiving others by their traits can be useful for
predicting their behavior, but it can also leas to overestimations of
the likelihood that they will act in trait-consistent ways across a
wide variety of different situations.

Compounding our inferential shortcomings is a
phenomenon known as the overconfidence bias. Our predictions
guesses, and explanations ten to feel much more correct that they
actually are, and the more data we have available (accurate or not),
the more confidence we have in our judgements about behavior.
The steps scientist take to gather and verity information,
answer questions, explain relationship, and communicate this
information to others are known as the Scientific Method.
Characteristic of Modern Science
The Scientific Mentality
The psychologist’s goal of prediction rest on simple, but
important, assumption: Behavior must follow a natural order;
therefore, it can be predicted.
The elementary assumption lies at the heart of what
Alfred North Whitehead called the “Scientific mentality.”
He postulated that faith in an organized universe is
essential to science. If no inherent order existed there would be no
point in looking for one and no need to develop methods for doing
so.
Research psychologist share the belied that there are
specifiable causes for the way people behave and that these cause
can be discovered through research. This belief called
Determinism.
Gathering Empirical Data
Aristotle assumed that order exist in the universe, and he
set about describing that order is a systemic way by collecting
Empirical data- that is, data that are observable or experienced.
Aristotle advocated systematic observation and careful
classification of naturally occurring events, From his own
systematic observations, Aristotle argues that heavy objects fall
faster than light objects because their “natural” place is down,
Another important characteristic of empirical data, however, is that
they can be verifies or disproved through investigation.
Later investigation of falling objects by Galileo led to the
inescapable conclusion that we set up the proper testing conditions,
light objects will fall just as fast as heavy ones.
Seeking General Principle
We could observe endless pieces of data, adding to the
content of science but our observations would be limited use
without general principle to structure them.
When these principles have the generality to apply to all
situations, they are called Laws. We still do not have a capacity to
collect laws.
We do not have enough information to state a general
law, but we advance understanding by devising and testing an
interim explanation, commonly called Theory.
Theories pull together, or unify, diverse sets of scientific
facts into an organizing scheme, such as general principle or set of
rules, that can be used to predict new examples of behavior.
Testing predictions stemming from theory has been the
cornerstone of psychological science.
Theories can explain many, but not all, instance of a
situation or behavior- the more a theory can explain, the better it is.
Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994), a modern philosopher of
science, wrote that science progresses only through progressively
better theories.
Old theories are replaced by new theories with greater
explanatory power. Laws are seldom determined outside the
physical science, so the behavioral sciences like psychology largely
progress by developing better and better theories.
Theory-based expectancies can cause us to pay more
attention to behavioral information that is predicted by the theory
and to overlook non-predicted behaviors.
Good Thinking
A central feature of the scientific method is good
thinking.
Good thinking includes being open to new ideas even
when they contradict our prior beliefs or attitudes. Good thinking
also follows the rules of logic. Conclusions will follow from the
data, whether they are in agreement with our predictions or not.
Principle of Parsimony sometimes called Occam’s
razor. William of Occam was a 14th- century philosopher who
cautioned us to stick to a basic premise:
Entities should not be multiplied without necessity. What
Occam has in mind was simplicity precision, and clarity of thought.
We must avoid making unnecessary assumptions to support an
argument of explanation. When two explanations are equally
defensible, the simplest explanation is preferred until it is ruled out
by conflicting data.
Self-Correction
Modern scientist accept the uncertainty of their own
conclusions. The content of science changes as we acquire new
scientific information, and old information is reevaluated in light of
new facts.
Changes in scientific explanations and theories are an
extremely important part of scientific process,
Experience favors a “weight-of-evidence” approach: The
more evidence that accumulates to support a particular explanation
or theory, the more confidence we have that the theory is correct.
The content of science changes as we acquire new
information’s, and old information is reevaluate in light of new
facts.
Research 10 years ago can be right but it is possible that
its not applicable now because it might be corrected by other
researches.
Publicizing Results
This continued exchange of information is vital to the
scientific process. It would do little god for scientist to work in
isolation, The opportunity to incorporate the most recent findings
of others would be missed, and there would be a lot of wasted
effort as researches duplicated failures as well as successes.
Replication
Replication is another important part of the scientific
approach. We should be able to repeat our procedures and get the
same results again if we have gather data objectively and if we
have followed a good thinking. Finding that are obtainable by only
one researcher have very limited scientific value.
For example, people sometimes repost dreams
that seem to predict the future. A woman dreams for a stranger and
meets him the following day; a man dreams of a car accident and
then hears of a friend’s fatal crash, Have these people seen into the
future through their dreams? We cannot provide a scientific answer
to that question. It is impossible to re-create the original conditions
that led to these events, so we cannot replicate these experiences. It
is also difficult to evaluate them objectively because the dreamer is
the only observer of dreams.
We can replicate the finding by setting up the same or
similar conditions and observing whether or not the outcome is the
same. Replication of research findings by others can be important;
we have a great deal more confidence that we have explained
something if the predicted effects are repeatable by other
researchers.
Objective of Psychological Science
There are four major objective of research conducted in
psychology: description, prediction, explanation, and control.
1. Description
Is the initial step toward understanding any phenomenon.
When we define description in psychological science, we
are referring to a systematic and unbiased account of the observed
characteristics of behavior. Good descriptions allow us greater
knowledge of behaviors. Good descriptions allow us greater
knowledge of behavior because they provide us with information
about what the behavior will like.
Example of descriptive research designs include case
studies and field studies. In a case study, an outside observer
records the behavior or experience, or both, or a single individual.
Case study are common in clinical, organizational, and forensic
psychology and are used to make inferences about the origins of
psychological disorder, developmental processes, and the influence
of life events.
Field Studies are observational studies of groups of
people (or animals) in real-life settings. Observers are able to
gather descriptive data about many kinds of social and cultural
experience, including child development, organizational structure
and function, and social customs.
2. Prediction
The second base objective, refers to the capacity for
knowing in advance when certain behaviors would be expected to
occur- to be able to predict them ahead of time- because we have
identifies other conditions with which the behaviors are linked or
associated.
Example: We know that the death of grandparent, is
associated with grief, and we can predict that a person will feel
grief if a grandparent has died recently. Thus, prediction is useful
for psychologist, both researchers and clinicians.
A number of researchers designs, called correlational
and quasi design, researchers look for statistical relationship
between different events, behaviors, or experiences.
In some quasi-experimental designs, researchers look
for systematic differences among groups of people and use the
results to make predictions.
3. Explanation
The third objective, goes a step further. When we have
explained a behavior, we also understand what caused it to occur.
Explanation includes knowledge of the conditions that reliably
reproduce the occurrence of behavior. To explain a behavior, we
have to use an experimental research design in which we
systematically manipulate aspect of the setting with the intention of
producing the specific behavior.
Only the results of true experiments allow us to make
inferences about cause and effect, but as we will earn shortly, it is
not always feasible, or even desirable to conduct an experiment,
Many times, a nonexperimental or quasi-experimental research
method is the preferred option.
4. Control
The fourth objective, refers to the application of what has
been learned about behavior. Once a behavior has been explained
through experimentation, it may be possible to use that knowledge
to effect change or improve behavior. Control is rarely the intent of
producing behavioral change along with increasing knowledge.
For example, a clinical researcher might conduct an
experiment to test whether cognitive-behavioral therapy
ameliorated grief to a greater extent that another type of therapy.
An organizational psychologist might compare the effects of
flexible hours versus working 9 to 5 on employee morale. In this
type of experiments, the intention of the research is really two-fold:
testing the effects of specifies conditions on behavior and changing
behavior.
Research that is design to solve real-world problems (like
helping patients to deal with grief or improving employee morale)
is known as applied research (engineering). In contrast, research
designed to test theories or to explain psychological phenomena in
human and animal is called basic research. (you are curious, Why
is this important?)
The Scientific Method: Tools of Psychological Science
These are the basic tools of the psychological scientist.
Observation
Is the systematic noting and recording of events. Only
events that are observable can be studies scientifically.
The key to studying internal process is defining them as
events that can observed: the time it takes a person to solve a
problem, a person’s answers to a mood questionnaire, the
amplitude of someone’s electrodermal responses.
Measurement
Measurement is the assignment of numerical values to
objects or events or their characteristics according to conventional
rules. When we do research, we assign numbers to different sizes,
quantities, or qualities of the events under observation.
We use standardized units, agreed-upon conventions that
define such measures as the minute, the meter and the ounce.
Experimentation
Experimentation is a process undertaken to test a
hypothesis that particular behavioral events will occur reliably in
certain, specifiable situations. When we experiment, we
systematically manipulate aspects of a settings to verify our
predictions about observable behavior under specific conditions.
Experimentation is not always possible.
Three minimum requirements must be met: first, we
must have procedures for manipulating the setting. Second, the
predicted outcome must be observable. Third, we must be able to
measure the outcome.
Experimentation must be also be objective, Ideally, we
do not bias out results by setting up situations in which our
predictions will automatically be confirmed.
At times experimentation might be possible, but it cannot
be carried out for ethical reasons.
Examples, we would not test the effects of smoking on
fetal development in pregnant women by asking a group of
nonsmoking women to smoke during their pregnancies. We would
not peep through windows to study people’s sexual behaviors.
Scientific Explanation in Psychological Science
Identifying Antecedents Conditions
Antecedent conditions, or antecedents, are the
circumstances that come before the event or behavior that we want
to explain.
Example: different concentrations of negative ions were
the specified antecedent, If we can identify all the antecedent of
behavior, we can explain that behavior in the following way: When
XYZ is the set of antecedent conditions, the outcome is particular
behavior. If the XYZ set of antecedents occurs again, we expect the
same outcome.
Comparing Treatment Conditions
Particular antecedents that we believe have an effect on
behavior. In psychology experiment, we create specific sets of
antecedent conditions that we call Treatments. We compare
different treatment conditions so that we can test out explanations
of behavior systematically and scientifically.
It means that we are treating subjects differently when
we expose them to different sets of antecedents. We expose them to
different antecedent conditions and then measure their behavior to
ascertain whether different treatments produce predictable different
outcomes.
We test our explanations of behavior by creating
treatment conditions in which some people are exposed to one set
of antecedent conditions an other are exposed to different set of
antecedent. Then, we compare the effects of these different
antecedents on a particular behavior. When we are able to specify
the antecedents, or treatment conditions, that lead to a behavior, we
have essentially explained that behavior,
The Psychology Experiment
Is a controlled procedure in which at least two different
treatment conditions are applies to subjects, The subjects’
behaviors are then measured and compared to test a hypothesis
about the effects of those treatment on behavior. Note that we must
have at least two different treatments so that we compare behavior
under varies conditions and observe the way behavior changes as
the treatment conditions change.
Procedures in psychology experiment are carefully Controlled so
that we can be sure we are measuring what we intent to measure.
Characteristics of subjects receiving different treatments
are also controlled by special techniques like random assignment
of subjects to different treatments.
By assigning subjects to receive different treatments
using random assignment techniques, we avoid the possibility that
subjects in one condition may be systematically different from
subjects in another even before the treatment are presented, We
want to ensure that people who receive one kind of treatment are
equivalent (as similar as possible) to subjects receiving a different
treatment.
An experimental design in which subjects receive only
one kind of treatment is called a between-subjects design.
It is frequently impossible to give subjects more than one
treatment conditions of an experiment without creating new
problems. Often the effect of one treatment will carry over to the
next treatment conditions, influencing subjects’ behavior in the
later treatment conditions.
Example: if you want to conduct an experiment to see
whether reaction time was faster to identify photos of famous
people who were smiling than photos in which they were frowning.
You can’t show both kinds of photos to the same person, because
once subjects have seen one photo of the person, the second should
be easier to identify regardless of the expression on the famous
person’s face.
Within-subjects design is simply not feasible for one
reason or another, so random assignment to treatment conditions
has become one of the cornerstones of most experimentation.
Example: Trying to measures how fast in first meeting it
will be hard, second will be easier because they are familiar.
Successful experimentation relies heavily on the
principle of control. For experimentation to produce valid
conclusions, all explanations except the one(s) being tested should
be clearly rules out.
We can achieve the greatest degree of control with
experiments that are run in the laboratory where the psychologist
can shield subjects from factors that could influence behavior and
lead to incorrect conclusions.
Some critics have argued, that laboratory situations can
be artificial and unrealistic and the laboratory results might not be
applicable to everyday life. We sometimes sacrifice a certain
amount to realism and generalizability to gain precision, but contril
is critical to experimentations.
Control is most often achieved by:
(1)random assignment of subjects to different
treatment conditions (or sometimes by using a within subject
design),
(2) presenting treatment condition in an
identical manner to all subjects, and
(3) keeping the environment, the procedures,
and the measuring instruments constant for all subjects in the
experiments so that the treatment conditions are the only things that
are allowed to change.
Establishing Cause and Effect
The greater value of the psychology experiment is that,
within the experiment, we can infer a cause and effect
relationship between the antecedents conditions and the subjects’
behaviors.
The type of cause-and-effect relationship we establish
through experiments is called a temporal relationship, because a
time difference occurs in the relationship. The treatment conditions
come before the behavior, or stated somewhat differently, the cause
preceded the effect. We look for differences in behavior after
subjects are exposed to the treatment- not before.
Using Spatial relationships to infer cause and effect can
be compelling- but not always correct.
Necessary versus Sufficient Conditions
The cause-and-effect relationship established through
scientific research commonly involve identifying sufficient
conditions.
Search for primary cause. The scientific approach to
casually is more practical, relying on sufficient cause as
explanations for events.
From Pseudoscience to Psychological Science
Psychology as an experimental science did not emerge
until the late 1800’s. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1926), id generally
credited with being the first experimental psychologist, and the
birth of psychological science is usually dated from the opening his
laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, in 1879.
Employed the tools f the scientific method (observation,
measurement, and experimentation) to study human sensory
experience.
One of his first laboratory students was the American
Psychologist G. Stanley Hall. Hall went to open the first
psychology laboratory in the united states in 1883 at John Hopkins
University.
Mental philosophy included the study of consciousness
and mental processes and was based on the premise that the human
minds begins as blank slate, gaining knowledge of the world
through sensory experiences. Mental philosophers were primarily
engaged in the study of the five senses through introspection and
observation of their own metal processes and observing those of
others. (Reporting our own thoughts and feelings is called
phenomenology)
The mental philosopher and experimental psychologist
found a common adversary in the “pop psychology".
Pseudoscience practices were very popular during the 1800s,
particularly phrenology, physiognomy, mesmerism, and
spiritualism.
The term Pseudoscience- pseudo id Greek for “false”-
characterizes any field of study that gives the appearance of being
scientific but has no true scientific basis and has not been
confirmed using the scientific method.
Phrenology involves assessing traits and dispositions by
measuring the size and location of bumps on the skill.
“faculties,” were believed to reside in specific areas in
the brain. Overuse of faculties was believed to result I the
corresponding bumps on the skull, whereas underuse produced
cavities or dents.
Physiognomy involved using facial features, particularly
the appearance of the eyes, nose, chin, and forehead, to evaluate
traits, mental capacity, and skills.
Pseudoscience of mesmerism was invented by an
Austrian physician, Franz Mesmer (1734-1815). Mesmer believed
that fluids in the body ebbed and lowed by magnetic principles and
that both physical and mental illness could be cured by realigning
these fluids using magnets, electrodes, or his hands passed across
the patient’s body.
It appears that Mesmer and his trainees were most likely
inducing a hypnotic state and planting suggestions in the minds of
hypnotized patients- and sometimes they worked,
Spiritualism involved purported contact with ghost and
spirits of dead. Acting as mediums, spiritualists held seances in
which they claimed to speak with people who has died and
provided psychological advice to the relative of the departed who
pain for these services.
The Organization of the Text
I. Introduction
Gives an overall orientation to the field of research
methods, much as literature review gives an overall
picture of the state of research in particular content area.
Research ethics are covered first. Late chapters focus on
descriptive and predictive research designs and prepare
you to understand experimentation.
This section of the book ends with a chapter on
formulating a testable hypothesis. Part one will provide
you with all the information you need to begin thinking
 about the experiment in particular area and will provide
you with report writing tips along the way.

II. Methods
Includes all the basic procedure used in conducting
simple experiments, selecting subjects, and collecting
data in scientific way.

III. Results
“Coping with data”, reviews the common statistical
procedures used to analyze data.

Examples a re included to help you understand how

these procedures are used and what they mean.
Computational formulas and statistic tables can be found
in Appendices.

IV. Discussion
Look at the major issues involves in drawing conclusions
from data and communicating the finding. We examine
problems of generalizing from a laboratory

The final chapter on report writing includes information

on how each section of research repost is organized and
written following the style of APA’s most recent
Publication Manual.