Full Chapter Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 7Th Ed 7Th Edition Hugh Coolican PDF

Research Methods and Statistics in
Psychology 7th Ed 7th Edition Hugh

Coolican
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/research-methods-and-statistics-in-psychology-7th-ed
-7th-edition-hugh-coolican/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 8th

Edition Coolican
https://textbookfull.com/product/research-methods-and-statistics-
in-psychology-8th-edition-coolican/
Cognitive Psychology, 7th Ed 7th Edition Robert J.

Sternberg
https://textbookfull.com/product/cognitive-psychology-7th-ed-7th-
edition-robert-j-sternberg/
Abnormal Child Psychology, 7th Ed 7th Edition Eric J.

Mash
https://textbookfull.com/product/abnormal-child-psychology-7th-
ed-7th-edition-eric-j-mash/
Statistics Without Maths for Psychology 7th Edition

Christine Dancey
https://textbookfull.com/product/statistics-without-maths-for-
psychology-7th-edition-christine-dancey/
Nutritional assessment, 7th ed 7th Edition David C.
Nieman
https://textbookfull.com/product/nutritional-assessment-7th-
ed-7th-edition-david-c-nieman/
Macroeconomics Solution Manual 7th ed 7th Edition

Olivier Blanchard
https://textbookfull.com/product/macroeconomics-solution-
manual-7th-ed-7th-edition-olivier-blanchard/
Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology, 4th ed

4th Edition Dennis Howitt
https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-research-
methods-in-psychology-4th-ed-4th-edition-dennis-howitt/
The Complete Book of Locks and Locksmithing 7th ed 7th

Edition Bill Phillips
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-complete-book-of-locks-and-
locksmithing-7th-ed-7th-edition-bill-phillips/
Practical Business Statistics 7th Edition Andrew Siegel
https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-business-
statistics-7th-edition-andrew-siegel/
Research Methods and Statistics
in Psychology
The seventh edition of Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology provides

students with the most readable and comprehensive survey of research methods,
statistical concepts and procedures in psychology today. Assuming no prior
knowledge, this bestselling text takes you through every stage of your research
project giving advice on planning and conducting studies, analysing data and
writing up reports.
The book provides clear coverage of experimental, interviewing and
observational methods, psychological testing and statistical procedures which
include nominal-level tests, ordinal and interval two condition tests, simple
and multi-factorial ANOVA designs, correlation, multiple regression, log linear
analysis and factor analysis. It features detailed and illustrated SPSS instructions
for all these and other procedures, eliminating the need for an extra SPSS textbook.
New features to this edition include:
• additional coverage of factor analysis and online and modern research

methods;
• expanded coverage of report writing guidelines;
• references updated throughout;
• presentation updated throughout, to include more figures, tables and full
colour to help break up the text;
• companion website signposted throughout the book to improve student
usability;
• thoroughly expanded further reading and weblinks for each chapter.
Each chapter contains a glossary, key terms and newly integrated exercises,
ensuring that key concepts are understood. A fully updated companion website
(www.routledge.com/cw/coolican) provides additional exercises, testbanks for
each chapter, revision flash cards, links to further reading and data for use with
SPSS.
Hugh Coolican is a recently retired Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the

University of Coventry, now holding the position of Honorary Teaching Fellow.
He is also a Chartered Psychologist and an examiner and scrutineer for the
International Baccalaureate.
PR A I SE F OR T HE PREVIO US ED ITION
“I recommend this book as essential reading at undergraduate level: the breadth
and depth of the coverage is excellent, and the explanations given, and examples
used, are clear, accessible and accurate. The latest edition also includes ‘tricky
bits’ at the end of each chapter – things that students repeatedly have problems
with and which are also relevant to improving their marks.”
– David Tyfa, University of Huddersfield, UK
“The book presents a significant number of practical and valid examples of the
use of statistics in psychology. However, the author also presents the material
using language that transcends to other fields as well. The emphasis on explora-
tion of data as a precursor to the application of inferential statistical methods is
extremely useful for students and researchers alike.”
– Adriana Espinosa, City College New York, USA
RESEARCH METHODS
AND STATISTICS IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Seventh Edition
HUGH COOLICAN
Seventh edition published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Hugh Coolican
The right of Hugh Coolican to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Hodder and Stoughton 1990
Second edition published by Hodder and Stoughton 1994
Third edition published by Hodder and Stoughton 1999
Fourth edition published by Hodder Education 2004
Fifth edition published by Hodder Education 2009
Sixth edition published by Routledge 2014
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British
Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-70895-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-70896-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-20100-9 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Visit the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/coolican
Contents
Prefacevii
Acknowledgementsix
Part 1 Research methods and ethics 1

1 Psychology, science and research 3
2 Measuring people – variables, samples and the
qualitative critique 33
3 Experiments and experimental designs in psychology 67
4 Validity in psychological research 97
5 Quasi-experiments and non-experiments 131
6 Observational methods – watching and being with people 151
7 Interview methods – asking people direct questions 183
8 Psychological tests and measurement scales 213
9 Comparison studies – cross-sectional, longitudinal
and cross-cultural studies 249
10 Qualitative approaches in psychology 267
11 Ethical issues in psychological research 299
Part 2 Analysing data and writing reports 323

12 Analysing qualitative data 325
13 Statistics – organising the data 359
14 Graphical representation of data 399
15 Frequencies and distributions 417
16 Significance testing – was it a real effect? 437
17 Testing for differences between two samples 469
18 Tests for categorical variables and frequency tables 521
19 Correlation 553
20 Regression and multiple regression 589
vi Contents
21 Factor analysis 605

22 Multi-level analysis – differences between more than two
conditions (ANOVA) 625
23 Multi-factorial ANOVA designs 653
24 ANOVA for repeated measures designs 673
25 Choosing a significance test for your data 697
26 Planning your practical and writing up your report 711
Appendix757
References783
Index805
Preface
This book is for anyone starting out on a psychology course which contains a fair
amount of hands-on practical research training and the writing up of psychologi-
cal reports. It will be most useful for those studying for a psychology degree but
will also serve students on higher degree courses in psychology (where methods
knowledge may have become a little rusty), on other social sciences courses, on
nursing degrees and in several other related disciplines. It should also be useful
for A Level and IB students but especially for their tutors who may need to clarify
research methods concepts and statistical knowledge.
The common factor is the need to understand how researchers gather data in a
fair and unbiased manner and how they analyse and interpret those data. A feature
that I’m sure all such readers would be pleased to find is a friendly common-sense
approach that uses concrete examples to explain otherwise abstract and some-
times complex notions. In the past, this book has been praised for doing just that,
and I truly hope it continues to do so.
A basic premise of the book has always been that people start out on research
methods courses with many of the basic principles already acquired through their
experience of everyday life. To some extent, the job of tutors and writers is to har-
ness those concepts and to formalise and then elaborate upon them. Before you do
psychology, you probably know just what a fair experiment would be, what an aver-
age is, what it means when people deviate a lot from an average and even the funda-
mentals of statistical significance – you can probably tell intuitively when samples
of girls’ and boys’ reading scores differ by an amount that cannot be explained just
by chance variation. Hence, you are not really starting out on something you know
little about no matter how wary you may be of numbers and science.
One of the bonuses of studying research methods and statistics is that you greatly
enhance what Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) referred to as your personal
‘crap detection’ system, to put it rather crudely. That is, a study of methods and statis-
tics, at the very least and done properly, will enhance your ability to spot gross errors
in the statistical arguments of advertisers, politicians and charlatans who try to use
numbers or ‘findings’ to bamboozle you. There are several examples of such poor
methods or data massaging in the book and hopefully you will later be able to argue
‘Ah but, . . . ’ at dinner parties and become everybody’s best friend as you point out
the flaws in the assumptions people make from ‘findings’ that have made the news.
Many people start psychology courses with a very strong fear of the statistics
that may be involved. This is understandable if, for you, the world of numbers has
always been something of a no-go area. However, statistics is one of the easiest
viii Preface
areas of maths (it must be, both my children said so, even the one for whom
maths was a nightmare). You should not have to do a lot of by-hand calculating,
unless your tutors are sadists! Psychological research is not about learning to do
sums; it’s about using statistical tools to summarise data and to show people that
we have found a relationship between the data that supports a particular view or
theory about how people work. Where you do have to calculate, be assured that
the actual calculation steps for most procedures never extend beyond the basic
capability of the average 11-year-old and can all be done on a £5 calculator.
In this seventh edition, there have been several changes. Whilst retaining the
sixth edition’s “Tricky bits” boxes, at the end of most chapters, I have now added,
after that, a ‘Further reading and links’ box which takes you to many interest-
ing and useful relevant Websites. As before, the ‘Tricky bits’ boxes contain notes
on things that students typically and predictably have problems with – common
misunderstandings, likely mistakes in handling data and, basically, tricky bits.
Instructions for SPSS are compatible with V24 (used in this book) or the new
V25. Qualitative methods have been thoroughly upgraded. The text now includes
substantial coverage of internet research and even links to internet studies that you
can be involved in online. There is a completely new chapter on factor analysis
which is a popular technique used in the development of psychological measure-
ment scales. For that chapter, and for all other chapters containing statistical calcu-
lations, the data sets used have been included on the revised Companion Website.
Qualitative methods are integrated into general chapters (e.g. interviewing,
observation and the quantitative–qualitative debate in Chapter 2) and two spe-
cialist chapters. The first edition was almost certainly the first general methods
text in the UK to pay specific attention to qualitative methods. The two focused
qualitative methods chapters deal with theory first and then practical applica-
tion of several methods of analysis including thematic analysis, grounded theory,
interpretive phenomenological analysis and discourse analysis. A full qualitative
article, using thematic analysis, is available on the Companion Website.
Contemporary issues covered include an evaluation of animal studies, the
emerging controversy concerning prestigious journals’ reluctance to accept articles
which replicate previous studies and the more recent reproducibility ‘crisis’. There
are also several attempts to tackle ‘psychology myths’ such as what the Hawthorne
studies really showed, how Zimbardo biased participants in his famous study and,
more substantially, a debate on the much misused term ‘ecological validity’ which
is extended on the Companion Website. This website, introduced with the fifth
edition, has been expanded with the data sets mentioned earlier, more exercises and
with further issues such as the role and status of peer review.
I encourage feedback, queries and, yes, people just telling me I’m wrong
about something – how else would we learn? You can email me at hughcoolican@
coventry.ac.uk and I will attempt to provide a clear response. Finally I’d like to
repeat something from the fourth edition preface. While you toil away, writing
those inevitable research reports, just keep thinking that none of the truly fasci-
nating ideas about human behaviour and experience and none of the wonderful
insights about ourselves that can be gained on a psychology course would be pos-
sible without someone (many committed people in fact) doing exactly as you are
doing – researching and writing reports. This is where psychology comes from.
Doing methods is not meant to be a punishment or something to make the subject
‘hard’. Without research, psychology just wouldn’t exist!
Acknowledgements
My thanks for support in producing and sending this seventh edition to the editing
team at Taylor and Francis including Ceri Griffiths, Ceri McLardy, Alex How-
ard and Helen Evans along with Autumn Spalding from the production company
Apex CoVantage and the copy editor, Tara Grover Smith.
I would also like to thank two academic colleagues, Simon Goodman of
Coventry University, who once again reviewed the qualitative chapters and
provided valuable advice, and David Hughes at the University of Manchester
who helped so much with the factor analysis chapter and who, along with his
co-authors, Adrian Furnham and Mark Batey, permitted me to include their data
set on the Companion Website. Finally, and of course, thanks to Rama for toler-
ating me being upstairs for so long in the past 18 months.
PAR T 1
Research methods
and ethics
C H A P TE R 1
Psychology, science
and research
This introduction sets the scene for research in psychology. The key ideas are:
• Psychological researchers generally follow a scientific approach, developed

from the ‘empirical method’ into the ‘hypothetico-deductive method’.
This involves careful definition and measurement, and the logic of testing
hypotheses produced from falsifiable theories.
• Most people use the rudimentary logic of scientific theory testing quite
often in their everyday lives.
• Although scientific thinking is a careful extension of common-sense
thinking, common sense on its own can lead to false assumptions.
• Claims about the world must always be supported by evidence.
• Good research is replicable; theories are clearly explained and
falsifiable.
• Theories in science and in psychology are not ‘proven’ true but are
supported or challenged by research evidence. Much research attempts to
eliminate variables as possible explanations. It also attempts to broaden
the scope of a previously demonstrated effect or to find instances where
the effect does not occur.
• Scientific research is a continuous and social activity, involving promotion
and checking of ideas among colleagues.
• Research has to be planned carefully, with attention to design, variables,
samples and subsequent data analysis. If all these areas are not
thoroughly planned, results may be ambiguous or useless.
• Some researchers have strong objections to the use of traditional
quantitative scientific methods in the study of persons. They support
qualitative methods and data gathering, dealing with meaningful verbal
data rather than exact measurement and statistical summary.
WHY P S YCH OLOG Y A ND SCI ENCE?

If you are just starting to read this book, then you have probably started on a
course in psychology and may have been surprised, if not daunted, to find your
tutors talking about psychology being a ‘science’. You will probably have found
that you must carry out practical research exercises, make measurements, deal
with statistics and write up your findings as a scientific report (or, just maybe,
4 Chapter 1 Psychology, science and research
you weren’t surprised at all). Many people cannot divorce from their concept
of ‘science’ images of Bunsen burners, retort stands, white coats, complicated
mathematical formulae and really unpleasant smells.
Rest assured the psychological ‘laboratory’ contains none of these things and
shouldn’t really involve you in difficult maths. There is the use of statistics for
sure but (a little later on) I hope to assure you that all statistical calculations can
be carried out on a cheap calculator or phone and, anyway, there are computers to
do any serious number crunching.
The main point to put across right here and now, however, is that science is
not about retort stands and white coats. It is a system of thought that leads us to
a rational explanation of how things work in the world and a process of getting
closer to truths and further from myths, fables and unquestioned or ‘intuitive’
ideas about people. A further point, and one which is central to the approach
of this book, is to emphasise that you already do think scientifically even if
you thought you didn’t (or not very often). We will return to that point too in a
moment.
This book, then, is about the ways that psychologists go about establishing
evidence for their theories about people. It’s about how they do research and the
advantages and disadvantages involved in the use of alternative methods. In this
chapter, we will discuss the reasons why psychology uses the scientific method
and ask, what is science and what is scientific thinking? We will also briefly intro-
duce a vein within psychological research that largely rejects traditional scientific
methods, especially the attempt to measure or predict behaviour, seeing this as a
way of dehumanising the person.
I SN’T A LOT OF PSYCHO LO GY JUST

SI M PLE I NT U I TION ?
But first let’s address those readers who are disappointed because they thought
that, after all, psychology is not a physical science and we all know so much about
people already; surely a lot of it is plain common sense or pure intuition? Intuition
is often seen as a handy short cut to truth.
Well let’s look at something that will be intuitively obvious to most peo-
ple. Ever since the arrival of text messaging, parents and teachers have knowl-
edgeably complained that what they see as the ugly use of text abbreviations or
textisms (‘gr8’, ‘ur’ and so on) will have an inevitably detrimental effect on the
user’s standard of English. The media overwhelmingly assume a negative effect
of texting on standard English (Thurlow, 2006). Indeed my own university psy-
chology department banned the use of text language in emails in the interests of
maintaining English standards. So we ‘know’ that text language is bad for young
people’s English . . . or do we?
Plester, Wood and Bell (2008) did not rely on this kind of intuitive knowl-
edge and instead conducted empirical research – a term to be explained in a
short while but meaning that they looked for evidence – valid facts about text
messaging. They found, contrary to popular opinion on the matter, that children
aged 11–12 who used more textisms produced better scores on a test of verbal
reasoning ability – a measure that is strongly related to Key Stage 2 and 3
English scores. In addition the researchers found that the better these children
were at translating text messages the better they were at spelling. There was
also a similar and strong relationship between writing ability and the use of
Chapter 1 Psychology, science and research 5
textisms. A lot of psychological studies do in fact tend to corroborate what we

already might have believed but I really like studies such as this one where
what was ‘obvious’ turns out to be quite wrong. Results like these teach us to
always check the evidence and not to just trust our intuitive guesses (that feel
like fact).
WHY CAN ’ T WE T R U ST I NT U I T I ON?

We can’t trust intuition because it depends too much on myth, stereotype, prej-
udice and received but unchecked wisdom. In addition, when confronted with a
new problem intuition is very vulnerable to our tendency to stick with what we
know. Try these three problems and don’t read any further until you have had a
think about them.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT
1 Imagine a rope placed around the circumference of the Earth (and please try to ignore hills,
mountains and lakes). Suppose we now want to lift the rope so that it is 1 metre above the Earth
all the way around. About how much more rope would we need?
2 Take a piece of paper and fold it over on itself three times. The paper is now a bit thicker than
it was before. We can’t physically fold a piece of paper more than about seven times but just
imagine folding it over on itself another 50 times. How thick would the paper now be?
3 What percentage of UK land is built on?
The answer to the first question is just over 6 metres! How can that be you
say because the Earth is so huge. The trouble here is that because part of the
problem involves a massive size, we think the answer must be massive . . . but it
isn’t. If you’d like to check out the calculation then take a look at p. 30; having
promised no awkward maths, it would be unwise to put formulae into the main
text right now!
The same process happens with the second question in the opposite direc-
tion. We know paper is very thin so we assume the answer is a relatively small
number. In fact the paper would be thick enough to stretch from the Earth to the
Sun . . . and back again . . . and back again with a bit left over! If you take a piece
of paper to be 0.1 mm thick1 then double this thickness 53 times (using Excel, for
instance), you’ll get a huge number of millimetres which you can then divide by
1,000,000 to get kilometres. If you now convert the distance, it is about 280 mil-
lion miles!
The answer to the third question is just 5.9%. I suspect your estimate would
have been a lot higher. In fact in an Ipsos Mori survey people were told that ‘Con-
tinuous Urban Fabric’ (CUF) is where over 80% of an area of land is covered by
artificial surfaces – mainly roads and buildings. Respondents estimated on aver-
age that 47% of the UK fitted this description whereas the true figure is just 0.1%.
If the UK was considered as a football pitch people estimated that almost half of
the pitch was CUF whereas the actual figure is equivalent to the tiny quarter circle
from which corner kicks are taken. The problem here might be that people tend to
think from their own perspective (mostly urban) rather than from a more global
position (Easton, 2018).
What has all this to do with psychology? Well, the problem we’re dealing
with here is that intuition, or ‘common sense’, gives us ‘obvious’ answers which
are incorrect so we can’t rely on it for developing a system of psychological
knowledge.
Intuition is an even poorer help when issues are much more personal to us.
Ritov and Baron (1990) asked participants a hypothetical question. ‘Imagine
there is a flu epidemic during which your child has a 10 in 10,000 chance of
dying. There is a vaccine which will certainly prevent the disease but it can
produce fatalities’. They asked participants to decide the maximum level of
risk of death from the vaccine that they would accept for their child. Partici-
pants generally would not accept a risk higher than 5 in 10,000. In other words,
participants were willing to submit their child to a 1 in 1,000 chance of dying
from flu rather than take the lower (1 in 2,000) risk of death from the vac-
cine. This is ‘magical thinking’. Perhaps people thought that they would rather
‘chance’ their child than that any positive decision they made could be linked to
their child’s death even though not acting carried double the chance of fatality!
Something very similar happened for real in the UK from the late 1990s when
flimsy evidence, eventually declared fraudulent by the British Medical Journal
(Deer, 2011), that the MMR jab might be a cause of early autism led parents to
avoid it, contributing to a significant rise in cases of measles. Uptake dropped
from 92% in 1996 to around 85% in 2006, compared with about 94% for other
vaccines (McIntyre and Leask, 2008). By 2011 uptake had risen to 90% (HPA,
2011). There has never been any genuine evidence that the MMR jab can cause
autism.
Whereas many of us are reluctant to give up ‘truths’ which turn out not to be
such, the situation is far more extreme with conspiracy theorists. You probably
know of some of these theories – that men never did really land on the moon, that
9/11 was organised by the US government. As Francis Wheen writes in Strange
Days Indeed (Harper Collins, p. 274), ‘Scientists test their hypotheses, whereas
conspiracists know the truth already, and skip nimbly round any facts that might
refute it’. Many people are convinced that their ‘intuition’ tells them reliable
truths about the world and about people. Psychologists aren’t.
SCI ENCE – NOT A SUBJECT BUT A

WAY OF T HI NK IN G
Many students who choose psychology are put off by the idea of ‘science’ being
applied to the study of people. People who are interested in people are not usu-
ally terribly interested in laboratory equipment or procedures. However, what we
need to be clear about here is that science is not a body of technical knowledge
or a boring ‘subject’ but simply a way of thinking that leads us towards testable
explanations of what we observe in the world around us. It doesn’t deliver the
‘truth’ but it does provide us with reasonable accounts of what might be going on.
A proposition about what might be going on is a theory. Science is about testing
theories to see which one is most likely to be true. It is a thought system that we
all use in our everyday lives. It is no different from the logic that is used in the
following ‘everyday’ example.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT
Imagine that you have a younger brother and that you’ve been given the task of taking him to the
doctor with a rash that he seems to get each week on Monday. The doctor takes one look and asks,
‘Does he eat broccoli?’ ‘Yes’, you answer, ‘He doesn’t like it so he just has to eat it on Sundays when
we have a roast dinner with our Gran’. The doctor feels fairly sure that the rash is an allergy. The
obvious move now is to banish broccoli from his diet (brother is ecstatic) and watch for the rash. Four
weeks later the rash has not re-appeared. The broccoli theory looks good.
Has this ‘proved’ that broccoli was the problem? Well, no, and here is a point
that will be repeated many times in different ways throughout this book. Contrary
to popular ‘common sense’ (and this is not true just for ‘soft’ psychology but for
all sciences, no matter how hard), scientific research does not prove theories true.
Listen to scientific experts being interviewed in the media and you will hear them
use phrases such as ‘all the evidence so far points towards . . .’ or ‘the evidence
is consistent with . . .’, no matter how hard the interviewer pushes for a defini-
tive answer to questions such as ‘Do power lines cause childhood leukaemia?’.
Research supplies evidence which might support or contradict a theory. If your
brother’s rash disappears, then we have support for (not proof of ) the broccoli
allergy theory. We don’t have proof because it could have been the herbs that
Gran always cooks along with the broccoli that were causing the rash. There is
always another possible explanation for findings. However, if the rash remains,
then we have, as we shall see, a more definite result that appears to knock out the
broccoli theory altogether, though again, there is the outside possibility that your
brother is allergic to broccoli and to something else that Gran always includes
in the Sunday meal. By taking out one item at a time though, and leaving all the
others, we could be pretty certain, eventually, what specifically causes the rash.
This is how we test theories.
NE VE R U S E T HE T ER M ‘PR OV E’
So a scientific test never ‘proves’ a theory to be true. If ever you are tempted
to write ‘this proves . . .’ always cross out the word ‘proves’ and use ‘suggests’
instead. The word ‘proof’ belongs in mathematics, where mathematicians really
do prove that one side of an equation equals the other, or in detective stories –
where the victim’s blood on the suspect’s shoes is said to ‘prove’ their guilt.
Of course it doesn’t. There is always a perhaps stretched but possible innocent
explanation of how the blood arrived there. The victim could have previously
borrowed the suspect’s shoes and cut himself shaving. In psychology, as for
detective work, if theories are speculative explanations, then ‘evidence’ can
only ever support or challenge, not ‘prove’ anything. We know that the suspect
committed the crime if we see unambiguous footage of the incident. However,
we do not now talk of ‘evidence’ to support a theory since the suspect’s guilt is
no longer theory – it is fact (but even then it could have been the suspect’s twin
on the footage!). That a gearbox has been silenced with sawdust is but a theory
until we open it up and actually find some – now we have a fact.
KEY TERMS 1.1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Findings
Outcomes of a study
Be careful always to distinguish between ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’.
(e.g. means, results of
statistical tests) before Findings are what actually occurred in a study – what the results were.
any interpretation is Conclusions are what the researcher may conclude as a result of
made of them in terms considering findings in the light of background theory. For instance,
of background theory
the fact that identical twins’ IQs correlate quite highly is a finding.
or expectation (see
Box 1.1). From this finding a researcher might conclude that heredity could
play a big part in the development of intelligence. This is not the
Conclusions
only possible conclusion, however. Since identical twins also share
A summary of what
findings might mean a very similar environment (they even have the same birthday and
in terms of overall sex compared with other pairs of siblings), the finding could also be
theory and/or proposed taken as evidence for the role of the environment in the development
relationships between
of intelligence. Archer (2000) produced a finding that, contrary to
variables (see Box 1.1).
expectation and across several countries, females in partnerships used
physical aggression slightly more than did their male partners. What
we could conclude from this is perhaps that most males, knowing their
own strength, restrain their impulses. However, we do not know this
until we conduct further research. We do know that some males do
not restrain their impulses. In cases of serious injury most perpetrators
are male. Findings should always be clear, unambiguous and subject
to little if any argument. Conclusions, on the other hand, are very
often contentious and disputed. Thinking back, your brother’s lack of
a rash was a finding; the assumption that broccoli caused it was a
conclusion.
T HI NKI NG SCI ENTIFICALLY – WE CAN ALL DO IT

I claimed above that people use the logic of scientific thinking in their every-
day lives. The difference between ordinary and professional scientific thinking
is just a matter of practice and the acquisition of some extra formal concepts
and procedures. The study of psychology itself will tell you that almost all
children begin to seriously question the world, and to test hypotheses about
it, from the age of around 6 or 7. The logic that you will need to cope with
science, and all the concepts of methods and statistics in this book, are in
place by age 11. Everything else is just more and more complicated use of the
same tools. We use these tools every day of our lives. We used the brother’s
rash example above to demonstrate this. As a further ‘normal life’ example
suppose you find that every morning when you go to your car you find the
mirror has been twisted round. You suspect the paper boy. You could of course
get up early and observe him but let’s suppose this is such a quiet spot that
he would just see you and not do it. A simple test would be to cancel the
paper one day. If the mirror is then not twisted you can assume either it is
him or a very remarkable coincidence has occurred and the real culprit also
happened to have a day off. This is very close to the thinking in significance KEY TERM
testing which we will encounter in Chapter 16. In experiments we often have
to choose between one of two possibilities: did the experiment work or was Hypothesis testing
Research that analyses
there just a huge coincidence? Our judgement is based on just how unlikely
data for a predicted
the coincidence would be. effect.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT
Most people fairly frequently use the basic logical principles that underlie all scientific thinking, such
as the logic of hypothesis testing which we will explore in more detail shortly. They are usually quite
capable of generating several basic research designs used in psychology without having received any
formal training. To show that you can do this try the following:
1 Try thinking of ways to test the proposal that ‘Heat makes people aggressive’.
2 With student colleagues, or alone, try to think of ways to gather evidence for this idea. If you do
the exercise alone, try to think of one method, fill in all details, then try to think of a completely
different approach.
3 Some suggestions appear in Table 1.1. (The suggestions that students in workshops produce in
answer to this question usually predict most of the lecture topics in the ‘research designs’ section
of a first-year course in research methods!)
Suggested designs for testing the theory that heat Methods used (which we will learn more about in
makes people more aggressive Chapters 2–7)
Have people solve difficult problems in a hot room then in a Repeated measures experiment; very indirect measure of
cold room; measure their blood pressure. aggression. (Chapter 3)
Have one group of people solve problems in a hot room and a Between groups (independent samples) experiment;
different group solve them in a cool room. Have them tear up aggression assessed from direct observation of behaviour but
cardboard afterwards and assess aggression from observation. coding (see page 155) will be required. (Chapter 3)
Observe amount of horn-hooting by drivers in a city on hot Naturalistic observation. (Chapter 6)
and cold days.
Put people in either a hot or cold room for a while, then Between groups (independent samples) experiment;
interview them using a scale to measure aggression. dependent variable is a measurement by psychological scale.
(Chapter 8)
Approach people on hot and cold days, and administer Between groups quasi-experiment (Chapter 5); aggression is
(if they agree) aggression scale. defined as measured on a psychological scale.
Check public records for the number of crimes involving Use of archival data, a kind of indirect observation.
aggression committed in hot and cold seasons in the (Chapter 6)
same city.
Table 1.1 Possible ways to test the hypothesis that heat makes people more aggressive
KEY TERMS BEYOND COM MON SEN SE – THE FO RMAL

Scientific method
SCI ENT I F I C M ETHOD
General method of The discussion and exercises above were intended to convey the idea that most
investigation using people use the logical thinking that is needed for scientific investigation every
induction and deduction.
day of their lives. Many people believe they are a long way from scientific think-
Empirical method ing but they usually are not. However, it is now time to tackle the other side
Scientific method of of the coin – the belief that psychology (and psychological science) is all just
gathering information ‘common sense’. Allport argued that psychological science should have the aim
and summarising it in
of ‘enhancing – above the levels achieved by common sense – our powers of
the hope of identifying
general patterns. predicting, understanding and controlling human action’ (1940: 23).
If we can predict, then we have observed enough to know that what we are
Hypothetico-deductive observing does not just happen randomly; we have noted a pattern of regularities.
method
For instance we know that broccoli leads to a rash but we may not understand
Method of recording
observations, developing why. Understanding is Allport’s next criterion. The final one, controlling human
explanatory theories and action, may sound authoritarian and worrying, which is ironic when you know
testing predictions from that Allport was, in the same paragraph as the quotation, arguing against author-
those theories. itarianism in psychological science. By ‘control’ he was referring to the fact that
science is usually put to useful purpose. If we can understand and control events,
we can also improve people’s lives. In the case of psychology, some of the bene-
fits to society might be: improving teaching and learning, reducing antisocial and
prejudicial behaviour, operating the most effective and humane forms of man-
agement, alleviating people’s disturbed behaviour, enhancing human sporting
performance, and so on.
SO W H AT I S T HIS SCIENTIFIC METHOD THEN ?

Scientific method, as it is popularly described today, is in fact a merger of two
historical models of science, the empirical method, as espoused by Francis
Bacon in the early seventeenth century, and the splendidly named h ypothetico-
deductive method, which is pretty much the kind of logical testing we encoun
tered above but as applied to exploring the unknown rather than solving
mirror-twisting problems or treating a rash.
T HE EM PI R I CAL METHOD
Having invented a scale for measuring water temperature, investigators at some
time must have noted that water boils at 100° at sea level but that this temperature
point lowers gradually as our height above sea level increases.
‘Empirical’ means ‘through experience’. Through experience investigators
at some time discovered how the boiling point of water varies with altitude. The
original empirical method had two stages:
1 Gathering of data, directly, through experience, through our external senses,

with no preconceptions as to how they are ordered or what explains them. We
would simply record the boiling point at various altitudes.
2 Induction of patterns and relationships within the data. That is, seeing what
relationships appear to exist within our data. This investigation would have
found that the water boiling point is about 100° at sea level but drops as alti-
tude increases, e.g., it is about 93° at 2134 metres up.
A little later, through further data gathering, someone would have observed that
what changes with height above sea level is barometric pressure and this, not
height as such, is what varies directly with the boiling point. The reason for the
emphasis on starting out to investigate phenomena with no preconceptions was
that Bacon, along with later Enlightenment philosophers and scientists, was fight-
ing a battle against explanations of phenomena that rested entirely on mysticism,
on ancient belief or, more importantly, on the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome.
The empiricists argued that knowledge could only be obtained through personal
experience of the world and not through inner contemplation and the acceptance
of ancient wisdom (a sophisticated form of ‘common sense’). From the time of
the early and successful Greek investigations, knowledge in most of the world
had been the preserve of the authorities and could only be gained, it was thought,
through inner contemplation, not through careful observation of worldly events.
In Bacon’s era scientists (e.g., Galileo) could be threatened with death for the
heresy of going against the Church’s word using empirical evidence. Take a look
at Box 1.1 to see why ancient wisdom should not be trusted over simple worldly
observation.
OBS E R VI N G WI T HOU T PR ECONCEPTIO NS

The trouble with Bacon’s ideal of trying to view events in the world without
making any assumptions is that we very rarely can. Whenever, as adults, we come
across new events we wish to explain, it is inevitable that we bring to bear on
the situation ideas we have gathered, perhaps only roughly, incompletely and
unscientifically, through our experience in the world so far, a point made strongly
by schema theory in cognitive psychology. For example, if we lie on the beach
looking at the night sky and see a ‘star’ moving steadily, we know it’s a satellite,
but only because we have a lot of received astronomical knowledge, from our cul-
ture, in our heads, thanks to the work of astronomers through the ages. However,
there are always alternative theories possible. One Ancient Greek explanation of
the night sky, which I am rather partial to, was that it was a great dome-like cover
littered with tiny pinholes that let in the sunlight from outside. Without prior
knowledge, the theory of the pin-pricked cover and the theory that we are looking
at stars and planets are equally acceptable.
INFO BOX 1.1 GO ON, COUNT THOSE TEETH

ARISTOTLE!
According to Russell (1976) Aristotle had drawn the ‘logical’

conclusion that women must have fewer teeth than men do based
on his beliefs that men had more heat and blood than women.
Aristotle did not need to count male and female teeth (in which
case he would have found them equal) nor apparently did he, since
he argued that his conclusions followed logically from his premises Figure 1.1 Just count them,
(Figure 1.1). Aristotle, count them!
We constantly use our knowledge of people in order to explain and predict

what they are doing. We are all prejudiced in the sense that we pre-judge. We
have a limited amount of information, not enough to guarantee that we are right.
In Jerome Bruner’s words, one constantly ‘goes beyond the information given’
(1973: 224) in perceiving and understanding the world. The example above shows
that we can quite differently interpret a scene depending upon the background
information we are provided with. Asked to observe a 3-year-old in a nursery,
students will often report something like: ‘She was nervous. She was insecure’.
This is understandable since we are adult humans who are used to going beyond
the directly available information and assuming a state that usually accompanies
the signs. However, all we can actually observe are the signs. People asked only
to record observable behaviour actually have to be trained to do just this and
avoid making assumptions. We don’t actually see insecurity, we assume it. What
we actually observe are darting eyes, solo play, holding on to adults, and so on.
We superimpose on this what psychologists would call a ‘schema’ – a developed
notion of what insecurity is and what counts as ‘evidence’ for it. We end up with
a construction of what we are seeing rather than limiting ourselves to the mere
available sensory information. We do this constantly and so easily that we are not
usually aware of it happening.
EXERCISE
What do you assume as you read this?

A sudden crash brought me running to the kitchen. The accused was
crouched in front of me, eyes wide and fearful. Her hands were red and
sticky. A knife lay on the floor . . .
continued at the foot of the following page
Francis Bacon’s model advocated that we should simply observe events and
record these as descriptions and measurements. Such pieces of information (e.g.,
lengths, colours, movements) are known as data (the plural of ‘datum’). The idea
was that if we organised and compared enough data about observed events, we
would eventually perceive some regularities. When such regularities are sum-
marised, they become what are known as ‘laws’ through the process of induction,
moving from particular instances to a general rule. These laws are mathematical
KEY TERMS equations that fully describe and predict the behaviour of matter. For instance,
Boyle’s law says that the pressure multiplied by the volume of a gas is always
Data equal to the same value (or P × V = C). Don’t worry! Psychology has not devel-
Relatively uninterpreted
oped anything like this kind of universal mathematical generalisation . . . although
information; gathered
facts.
attempts have been made.
The idea that we should observe behaviour without a background theory
Induction was a position advocated by the radical behaviourist B.F. Skinner who felt (in
Process of moving from
the 1930s) that psychology was too young for grand theories and that the psy-
particular instances to a
generalised pattern.
chological researcher should simply draw up tables of the learning behaviour
of animals under various schedules of reward and punishment. The trouble with
this approach is that it is much more like practical technology than theoretical
science. It tells us, should we ever need to know, just what would be the most
efficient way to train a rat to run around a maze and press a lever. It tells us that if
we reward a rat on average every 20 bar presses we will get a very hard-working
rat. It does not tell us how the rat learns and it certainly tells us little about the
complex psychological processes that motivate humans at work. We also end up
with mountains of data that confirm a ‘law’ of behaviour but we never know if
the law is universal. That is, we don’t know if the law is valid for all situations,
as is the case in physics (well, usually). If we want to test the application of the
rat-learning law, we have to think of ways to extend it. We might consider what
would happen if we rewarded the rat, not for a number of presses, but simply
for the first press made after an interval of 30 seconds. The trouble now with the
pure empirical method is that we are in fact working from a background theory,
otherwise how would we decide what is worth testing? We wouldn’t, for instance,
think it likely that taping a Sudoku puzzle to the ceiling would have much effect
on the rat’s behaviour.
A SKI N G W H Y ? G ENER AT I NG T HEO RIES FOR L AWS

A major problem with the pure empirical method is that humans find it hard to
just record observations. They inevitably ask, ‘why does this occur?’ and in fact
were probably asking that before they started observing. We do not calmly and
neutrally just observe. We question as we watch. We learn that individuals will
give apparently life-threatening electric shocks to someone they think is another
participant and who is screaming out that they have a heart complaint, simply
because a ‘scientist’ orders them to do so (Milgram, 1974). It is impossible to
hear of this without, at the same instant, wanting to know why they would do
this. Could it be because the scientist is seen as an authority? Could it be that
research participants just know that a respectable scientist wouldn’t permit harm
to another experimental volunteer? Were the participants just purely evil? Some
of these ideas are harder to test than others.
T H E O R Y, H Y POT H ESI S, R ESEA R CH Q UESTIO N

A N D P R E D I CT I ON KEY TERMS
Suppose a psychologist sets out to test the idea, mentioned earlier, that heat is Theory
a cause of aggression. This is a theory stated in a very general way. It requires Researcher’s beliefs
evidence to support it and this will come from the derivation of a hypothesis (or about how the world
works, about how or why
several) that we can then test. For instance, if heat is a major cause of aggression,
a particular phenomenon
then we can propose the hypothesis that violent crimes are more numerous in the occurs.
hotter months of the year. We could alternatively pose the research question
Hypothesis
Precise statement of
assumed relationship
COMPLETION OF PREVIOUS EXERCISE between variables.
Research question
so did a jam jar and its contents. The accused was about to lick her tiny The question a researcher
fingers. is trying to answer in an
investigation.
KEY TERM ‘Are there more aggressive acts in hotter months than in colder ones?’. From the
question or the hypothesis we can proceed to formulate a precise research pre-
Research prediction diction for a research investigation. This will refer to the specific context in which
Prediction in precise
the researchers are going to conduct their investigation. Suppose they are going
terms about how variables
should be related in
to count the number of reported physical fights in the playground at Gradgrind
the analysis of data if Upper School (GUS). The research prediction might be: ‘More physical fights
a hypothesis is to be will be recorded in the GUS playground incidents book during the months of
supported. June and July than during the months of December and January’. Notice that this
is now a prediction in measurable terms. We have provided aggression with an
operational definition – a term which will be explained in Chapter 2. For now
just note that we do not say ‘There will be more aggression at Gradgrind during
the summer’ because this is quite imprecise. We state what we will count as a
(limited) measure of aggression.
The operationalised prediction follows from the hypothesis that aggressive
acts are more numerous in warmer months. In order to properly understand sig-
nificance testing (see Chapter 16), it is essential that this difference between a
hypothesis and the specific test of it – the research prediction – be carefully distin-
guished. There is less of a clear divide between hypothesis and theory. A hypoth-
esis is a generalised claim about the world. One might propose, for instance,
that caffeine shortens reaction times in a simple task or that concrete words are
recalled more easily than abstract words. A hypothesis is usually a proposed fact
about the world that follows logically from a broader background theory. How-
ever, it is as equally acceptable to say, ‘my theory is that caffeine shortens reac-
tion time’ as it is to say ‘my hypothesis is that caffeine shortens reaction time’
and many theories in psychology are called hypotheses; for instance, we have the
‘Sapir–Whorf hypothesis’ regarding language and thinking, and the ‘carpentered
world hypothesis’ concerned with depth perception, both of which are quite com-
plicated theories.
If we look back to the problem of your brother’s rash earlier, we see that
the doctor suggested that broccoli was the problem – a hypothesis developed
from a more general theory of allergies. The test of this hypothesis was to lay
off broccoli for a month and the prediction was that the rash would disap-
pear. If it did disappear, the hypothesis was supported. This is true scientific
thinking.
Having introduced theories, hypotheses and research predictions we can
now take a more formal look at the contemporary scientific method as used by
psychologists.
T HE HY POT H ETICO - D EDUCTIVE METHO D –

T EST I NG SCI ENTIFIC THEORIES
Mainstream psychological research tends to lean heavily on what has come to be
known by the rather cumbersome term hypothetico-deductive method, the main
steps of which are outlined in Box 1.2. Note that the first two stages are in fact the
empirical method described above. Basically it means a method in which theories
(general explanations of observed ‘laws’ or regularities) are evaluated by gener-
ating and testing hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements about the world that are
derived from more general theories.
INFO BOX 1.2 THE TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC (HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE)

METHOD
The scientific method Example using short-and long-term memory
Observation, gathering and ordering of data Carry out tests of relatively short-term memory using word
lists of varying lengths.
Induction of generalisations or ‘laws’ (see note below) When people are given a list of 20 words and asked to ‘free
recall them’ (in any order) as soon as the list has been
presented they tend to recall the last four or five words
better than the rest – this is known as the recency effect.
Development of explanatory theories Suggestion that we have a short-term memory store (STS)
of about 30 seconds’ duration and a long-term store (LTS)
and that list items have to be rehearsed in the ST ‘buffer’ if
they are to be transferred to the LTS.
Deduction of hypothesis to test theory (see note below) If it is true that items are rehearsed in the buffer then
people might be emptying that buffer first when asked to
recall a list and therefore producing the recency effect.
Hypothesis: recency effect is caused by early emptying of
the rehearsal buffer.
Test hypothesis. Develop research prediction Have several research participants attempt to free recall a
word list. Prevent them from starting recall for 30 seconds
after presentation of the list by having them perform an
unrelated distraction task.
Results of test provide support for or challenge to theory If the recency effect disappears then the rehearsal buffer
emptying hypothesis is supported and hence, in turn, the
general ST/LT theory. If not then some other explanation of
the recency effect is required.
Note:
induction means to move from the particular to the general; having tested enough people we assume that the recency effect concerns only
the last 4.7 words, say, on average.

deduction is the process of logical argument that leads from premises to conclusion. For instance, if there is a black and a brown pencil in
a box and we take out a black one then there must be a brown one still in the box. This must be true if the premises of the argument are
correct. The ‘premises’ here are the statements in italics.
Having carried out the experiment outlined in Box 1.2, what if the recency KEY TERMS
effect does disappear (it does – see Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966)? Does this prove Deduction
that the recency effect was caused by initial buffer emptying? Well, no. We said Logical argument
earlier that we do not talk about ‘proof’ of a theory in psychology or in any sci- using rules to derive a
ence. Why not? The fact is that there is always some alternative explanation of conclusion from premises.
any finding. What else would explain the loss of the recency effect here? Well Effect
in this specific experiment perhaps the last few words were harder to recall than A difference or
most other words in the list. There are various ways to deal with this and then run correlation between
another experiment. We could make sure all words are equally hard by running samples leading to an
assumed relationship
pre-tests with other participants. Another alternative explanation is that the dis-
between variables in the
traction task is not as unrelated to memorising the word list as was thought. Per- population.
haps it caused forgetting of the words – it was not meant to. Alternatively, perhaps
KEY TERM the loss of recency here was just a fluke outcome, a one-off failure. We could
simply run the original experiment again to check. This is called replication and
Replication we shall discuss this further below.
Repeating a completed
What if the recency effect does not disappear? Does this ‘prove’ the buffer
study.
emptying hypothesis wrong? No again. Possibly people do empty the buffer first
but then are able to rehearse these words while they do the distraction task. In this
case perhaps the distraction task is not distracting enough!
When researchers fail to find an effect2 they look around for reasons why not
and then run another study which deals with the possible reasons for the failure.
Perhaps not enough caffeine was used in an experiment to demonstrate its effects
on memory. Perhaps instructions were not clear enough in a learning task. On
the other hand, when research fulfils predictions, researchers may not sit on their
laurels and bask in the sunshine of success; there will be other researchers trying
to show that the effect does not work or at least that it does notextend very far
beyond the context in which it was demonstrated.
R EPLI CAT I ON
If we run one experiment and get the expected result, it is always possible that
this was a fluke, just a statistical quirk. To check this and to guard against fraud-
ulent claims, which do occur from time to time in any science, scientists try to
replicate important studies. Science is full of unrepeatable one-off events, about
which initially everyone gets very excited. In 2011 the OPERA project run by
nuclear scientists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva and the Gran Sasso labo-
ratory in Italy announced, in a paper presented to the Journal of High Energy
Physics (17 November 2011), that they had observed neutrinos apparently trav-
elling faster than the speed of light. This finding would be contrary to Einstein’s
laws of physics and would open up the possibility of time travel. However, by
February 2012 problems with timing equipment and a not-fully plugged-in opti-
cal fibre cable appeared to be plausible explanations for the anomalous results.
Nevertheless a BBC News article reported that several attempts to replicate the
effects were going ahead around the world3 even though a repeat experiment in
March 2012 failed to show neutrinos exceeding the speed of light and by the end
of March, the head of the experimental project had resigned.
Replication of studies is particularly important in psychology, where claims
are made about the extremely varied and flexible behaviour of humans. Because
people are so complicated and there are so many of them, and so many different
types, we can only make estimates from samples of people’s behaviour. We cannot
test everyone. We have to generalise from small samples to whole p opulations –
see Chapter 2. To be able to be more certain that a demonstrated psychological
effect is in fact a real one, we need several psychological researchers to be able
to replicate results of studies, just as you would expect me to be able to repeat a
stunning snooker shot if you’re to be convinced it wasn’t a fluke.
In order to replicate, researchers require full details of the original study
and it is a strong professional ethic that psychologists communicate their data,
procedures and measures clearly to one another, usually in a report in a scientific
journal. People are considered charlatans in psychology, as elsewhere, if they
claim to demonstrate effects (such as telepathy or exotic forms of psychotherapy)
yet will not publish clearly, or at all, the predictions, the methods and the results
of their research work so that the research community, and the general public,
can check whether outcomes support declared aims. The US psychologist Arthur KEY TERM
Jensen, for instance, was accused of evading scrutiny of his declared findings in
the highly sensitive and controversial area of ‘race’ differences in intelligence, Raw data
Unprocessed data as
because he would not provide the raw data from his work on apparent reaction-
gathered in a study, e.g.,
time differences between members of different ‘racial’ groups (see Kamin, 1977, individual scores.
1981, 1995).
Researchers often replicate their own studies to be sure they have a genuine
effect. However, what gets published is rarely an exact replication but usually a
version of the original with some extension or modification (e.g., different group,
different setting, different materials, etc.). Replication is particularly important
where published findings are controversial or contrary to established effects or
trends. However, there has been recent controversy because prestigious journals
appear to be unwilling to accept reports of replications – see Box 1.3.
This controversy threatens the full publication of scientific knowledge. As
French (2012) puts it,
Although we are always being told that ‘replication is the cornerstone of sci-
ence’, the truth is that the ‘top’ journals are simply not interested in straight
replications – especially failed replications. They only want to report find-
ings that are new and positive.
This is quite a controversy to walk into if you are new to psychology and to
the way in which scientific knowledge expands and theories become accepted.
Although this became a hot potato in 2012 because of the publishing policy of
journals the principle still stands. The only way we can be sure that an apparent
effect is valid is to replicate the procedure.
INFO BOX 1.3 WE JUST DON’T DO REPLICATIONS
In 2011 Daryl Bem published some astonishing findings apparently showing that students (Cornell
undergraduates) could guess future events (exhibit what is known as ‘precognition’) above the level
of statistical chance. Here is a sample of the nine experiments conducted.
Participants were asked to choose between two screens having been told that a picture would
appear behind one of them. They selected and then saw the picture. On some trials the picture
shown was highly erotic. The participants were more successful at predicting the position of the erotic
pictures than neutral ones even though the computer presenting the pictures at random only made
its selection after the participant had made their choice. Hence participants appeared to be affected
in their choice by what was going to happen.
Participants were presented with 48 words and afterwards were unexpectedly asked to recall the
words they had seen. Scores were recorded and then some of the words were randomly selected by
a computer programme and participants asked to perform tasks with them. The task had the effect
of having participants rehearse the words more than all the others. Surprise, surprise when original
scores were revisited participants had recalled the later practised words more successfully than the
others, the implication being that rehearsing some words, after having recalled them, improves the
original recall of those words.
In all the similar experiments there were significant effects and in all cases the implication was
that participants were able to respond appropriately to events before they occurred. Bem, very fairly
and scientifically, gave full details of his studies and asked other researchers to try to replicate them.
Three sceptics – Chris French, Stuart Ritchie and Richard Wiseman – did just that and came up with
no effects.
Now we get to the point of this box. They sent their ‘failure to replicate’ studies to the journal
that originally published Bem’s work – the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This journal
did not even send the articles out for peer review (where submitted articles are sent to experts in
the field for review comments - see Further Information on the Companion Website.) The journal
editor said ‘We do not publish replications’.
The article was then sent to two other journals which similarly rejected it and it was finally sent
out for peer review by the British Journal of Psychology. Unfortunately this top UK journal sent it to two
reviewers, one who commented positively and one who didn’t. The latter turned out to be . . . Daryl Bem!
DI SCONF I R M I N G THEORIES
We have seen that researchers constantly try to challenge findings and to demon-
strate the limitations of an effect. Why are scientific researchers such spoilsports?
Why are they always trying to show that other researchers are wrong? There are
good reasons. Let me explain after this little exercise.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT
I am thinking of a rule that generates valid sets of numbers. For instance, if my rule was ‘descending
odd numbers’, then 9, 7, 3 and 7, 3, 1 would fit but 9, 8, 5 would not. Imagine then that I have
such a rule in my head and that I tell you that the following sets of numbers fit the rule: 2, 4, 6 and
8, 10, 12.
Suppose that I ask you now to generate more sets of numbers and that I will tell you whether
they fit the rule or not. Your task is to do this until you can identify the rule. What would be the next
set of numbers you would try?
Chances are that you selected another set of equally spaced ascending num-
bers such as 14, 16, 18 or 3, 5, 7. Basically, did you think of a set of numbers
that would fit the rule you were thinking of? I ask because really you can’t get
anywhere unless you find a set of numbers that would not fit the rule that you are
considering as a possible answer. If you think they go up in twos, then what’s the
KEY TERM point of asking whether 3, 5 and 7 fit? If they do I’ll say ‘yes’ but you won’t know
Peer review if the rule is ‘goes up in twos’ or perhaps ‘goes up in even amounts’ or just ‘goes
Critical review by up’. If you want to check out a hunch, then try a set that would not fit your hunch.
academics, who are So why not try 1, 3, 7? If that fits then you can certainly reject ‘goes up in twos’
experts in the field, of
and also ‘goes up in even amounts’. You then move on to another test that would
an article submitted for
publication.
lead you to reject another possibility and so on. If we think the new rule might
be ‘goes up’, then we might try 3, 2, 1 and so on. My rule was, in fact, ‘goes up’.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
But Luke still persisted in saying that his work was his life and that it was the
most interesting of all subjects to him. Happily there was a friend of his staying
at Rydal with whom he went long excursions, leaving Rachel to the luxury of
beauty and her happy thoughts. These excursions she felt were the only
things that interested Luke or turned his thoughts away from his parish, with
the exception of the many books he had brought with him making their
luggage over weight. Rachel had sighed as she had caught sight of him trying
to force them into his suitcase; but she knew he would not be happy without
them.
The anniversary of their wedding took place while at the Lakes. Rachel
wondered if the day meant anything special to her husband, and waited some
time before she reminded him of it. They were walking on their way to
Grassmere when she said:
"Luke do you remember what day this is?"
"To-day? No, what?"
"You mean to say you don't remember?" said Rachel incredulously.
Luke looked concerned.
"I have not forgotten anything important in the parish I hope."
"Important! Yes, indeed it is important; but nothing to do with the parish. In fact
you have forgotten the most important day of our life, anyhow, I count it so.
Don't you remember the fifteenth of August last year?"
"I'm afraid I don't. What happened? The School treat?"
"Something much more important than that. It was our wedding day."
Luke laughed.
"Our wedding day! Why I feel as if I had always had you. Is it really only a year
ago? I was afraid at first that I had forgotten some important engagement."
"So you have. It is the most important. It was my first waking thought."
"What creatures you women are, always making so much of anniversaries."
Rachel laughed.
"I am afraid after all you are a thoroughly prosaic man. I thought you were full
of romance and beautiful things when I married you. You must not grow
prosaic or we shall be just like all the other dull couples that we so often
meet."
"How can I think of anniversaries when I have 6,000 souls under my charge."
"You can think of them very well, that is to say if marriage is the sacred thing I
always thought it was. Don't you remember the words in Aurora Leigh?"
"'Beloved, let us work so well

Our work shall be the better for our love,
And still our love be sweeter for our work.'"
"Don't give up loving, Luke."
"Give up loving!" said Luke amazed. "Why, you are all the world to me."
"Then tell me so sometimes," said Rachel. "Wives need to be told. If not they,
the husband and wife I mean, drift into such commonplace, humdrum,
phlegmatic married couples."
Luke laughed. He had not noticed the slight tremor in her voice.
"By-the-bye," he said, "I hope I shall get a letter from West to-morrow about
the estimate of the new gas stove to be put in the chancel."
Rachel, who had been watching the changing shadows on the mountains,
now turned and looked at him. Was he really thinking about gas stoves! Then
she laughed, and he vaguely wondered what she found to amuse her in gas
stoves.
They were silent till they arrived at the end of the Lake.
Then Rachel said, "Just look at those lovely pink clouds and their reflection.
Isn't it perfectly heavenly?"
On getting no answer she looked again at Luke; but the expression of his face
convinced her that the beauty was quite lost upon him; his horizon was still
filled with gas stoves.
Rachel loved the quiet times she had when Luke and his friend went for
excursions. She would sit in the little garden belonging to the house in which
were their rooms, and try with her paint brush to produce the wonderful effects
of cloud and sunshine on the hills opposite to her. She had not touched her
paint brush since her marriage, and she revelled in sketching. While she
sketched, her thoughts were busy with the past and future. She looked back in
her year of married life and was conscious of the change it had wrought in her.
She found it almost difficult to believe that she was the same girl who had
lived such a happy uneventful life in her country home. In those days her time
had been taken up with riding, driving, gardening and tennis. She had had few
thoughts for anything outside her home. She had very little knowledge of the
world and its sorrows; and scarcely any suspicion of its sins and wickedness.
It seemed now to her as if she had been living in a happy dream.
But what she had learned from the little parish work that she had done, and
from the pained expression again and again on her husband's face, was
enough to make her realise something of the strain and stress of life and of its
misery and sin. She would gladly have been without the knowledge that she
had gathered since her marriage, had it not been, that she was able to realise
more what it all meant to Luke, and to sympathise with him. Life seemed a
different thing to her to what it had been at home, and it made her long to be
able to stretch out a helping hand to those who were tasting its bitterness. But
she was willing now to wait till the way was made plain for her to do all that
she longed to do; and till she was more ready for the work.
For she realised now how unfit she had been for the work in her early days of
married life. She had known very little of God, or of the help that came from
above. She had learnt so much from Luke of which she was ignorant before,
of the things which matter. Although he was by no means perfect in her eyes,
and thought too little, she felt, of the things which she ranked of importance,
yet, she knew he was very far above her in spiritual matters. She felt ashamed
of her poor prayers, when she knew he spent hours in his study in communion
with his God. His love of his people was more than she could understand; his
passion for souls and God's work absorbed him almost to the elimination of
everything else. He was more in earnest than any clergyman she had ever
met, and even when on a holiday, he never forgot that he was God's
ambassador and was on the look out to help travellers to the Radiant City. His
faults and weaknesses arose, after all, she said to herself, from mere
forgetfulness and absentness of mind. It was not that he was neglectful of her
or of the little things of life which to her made just all the difference, but he
simply did not see them or what was needed. But oh! He was good—good all
through! And she could not imagine any mean or small ignoble thought
entering his mind. Though she had been disappointed when she found the
anniversary of his wedding day counted as nothing to him, she knew all the
time that next to his God, he loved his wife. It was just because of his love for
her that he thought it so absolutely unnecessary to remind her of it.
How much she owed to Luke she was beginning to realise more than ever.
The very fact of him being so terribly distressed at the meeting of his men the
other night, convinced her, if nothing else had done so, of his love and
adoration for his God and Saviour. That those for whom Christ had suffered
and died had begun to doubt His Word and His Divinity pained him beyond
expression. Luke might forget things which wore of lesser importance, but he
never forgot his God. Gwen might imagine that he was slow to think of the
little duties which would have been appreciated by his wife if they had been
fulfilled, but Rachel knew that it was not laziness, or selfishness that caused
them to be neglected, but simply that his mind was full of greater things and
spiritual needs.
It was in human nature to wish that he did not live quite so much up in the
clouds, as she expressed it, and being of a truthful nature Rachel did not hide
the fact from herself, that to have recognised these duties, and to have done
them, would have made her husband a finer man; but she had come to the
conclusion that he was one who found it difficult to think of more than one
thing at a time, and it was far more important for him to be occupied with
spiritual matters than with temporal.
Indeed she would not have had it otherwise.
Watching the changing shadows on the hills caused by clouds and the sudden
bursts of sunshine, it seemed to her that the view before her was a picture of
her life. Shadow and sunshine, and perhaps she would not have realised the
glory of the latter had it not been for the shadows that sometimes eclipsed it.
And after all, she thought to herself, the sunshine, representing love and
happiness, far outweighed the disappointments of life. She had everything to
make her happy; and a future, the hope of which flooded her soul with joy
whenever she thought of it. And January was not very far off! The
homesickness and the loneliness of which she had often been conscious
would be over then.
Both Luke and his wife were the better for their holiday, and returned home
with fresh vigour for their duties. And though Mrs. Greville shook her head
over the extravagance of going so far away, she could not but agree with
Rachel that her son looked another man.
It was a good thing for Luke that he had been refreshed and had returned
hungry for work; for he found himself in the midst of a fierce battle with the evil
one. Unbelief was spreading, and his congregation gradually diminishing. One
or two of his best workers were leaving the town, and two of the four men who
had left the Church Council on the night of the discussion on the amusement
question, had attached themselves, while he had been away, to a
neighbouring church, where they considered the young people were better
looked after. But Luke's faith had been renewed, and he determined not to
give way to depression or discouragement, knowing that that was the
atmosphere in which the devil did some of his worst work.
So the summer wore away, giving place to autumn and winter, and on January
the first, his little son was born, and they called him Patrick, after his maternal
grandfather.
CHAPTER XIX.
GWEN WRITES TO THE BISHOP.
"I don't know what is to be done about Rachel," said Gwen, as she stood
looking at her sister Sybil weeding in the garden.
"What do you mean?"
"I mean that she won't live long at the rate that she is working."
"Don't be silly, Gwen."

"I am not silly; I am only thinking of what Rachel is doing in that horrible
Trowsby. No girl could do all that she is doing and not pay for it. There is Luke
in the first place who seems to require no end of her attention; then there's the
baby and the house; and now she is doing Mrs. Greville's work."
"Of course it's unfortunate about Mrs. Greville being ill; but there is no reason
why she should not get better. And after all Rachel likes parish work."
"But when she had the time for it they gave her none to do; and now that there
is that troublesome baby who is always needing her, she is called away from
him to do her mother-in-law's work. But you don't care Sybil, I get no
sympathy from you."
"I care very much, but I'm not going to worry over what can't be helped. And
after all it's nobody's fault but Rachel's. She chose to marry Luke and must
abide the consequences."
"I can't imagine what made her do it, when she could have had Archie. He is
worth a dozen Lukes."
"I don't agree with you. Luke is worth more than Archie."
"Archie of course has his weak points, but for all that he is a dear. But if he did
not suit her there was Sir Arthur, who was head over ears in love with her, and
asked her twice to marry him."
"Yes, he was a nice man, and yet she chose Luke. I thought it silly of her at
the time, but I am not sure that I have not changed my mind."
"But why?"
"Because he is such a thoroughly good man. Of course Rachel recognised

this about him. She could trust him; and after all that is what a woman wants
to be sure about before she marries."
"Oh, he is trustworthy I grant; but I don't like him. Rachel ought to have
someone quite out of the common."
"He may be a better parish priest than a husband; but it is not from want of
devotion to his wife; it is from a certain denseness—I don't know what to call
it. You don't understand him Gwen."
"I certainly don't."

"I am not sure however that he ought to have married. He is so wrapped up in
his parish. Or he ought perhaps to have married someone different to Rachel
—a real parish worker. I sometimes wonder if his parish does not stand for
more in his estimation than his wife. But for all that he is good."
"I don't call him good."
"Well you don't understand him, that's all. He would do anything in the world
for anyone who wants his help."
"Except for his wife."
"That is what I say; he is rather dense, and probably doesn't suppose she
needs his help. I remember when I was at Trowsby, he sat up all night with
one of the men of his Bible Class who was dying. No nurse could be got."
"Well of course that was nice of him," said Gwen grudgingly, "but I doubt if he
would think of sitting up for an hour with his own refractory baby to give
Rachel a night's rest."
"I own he is a little blind about those comparatively small matters, but for all
that he is a good man and Rachel knew it, and that was why she loved him
enough to marry him."
"He is so blind that he is killing her with his neglect," said Gwen warmly.
"Mother must not be told, but I shall write to the Bishop."
"Don't be silly Gwen."
"I love her much more than you do. You are evidently satisfied to leave
matters alone without trying to remedy them; and as both father and Uncle
Joe are dead there is no-one whose opinion I should care to take except the
Bishop's."
Sybil rose from her kneeling posture and rubbed the earth off her gloves.
"I wish you would be more sensible," she said, "and see things in their right
proportion. As for me I tell you that I envy Rachel."
"Envy her!"
"Yes, because she follows out our Lord's command so wonderfully. She
denies herself daily, takes up her cross, and follows Him."
"Yes," said Gwen slowly. "She is the one person I know who makes me feel
ashamed of myself."
"And it seems to me," said Sybil, making her way towards the house, "that
instead of commiserating her on her hardships, and pointing out to her, as you
do, her husband's imperfections, we ought to encourage her. She has to live
the life, why should we make it more difficult for her. Why try and rob her of
the 'Well done' that she will hear by-and-bye."
"That may be all true; but it does not mean that we are to stand still and see
her die. I shall certainly write to the Bishop."
The Bishop smiled as he read the letter that lay on his hall table next morning.
He knew Gwen, and had no doubt whatever that in her love for her sister she
had exaggerated matters. He sent her a kind answer reminding her that no life
was perfect. There was almost always some drawback or other.
"All our joy is touched with pain;

So that earth's bliss may be our guide,
And not our chain."
He owned that the trials that Rachel had apparently to meet, if Gwen had
reported their correctly, might not be very good for her bodily health, but they
were the means of strengthening her soul, of helping her to grow in grace,
evidence of which was not wanting. That after all it was worth enduring
hardness, if it resulted in becoming a better soldier of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He ended his letter by expressing the wish that his little friend Gwen knew
what it was to take up her cross and to follow Christ.
But the Bishop did not put the thought of Rachel and her husband away from
him. He determined to run over to Trowsby before long to see if Gwen's report
had the element of truth in it.
The first few months after the baby's birth had been supremely happy for
Rachel. Little Pat had supplied all that she had been conscious of lacking in
her life. Notwithstanding the fact of their increasing poverty, she was able to
fight successfully the anxiety which would have depressed her in earlier days.
She was so engrossed with the thought of her child that other cares were put
into the background. That the balance at the bank grew steadily less she
knew; but it was no use allowing this fact to weigh down her spirits, and when
she now and then had to face it, a glance at the lovely little flushed face lying
on the pillow in the cradle, filled her heart with such rapture that anxiety fled,
leaving her with a smile of happiness on her face.
She was astonished that even his baby son had not the power of engrossing
his father's attention for more than a minute. He would take a look at the child,
lay his finger on his cheek, and smiling at the little laugh that issued from his
lips would turn away and run up to his study. Even the baby fingers had no
power to keep him! How he could resist them Rachel could not imagine. "It is
perfectly shameful the little notice you take of your son," she said one day
laughingly. "It's a happy thing that he has a mother to look after him, poor little
man."
"I thought mothers always looked after them in the crying stage," he
answered. "Just wait and see how I shall fulfil my duties when he is older."
"I doubt it. Did you see the account of the baby sea lion that was born in the
Zoo the other day? The mother undertook its education, teaching it to swim.
The father avoided all responsibility. There are hosts of fathers like that."
"Wait and see," answered Luke. And then the door bell was rung sharply and
Rachel little thought that a new chapter in her life's story was about to begin.
Luke had come in late after a heavy day's work in the parish, and the
conversation just related had taken place at the supper table. He, rose to
open the front door, and Rachel stood listening to a man's voice that she did
not recognize. What she heard made her run into the hall and clasp her hands
round her husband's arm, as if to shield him from the blow she knew the news
would be to him.
"When did it happen?" he was asking in a quiet tone of voice. His very
quietness made Rachel aware of what he was feeling. Under any strain he
was unnaturally still.
"She was took about half an hour ago, Sir," said the man. "And the doctor, he
say it would be as well for you to come round as soon as possible, and Mrs.
Luke too. It's difficult to get a nurse just at once. But he say, that it ain't a really
bad stroke. She can talk a bit, but is quite helpless on one side."
"We'll come at once," said Luke, reaching for his hat which hung on the peg.
"You'll follow directly, won't you?" he added.
Rachel's thoughts flew at once to the baby who was sleeping peacefully
upstairs, but who might wake any moment. She had never left him for more
than a few minutes before. How could she leave him for an indefinite time in
Polly's care! Polly was as good as gold, but had had no experience with
babies. She was devoted to Pat, but her very devotion was likely to take an
unwise form. She would probably give him anything he cried for, whether it
were advisable or no. Rachel's heart sank at the prospect of leaving her little
baby in her care.
"Is it quite necessary that we should both go?" she asked faintly.
Luke, forgetful of his little son, looked at her in surprise, and there was a tone
of reproach in his voice as he said:
"Surely we must not fail my mother at this time. I am quite sure that she would
feel it very unkind if you did not go to her."
"I will follow you," said Rachel.
She ran upstairs and looked at her boy. He was fast asleep in his crib. She
always loved to look at him asleep; her whole heart went out him now as she
leant down over him, giving him into God's keeping. She would have to trust
him to the One Who loved him better than she did, but it was difficult not to be
over anxious.
"Polly," she said, as after putting on her coat and hat, she went into the
kitchen to give parting directions; "if I don't get back in time to give baby his
bottle, be sure that you don't make it too hot, and that he doesn't take it too
quickly. And if he cries, mind you don't give him anything but pat him gently
and sing to him; then perhaps he won't notice that I am not with him."
"I'll be ever so careful of him, Ma'am," said Polly. "He shan't come to no harm
I'll promise you."
And Rachel left the house determined not to give way to her fears.
She found Luke kneeling by the side of his mother's bed smoothing her hand
and talking in a soft comforting tone of voice. His mother was lying with closed
eyes, occasionally murmuring a few words.
"I'm going to try and find a nurse," he said in a low voice, "now that you have
come. The doctor has given me several addresses. They have no-one at
liberty at the Nurses' Home. I shan't be long."
Left alone Rachel took his place by the bedside, and for many minutes she
knelt in silence. Then Mrs. Greville opened her eyes. When she saw who was
with her an added look of anxiety crossed her face.
"Baby?" she murmured.
Rachel smiled reassuringly at her.
"I've left him with Polly," she said. "Don't be anxious about him. Polly is very
fond of him and will take good care of him."
Mrs. Greville closed her eyes again. But though Rachel had spoken so
reassuringly to her mother-in-law, she had hard work not to let her mind dwell
on the occupant of the crib in the nursery at home.
She was touched at Mrs. Greville's anxiety for her boy, and that even in this
first hour of her illness she was thinking of him rather than of herself. That she
loved her grandson had been evident to Rachel from the very first. She was in
fact wrapped up in the child; and was in consequence creeping into a warm
place in her daughter-in-law's heart, the daughter-in-law who had never yet
been able to frame her lips to call her "mother." Mrs. Greville had noticed the
omission but had said nothing about it either to Luke or to his wife. It hurt her
too much to mention it. But as Rachel knelt by her bedside holding her hand
Mrs. Greville recognised the fact that the girl, who she had at times rather
despised, had a strength in her, after all, that, made her glad to have her at
this sad time, and when Luke returned with a nurse, he found her peacefully
sleeping.
Rachel was thankful to be able to slip out of the house, and ran all the way
home. After all, her fears had been unnecessary. Pat had had his bottle and
was asleep again with Polly sitting by his side.
CHAPTER XX.
NO LADY HEAD OF THE PARISH.
And now began a very strenuous life for Rachel.
Mrs. Greville had been as good as a curate to Luke; and she was now laid
aside unable to do any work at all. She lay thinking and worrying over the fact
that she was no longer any good to her son. The worry did not help her to
recover from her illness. In fact the doctor told Rachel that so long as her
husband's mother allowed herself to be consumed with anxiety she could not
hope to get strong. Was there no-one, he asked, who could help in the
matter? Surely there were some ladies in the parish who could divide the work
between them?
Rachel knew that no more workers were to be had. In fact several had given
up their districts. They so entirely disagreed with the Vicar in his determination
not to allow the parish hall to be used for whist drives and dancing, that they
felt out of sympathy with him, and had left the Church.
Those who remained were already too full of work to undertake anything
further.
Luke came home from seeing his mother one day, in the depths of despair.
"She is worrying herself to death," he said, "over the Mother's Meeting and the
Sunday School." Then he looked across at his wife, who was playing "Dickory,
dickory dock!" with the baby. Her face had been full of love and happiness, but
at his words the smile faded. She knew what was coming.
"I suppose," he said, then he hesitated.
"Well?" asked Rachel.
"I suppose you couldn't manage to take my mother's place?"
"To superintend the Sunday School and the Mother's Meeting?"
"Yes. It would lift such a burden off her heart. You see she is one of those
people who worry unnecessarily, and I can't tell you what a relief it would be to
me to be able to tell her that her place has been supplied."
"I don't quite see how I can, with baby," said Rachel.
"But there is Polly. She likes looking after him."
"Dickory, dickory, dock," sang Rachel again, "the mouse ran up the clock." But
while playing she was not only thinking of the anxiety which would be hers if
she had to leave baby constantly under Polly's care; but she was wondering if
her own health would stand it. She must keep well for Luke's sake as well as
for baby's, and lately she had felt sometimes at the end of her tether. She had
already undertaken a district of her own and various other duties, and what
with the cooking and the house, not to mention all the work that little Pat
entailed, she had felt that if she did not soon have a rest she would break
down altogether. Yet here was Luke, looking at her with his anxious pleading
eyes; and she had never failed him yet, how could she fail him now?
"Dickory, dickory, dock," sang Rachel as she ran her fingers up Pat's little arm:
"The mouse ran up the clock,

The clock struck one,
Down the mouse ran,
Dickory, dickory, dock."
Baby crowed with merriment, and Rachel looked up gravely at her husband.
"I'll see what I can do," she said quietly.
Luke's face beamed.
"Thank you dearest," he said. "I'll go round at once and relieve mother's
mind."
Rachel sighed as she heard the front door close after him.
She looked down gravely at the child in her arms.
"I wonder if I have done right," she thought. "Anyhow my little baby I won't
neglect you for any number of Mothers' Meetings or Sunday Schools. You and
Daddie must come first."
Then she sang again—

"The mouse ran up the clock,
The clock struck one,
Down the mouse ran,
Dickory, dickory, dock."
"Ah! Me! The life of a clergyman's wife is difficult," she sighed.
And besides all the work and care, poverty stared her in the face. She could
not help fancying that Luke's great coat was turning green; and that he was
growing thin, notwithstanding all her efforts to provide him with nourishing
food. That he was unconscious of it himself she felt sure.
He was quite unconscious also of the necessity of not giving away money
unnecessarily. Generous by nature, people had soon found it out, and he
could not resist giving when asked. Now that his mother was no longer able to
give him advice in the matter, and to restrain the impulse which was so strong
in him, and which was a beautiful trait in his character so long as he did not
allow it to interfere with his duties as a husband and father, he had been freer
than usual with his money. He had no idea that such was their poverty that
Rachel who now had taken upon herself to keep the accounts, and to pay the
bills, went without nourishing food, in order that there might be enough for him
and his little son.
He never noticed that when he had meat for his dinner Rachel ate bread and
cheese, and that the various dishes that she invented to help to give him a
good appetite she did not share with him. Now and then she laughed to
herself to see how extraordinarily oblivious he was as to what was going on
around him. She was thankful that he never noticed that she looked tired, and
was growing thin. It would only have added to his anxiety. But she hoped she
would not break down, for his sake and the baby's.
And now this fresh work had come upon her. It was not even as if she had
been trained up to it. If only they had let her begin when she was stronger, it
would have been easier.
A few days after she had given the promise to Luke, Mrs. Stone called. Rachel
had rather begun to dread her calls, for though she was always loyal to Luke,
and had more than once proved herself to be a good friend, if there was any
complaint to be made by the parishioners, Mrs. Stone was always the one to
be asked to make it known to the Vicar and his wife. People knew that she
was on intimate terms with them, and felt that she was the best person to
plead their cause. By now Rachel had become conscious of this, and as Mrs.
Stone sat down and began to enquire about Mrs. Greville and to ask after the
baby, Luke's wife felt confident from the rather uneasy expression of her face,
that the real cause of her call was yet to be made known.
It was not long before she learnt what it was. "I want to know," said Mrs. Stone
as she rose to go, "if it would be possible for you to come more regularly to
the working party?"
"I am almost afraid I really can't manage that," said Rachel. "I have about as
much as I can do."
"Well you won't mind me having asked you, I know," said Mrs. Stone. "I
thought it was only kind to let you know that people are complaining a little."
"Complaining of what?" said Rachel rather sharply.
"I don't like to hurt you. But they say that now Mrs. Greville is laid aside there
seems no lady head of the parish. I think that it would do a lot of good if you
could just manage that monthly engagement. Even if you only came for an
hour."
"I wonder how many of those people realise what it is to have an incompetent
servant and a baby to look after," said Rachel. She felt indignant. "I was not
engaged to act the part of a curate. When I married I promised to love,
cherish, and obey my husband. I didn't promise to do all the parish work that
other women ought to be doing."
Mrs. Stone had never seen Rachel anything but calm and bright: and was
much distressed at the result of her advice.
"My dear, I am so sorry to have pained you," she said. "Of course we ought
not to expect the impossible from you."
Rachel, overwrought and very remorseful, burst into tears.
"I ought not to have said that. I'm so sorry," she sobbed. "Only just now I feel
as if I couldn't do a thing more. Please forget it. The fact is," she added, "I
have to say a dozen times a day, 'Lord I am oppressed. Undertake for me.'
But it was very very wrong of me. I will certainly come if I possibly can. Of
course for Luke's sake I ought not let it be said that there is no head of the
parish, and I really love that kind of work."
Mrs. Stone went home flushed and distressed. She saw that Rachel was just
on the verge of a breakdown, and blamed herself for not doing more to take
the heavy burden of the parish off her shoulders.
CHAPTER XXI.
THE BISHOP LOOKS INTO THE KITCHEN.
Mrs. Greville's illness not only gave Rachel more work to do in the parish, but
took up a certain amount of her time in visiting her and seeing that she was
well looked after. And her mother-in-law, being such an active woman was not
an easy patient to do with. Her incapacity to help her son was trying in the
extreme to her, and she was one of those people who look on illness as a
humiliation. The atmosphere of the sick room was not a happy one.
Moreover, Rachel found that visiting her meant various little extra duties to
perform, as there was someone or other always on Mrs. Greville's mind.
Would Rachel give Mrs. Jones a look as her heart was constantly giving her
trouble; and Mrs. Jacob was probably in great need of a grocery ticket. She
would like to know also if Mrs. Grayston's baby had arrived, and how she was.
And by-the-bye, she had promised to lend a book the day before she was
taken ill to that poor crippled man in Rainer Street. Then two or three women
ought to be looked up who had not lately been to the mothers' meeting. And
though Miss Sweet had not told her, she felt sure that her young man was
going to spend the week end with them soon, and that in all probability she
would not be likely to take her class at the school that Sunday. Someone
ought to be found to take her place.
What all these commissions meant to Rachel can be imagined; but she knew
that if her mother-in-law had the faintest idea of how tired she felt and how
terribly full her days were she not have asked her to do this extra work.
Curiously enough, Mrs. Greville, after that time of anxiety about Rachel
leaving the baby alone, had scarcely mentioned Pat; indeed Rachel wondered
at times if she had forgotten him. Anyhow, she had quite forgotten how difficult
it was to leave him so often with Polly, who indeed had other work to do.
What tried Rachel more than anything was that when her mother-in-law was
getting better, she suddenly relapsed into her old habit of thinking her
incapable. She would say "No, you had better not go and see Mrs. Guy. She
is a woman that needs careful handling. You'd probably offend her, ask Mrs.
Stone." Or when Rachel had taken pains to make some appetising little dish
for her, denying herself perhaps an egg for breakfast so as to be able to spare
one for her mother-in-law, Mrs. Greville would worry at her extravagance,
reminding her that she was the wife of a poor parson, and that if she were not
more careful she would land him in debt. Rachel put all these uncomfortable
moods down to illness, but it did not make her life easier.
One day after a specially trying time, she hurried home to find to her surprise
the Bishop sitting in the drawing-room.
The sight of his dear familiar face was almost too much for her. She clung to
his hand without speaking.
In a moment he saw that Rachel was overdone.
"Come and sit down my dear child," he said. His tone of voice was so full of
kindness and sympathy that Rachel nearly gave way to tears.
"You have come just at the wrong time," she said, with a faint laugh in which
the Bishop detected the tears that were not shed. "I am so tired that I can't feel
as glad as I know that I am to see you."
The Bishop looking at the girl, was shocked at the change in her. That she
was not only tired, but seriously ill, he saw at a glance.
"You have been working too hard," he said quietly. "What have you been
doing?"
"Oh don't let's talk of it. I want to forget it all now you have come. You will stay
to lunch of course, but I can only offer you pot luck."
"No, I can't stay to lunch," he said rising, "but I am going to tell that nice little
maid of yours to bring you some beef tea or milk. You need it."
"Beef tea!" exclaimed Rachel laughing. "Why, only invalids can go in for such
luxuries and I certainly am not one."
"I am not quite so sure of that. Anyhow you need something at this moment
and you must let me go and see what there is to have, while you sit still."
"Oh you mustn't pity me," cried Rachel. "I can go on quite well if no-one
notices me; but sympathy just weakens me. You really mustn't be too kind."
Rachel had risen looking distressed. Then she dropped into her chair again
and covered her face with her hands. "I wish you hadn't come," she sobbed.
"No, you don't. You are very pleased to see your father's greatest friend. You
mustn't talk nonsense," said the Bishop with a smile. "Don't you suppose I
understand? You needn't mind me finding this out. You must let me try and
help you, and get you something. Polly will help me."
THE BISHOP STOOD IN THE TINY KITCHEN
FACING THE DIMINUTIVE POLLY.
Rachel sat still while the Bishop made his way into the kitchen. She was so
played out that she had not even the energy to wonder what he would find
there. She just lay still with a restful sense of being looked after.
The Bishop stood in the tiny kitchen facing the diminutive Polly.
"Your mistress isn't feeling well," he said, "and I want to know what there is in
the house that she would fancy. She must have something. Have you any
soup or bovril?"
Polly overwhelmed with the importance of the occasion turned red. That she
had never seen bovril or knew what it was the Bishop discovered before she
had answered, "That there ain't no such stuff anywheres in the house, Sir. We
don't eat bovril and there ain't no soup," she added.
The Bishop smiled.
"Well, what are you going to have for dinner?" he asked.
"Master, he is to have a chop," said Polly, "and Mistress she say she'll have
some bread and cheese to-day."
"And what are you going to have?"
Polly flushed crimson and hung her head.
"Mistress, she say that I'm to have the leg of the chicken that Mrs. Stone
brought us two days ago. There's just one leg left and the Mistress won't take
it herself. It ain't right that I should be eating chicken while she eats cheese."
The Bishop loved little Polly on the spot. He was thankful that there was
anyhow one person in the house who thought of Rachel. What had Greville
been about to let his wife get into such a weak state.
"You may enjoy the leg of the chicken with a clear conscience, my girl," said
the Bishop, "for I feel sure your Mistress would not be able to eat it to-day.
There's milk I suppose?"
"Yes Sir, there's baby's milk," said Polly doubtfully, "but I don't think Mistress
would like me to touch that. She's very particular about his milk."
"Well I want you to run round to the grocer's and buy for me a bottle of bovril.
Run as fast as you can and I'll tell you how to make it. Where is the Baby?"
Polly put her finger up and listened.
"I do believe he's just awake," she said. "I'll bring him down if you'd be so kind
as to look after him while I go to the Grocer's."
The Bishop carried the baby into the drawing-room and laid him on Rachel's
lap.
"That will do you good," he said smiling at her.
The sight of her baby in the Bishop's arms brought the happy colour into
Rachel's face.

Full Chapter Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 7Th Ed 7Th Edition Hugh Coolican PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Chapter Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 7Th Ed 7Th Edition Hugh Coolican PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 7Th Ed 7Th Edition Hugh Coolican PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Methods and Statistics in

Psychology 7th Ed 7th Edition Hugh

Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 8th

Cognitive Psychology, 7th Ed 7th Edition Robert J.

Abnormal Child Psychology, 7th Ed 7th Edition Eric J.

Statistics Without Maths for Psychology 7th Edition

Macroeconomics Solution Manual 7th ed 7th Edition

Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology, 4th ed

The Complete Book of Locks and Locksmithing 7th ed 7th

Practical Business Statistics 7th Edition Andrew Siegel

The seventh edition of Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology provides

• additional coverage of factor analysis and online and modern research

Hugh Coolican is a recently retired Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the

Part 1 Research methods and ethics 1

Part 2 Analysing data and writing reports 323

21 Factor analysis 605

• Psychological researchers generally follow a scientific approach, developed

WHY P S YCH OLOG Y A ND SCI ENCE?

I SN’T A LOT OF PSYCHO LO GY JUST

textisms. A lot of psychological studies do in fact tend to corroborate what we

WHY CAN ’ T WE T R U ST I NT U I T I ON?

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

SCI ENCE – NOT A SUBJECT BUT A

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

KEY TERMS 1.1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

T HI NKI NG SCI ENTIFICALLY – WE CAN ALL DO IT

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

KEY TERMS BEYOND COM MON SEN SE – THE FO RMAL

SO W H AT I S T HIS SCIENTIFIC METHOD THEN ?

1 Gathering of data, directly, through experience, through our external senses,

OBS E R VI N G WI T HOU T PR ECONCEPTIO NS

INFO BOX 1.1 GO ON, COUNT THOSE TEETH

According to Russell (1976) Aristotle had drawn the ‘logical’

We constantly use our knowledge of people in order to explain and predict

What do you assume as you read this?

A SKI N G W H Y ? G ENER AT I NG T HEO RIES FOR L AWS

T H E O R Y, H Y POT H ESI S, R ESEA R CH Q UESTIO N

T HE HY POT H ETICO - ­D EDUCTIVE METHO D –

INFO BOX 1.2 THE TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC (HYPOTHETICO-­DEDUCTIVE)

The scientific method Example using short-­and long-­term memory

the last 4.7 words, say, on average.

INFO BOX 1.3 WE JUST DON’T DO REPLICATIONS

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

"Luke do you remember what day this is?"

"To-day? No, what?"

"You mean to say you don't remember?" said Rachel incredulously.

Luke looked concerned.

"I have not forgotten anything important in the parish I hope."

"I'm afraid I don't. What happened? The School treat?"

"What creatures you women are, always making so much of anniversaries."

"'Beloved, let us work so well

"Don't give up loving, Luke."

Indeed she would not have had it otherwise.

"What do you mean?"

"Don't be silly, Gwen."

"Because he is such a thoroughly good man. Of course Rachel recognised

"I certainly don't."

"I don't call him good."

Part 1 Research methods and ethics 1

Part 2 Analysing data and writing reports 323

21 Factor analysis 605

T HE HY POT H ETICO - D EDUCTIVE METHO D –

INFO BOX 1.2 THE TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC (HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE)

The scientific method Example using short-and long-term memory