Chapter 26 – Planning your practical and writing up your report

Far too long-winded and could be stripped nicely down to: ‘The experimental effect of caffeine on recall memory’.

What kind of experiment (independent samples, repeated measures, quasi- etc.)? It’s true that we might be told later what kinds of drink were used but why not just explicitly state the levels of the independent variable straight away?

Hardly likely that they were selected truly at random. Probably ‘haphazardly’. Explain exactly how participants were selected.

Never list materials, use normal prose description.

Which results? In the simplest studies there are always several ways in which the data could be tested. We could, for instance test the difference between standard deviations rather than means. Usually though the reader needs to know explicitly which means were tested – there are usually more than just two, and anyway ‘results’ is just vague.

No page number for the quotation.

We never use ‘prove’ in psychology, or in most practical sciences for that matter. Findings usually support a hypothesis or theory, or they challenge it.

Higher than what, whom? Might mean ‘higher than in the first condition’ or ‘higher than the control group’ etc. ALWAYS complete a comparative phrase in anything you write. E.g.: ‘Extroverts are more outgoing than introverts’; ‘Individuals who were intrinsically motivated showed deeper engagement and greater persistence than those who were extrinsically motivated’.

It is findings or conclusions from results that have validity not whole studies. b. Faults in the design, materials, procedure or statistical processes are threats to validity. Findings usually have a certain degree of validity; it is not an all-or-none concept. More threats tend to lower validity. c. Why should the use of a laboratory lower validity? Don’t assume your reader will agree with you automatically. You have to justify all criticisms that you make.

What kind of research exactly? That more is needed is always true. Try to specify the research most immediately needed by following up on your critical points and answer them by suggesting appropriate relevant research.

Why? There may well have been plenty of participants to support statistical significance. This has to do with power so if you must make this point try to show how much more power would have been involved with a greater number of participants. In a well designed and controlled experiment though, 20 or 30 participants per condition is usually ample so be careful with this one.

Why? You must justify. Is there any reason to believe that males and females perform differently on this task? If not don’t use this kneejerk criticism.

Another kneejerk criticism but this one has deeper problems the first being that the writer is assuming that all participants came from one culture – if that is possible. Unless you are living in a highly isolated part of the world, ‘one culture’ of origin is quite unlikely (e.g. British is not one culture but many). Besides this, and assuming there is a dominant culture involved, why should culture make any difference? This must be explained and the claim therefore justified.