{"id":25,"date":"2024-08-16T14:14:05","date_gmt":"2024-08-16T14:14:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/researchmethods\/?post_type=content&p=25"},"modified":"2024-08-21T14:08:01","modified_gmt":"2024-08-21T14:08:01","slug":"chapter-1-psychology-science-and-research","status":"publish","type":"content","link":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/researchmethods\/student-resources\/chapter-1-psychology-science-and-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 1 – Psychology, science and research"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\tHome\n<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Chapter 1 – Psychology, science and research<\/h1>\n\n\n

This introduction sets the scene for research in psychology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Exercises<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Exercise 1.1<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"Figure
Figure 1<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Some people say instantly \u2018Oh it\u2019s a picture of a man \u2013 so what?\u2019. Many others (including me when I first encountered it) take a very long time to see a specific \u2018thing\u2019 in it. If you concentrate on the centre of the picture you should eventually see the top half of a man. If you imagine a beret right on top of the picture in the centre this would be correctly positioned on the man\u2019s forehead and he would look a lot like Che Guevara. Many people have seen the picture as one of Christ with a long flowing beard. It could also be a cavalier. His face is lit as if from the right hand side and so there is a lot of shadow. If you have problems with it try looking at it with friends. Someone will spot it and help you to see the whole figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t have precise detail on where it originated. It was published in a UK newspaper as a \u2018sighting of Christ\u2019 and was reported to be snow on a mountainside. However a student I was teaching once told me it was taken by her grandfather in Japan and was snow on a hedge. I have no independent evidence to support this. The most certain thing is that it is indeed snow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main point of the demonstration though is this. When the man finally pops out at you, you will never again be able to see the picture as just a load of black and white blobs. You will have constructed and maintained a \u2018template\u2019 \u2013 a best bet as to what the picture is of \u2013 and this will remain as an automatic reaction in your perceptual system. Most of the time, in science and in everyday life, when we approach visual (and other sensory) material, we have a \u2018best bet\u2019 all ready and we are not aware of the perceptual system\u2019s operation of \u2018calculating\u2019 what sensory data represent in the world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Exercise 1.2<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n

Disconfirming theories \u2013 a \u2018lateral thinking\u2019 problem<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Chapter 1 of the book discuss the attempt to disconfirm theories as a powerful aspect of scientific reasoning. One of the best \u2018awkward\u2019 problems I have come across is shown below. Read the problem and have a think before revealing the answer below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three philosophy professors (A, B and C) are applying for a prestigious chair of philosophy post. There is little to choose between them so the interview panel sets a logical reasoning task. The questioner gives the following instruction: \u2018I am going to draw either a blue or a white spot on each of your foreheads. I will then reveal the spots to you all simultaneously. If you see a blue spot on another person\u2019s head put your hand up. As soon as you think you can say what colour spot you have on your own forehead please speak up with your answer\u2019. He proceeds to draw a blue spot on each forehead. When the spots are all revealed to the candidates each one, of course, puts up a hand. After a brief moment\u2019s hesitation professor A lowers her arm and says \u2018I must have a blue spot\u2019. How did she work this out?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problems like this one are sometimes included in the general group of \u2018lateral thinking\u2019 problems. However, you do not have to think \u2018laterally\u2019 or particularly creatively to get the answer. You do, however, have to kind of think upside down. Before rushing on to get the answer do try to think about how the professor knew what wasn\u2019t true rather than how she knew what was true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Show answer<\/summary>\n

The answer is that she conducted a theory disconfirmation task. She thought \u2018What if I had a white spot? If I did then B would quickly see that C could only have their arm up because B must have a blue spot, since my own spot, which each of them can see, would be white. But neither of them did respond quickly (remember all three are excellent at logical thinking) therefore I must have a blue spot.\u2019 Professor A got the job!<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Exercise 1.3a and 1.3b<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n

Trusting intuition (the rationale for these exercises appears at the end)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1.3a<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Imagine I have a piece of ordinary paper and that I fold it once, then again and then once more. You\u2019ll agree I hope that the paper is now a little bit thicker. After this it will become difficult to fold but just imagine, if it were physically possible, that I folded it 50 times more. About how thick do you think it would become? Would it be as thick as a shoe-box? Would the paper reach as high as the wall you\u2019re in now? Would it reach to the top of a house? Have a very rough guess as to how far upwards the paper would reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Show answer<\/summary>\n

The folded paper would reach 150 million miles which is to the Sun and half way back again! Blue Peter (on BBC children\u2019s TV) once partly demonstrated this by simply adding double the number of sheets each time to a pile of A4 paper, first one, then two, then four, then eight and so on.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

1.3b<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Imagine that the surface of the Earth is perfectly smooth (no mountains or valleys etc.) and that I have put a rope around it at the equator. Now imagine I want to raise the rope so that it is just 1 metre above the surface all round. About how much more rope do you think I\u2019d need?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Show answer<\/summary>\n

I would need just 6.3 extra metres. For those not put off by maths here is the proof: The circumference of any globe\u2019s equator is the same as that of a circle which is PxD metres (pi times the diameter and pi = 3.14…). The new diameter when the rope is raised 1 metre off the surface D + 2 metres. The new circumference will be: P x (D+2) = PD + 2P New circumference \u2013 old circumference = (PD + 2P) – PD = 2P<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

Show answer<\/summary>\n

So for any globe at all (golf ball, football, planet) you would only ever need just 6.3 extra metres of rope (string perhaps for gold balls at least!) to raise it one metre off the surface.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Rationale for exercise 1.3<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m hoping that for 1.3a you very much underestimated the height of the paper and for 1.3b you grossly overestimated how much rope would be needed. If you didn\u2019t then good on you! The point of the exercise is to emphasise that fact that we can never rely solely on \u2018intuition\u2019. Often when people say they got an answer \u2018through intuition\u2019 what they actually mean is that they got it without any conscious deliberation. Nevertheless usually they got their answer through the usual logic but the process was so quick and immediate that they weren\u2019t aware of any significant mental processing. If they mean that the answer just came to them through no process at all then they were just guessing. When we just guess we are influenced by many factors and certainly cannot claim to have \u2018the truth\u2019 form nowhere. If this were possible than scientists, mathematicians and engineers could just pack up, go home and leave intuitionists to solve all problems. The world just isn\u2019t like that. The point of the exercise was to make you wary of intuition and to recognise that such unfamiliar problems need always to be approached using well worn first principles, not mystical guesswork.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Weblinks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Psychology, science and research weblinks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n

This is the British Psychological Society\u2019s code of ethics and conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/explore.bps.org.uk\/content\/report-guideline\/bpsrep.2021.inf94<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

British Psychological Society main site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.bps.org.uk<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Psychological Association main site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.apa.org\/<\/a> An easy to read online resource for all research methods and some statistics. https:\/\/www.socialresearchmethods.net\/kb\/contents.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Further Reading<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Precognition studies and the curse of the failed replications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The following is an article from The Guardian<\/em> in which Chris French discusses the system of peer review<\/strong> that allowed a prestigious journal to refuse to publish a failed replication <\/strong>of some otherwise astonishing pre-cognition (predicting the future) studies. 
www.theguardian.com\/science\/2012\/mar\/15\/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris French is a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, and heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit. He edits The Skeptic<\/em> magazine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some notes on peer review<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapter 1 mentions the fact that , in the interests of scientific integrity, psychological research articles (as with all other sciences) are usually submitted to a peer review process<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over recent years several problems with this process have been raised, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n