1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Browse Content (/browse-content) / Thinking like a Psychological Scientist

Thinking like a
SECTIONS

Abstract

Psychological Scientist Learning Objectives

Introduction

By Erin I. Smith (/authors/erin-smith) Scientific Versus Everyday Rea…

California Baptist University
Test Yourself 1: Can It Be Falsified?

We are bombarded every day with claims about how the The Interpretation of Research…

world works, claims that have a direct impact on how we think Test Yourself 2: Inductive or Ded…

about and solve problems in society and our personal lives. Why Should I Trust Science If It…

This module explores important considerations for evaluating Scientific Theories

the trustworthiness of such claims by contrasting between Is Science Objective?

scientific thinking and everyday observations (also known as Science in Context

“anecdotal evidence”).

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 1/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Tags: Facts, Falsifiable, Hypothesis, Inductive reasoning, Levels of analysis, Answer - Test Yourself 1: Can It B…
Null hypothesis significance testing, Theory, Type I error, Type II error, Values
Answer - Test Yourself 2: Inducti…

Outside Resources
Learning Objectives
Discussion Questions

Compare and contrast conclusions based on scientific and everyday inductive Vocabulary
reasoning.
References
Understand why scientific conclusions and theories are trustworthy, even if they are not
able to be proven. Authors

Articulate what it means to think like a psychological scientist, considering qualities of Creative Commons License

good scientific explanations and theories.

Discuss science as a social activity, comparing and contrasting facts and values.

Introduction

Why are some people so much happier than others? Is it harmful for children to have
imaginary companions? How might students study more effectively?

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 2/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Even if you’ve never considered these

questions before, you probably have
some guesses about their answers. Maybe
you think getting rich or falling in love
leads to happiness. Perhaps you view
imaginary friends as expressions of a
dangerous lack of realism. What’s more, if
you were to ask your friends, they would
probably also have opinions about these
questions—opinions that may even differ
from your own.

A quick internet search would yield even

more answers. We live in the “Information
Today, people are overwhelmed with information
Age,” with people having access to more
although it varies in quality. [Image: Mark Smiciklas,
explanations and answers than at any
https://goo.gl/TnZCoH, CC BY-NC 2.0,
other time in history. But, although the
https://goo.gl/AGYuo9]
quantity of information is continually
increasing, it’s always good practice to
consider the quality of what you read or watch: Not all information is equally trustworthy. The
trustworthiness of information is especially important in an era when “fake news,” urban
myths, misleading “click-bait,” and conspiracy theories compete for our attention alongside

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 3/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

well-informed conclusions grounded in evidence. Determining what information is well-

informed is a crucial concern and a central task of science. Science is a way of using
observable data to help explain and understand the world around us in a trustworthy way.

In this module, you will learn about scientific thinking. You will come to understand how
scientific research informs our knowledge and helps us create theories. You will also come to
appreciate how scientific reasoning is different from the types of reasoning people often use
to form personal opinions.

Scientific Versus Everyday Reasoning

Each day, people offer statements as if they are facts, such as, “It looks like rain today,” or,
“Dogs are very loyal.” These conclusions represent hypotheses about the world: best guesses
as to how the world works. Scientists also draw conclusions, claiming things like, “There is an
80% chance of rain today,” or, “Dogs tend to protect their human companions.” You’ll notice
that the two examples of scientific claims use less certain language and are more likely to be
associated with probabilities. Understanding the similarities and differences between
scientific and everyday (non-scientific) statements is essential to our ability to accurately
evaluate the trustworthiness of various claims.

Scientific and everyday reasoning both employ induction: drawing general conclusions from
specific observations. For example, a person’s opinion that cramming for a test increases
performance may be based on her memory of passing an exam after pulling an all-night

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 4/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

study session. Similarly, a researcher’s conclusion against cramming might be based on

studies comparing the test performances of people who studied the material in different
ways (e.g., cramming versus study sessions spaced out over time). In these scenarios, both
scientific and everyday conclusions are drawn from a limited sample of potential
observations.

The process of induction, alone, does not seem suitable enough to provide trustworthy
information—given the contradictory results. What should a student who wants to perform
well on exams do? One source of information encourages her to cram, while another
suggests that spacing out her studying time is the best strategy. To make the best decision
with the information at hand, we need to appreciate the differences between personal
opinions and scientific statements, which requires an understanding of science and the
nature of scientific reasoning.

There are generally agreed-upon features that distinguish scientific thinking—and the
theories and data generated by it—from everyday thinking. A short list of some of the
commonly cited features of scientific theories and data is shown in Table 1.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 5/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Table 1. Features of good scientific theories (Kuhn, 2011)

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 6/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

One additional feature of modern science not included in this list but prevalent in scientists’
thinking and theorizing is falsifiability, a feature that has so permeated scientific practice that
it warrants additional clarification. In the early 20th century, Karl Popper (1902-1994)
suggested that science can be distinguished from pseudoscience (or just everyday reasoning)
because scientific claims are capable of being falsified. That is, a claim can be conceivably
demonstrated to be untrue. For example, a person might claim that “all people are right
handed.” This claim can be tested and—ultimately—thrown out because it can be shown to
be false: There are people who are left-handed. An easy rule of thumb is to not get confused
by the term “falsifiable” but to understand that—more or less—it means testable.

On the other hand, some claims cannot be tested and falsified. Imagine, for instance, that a
magician claims that he can teach people to move objects with their minds. The trick, he
explains, is to truly believe in one’s ability for it to work. When his students fail to budge chairs
with their minds, the magician scolds, “Obviously, you don’t truly believe.” The magician’s
claim does not qualify as falsifiable because there is no way to disprove it. It is unscientific.

Popper was particularly irritated about nonscientific claims because he believed they were a
threat to the science of psychology. Specifically, he was dissatisfied with Freud’s explanations
for mental illness. Freud believed that when a person suffers a mental illness it is often due to
problems stemming from childhood. For instance, imagine a person who grows up to be an
obsessive perfectionist. If she were raised by messy, relaxed parents, Freud might argue that
her adult perfectionism is a reaction to her early family experiences—an effort to maintain
order and routine instead of chaos. Alternatively, imagine the same person being raised by

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 7/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

harsh, orderly parents. In this case, Freud might argue that her adult tidiness is simply her
internalizing her parents’ way of being. As you can see, according to Freud’s rationale, both
opposing scenarios are possible; no matter what the disorder, Freud’s theory could explain its
childhood origin—thus failing to meet the principle of falsifiability.

Popper argued against statements that could not be falsified. He claimed that they blocked
scientific progress: There was no way to advance, refine, or refute knowledge based on such
claims. Popper’s solution was a powerful one: If science showed all the possibilities that were not
true, we would be left only with what is true. That is, we need to be able to articulate—
beforehand—the kinds of evidence that will disprove our hypothesis and cause us to
abandon it.

This may seem counterintuitive. For example, if a scientist wanted to establish a

comprehensive understanding of why car accidents happen, she would systematically test all
potential causes: alcohol consumption, speeding, using a cell phone, fiddling with the radio,
wearing sandals, eating, chatting with a passenger, etc. A complete understanding could only
be achieved once all possible explanations were explored and either falsified or not. After all
the testing was concluded, the evidence would be evaluated against the criteria for
falsification, and only the real causes of accidents would remain. The scientist could dismiss
certain claims (e.g., sandals lead to car accidents) and keep only those supported by research
(e.g., using a mobile phone while driving increases risk). It might seem absurd that a scientist

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 8/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

would need to investigate so many

alternative explanations, but it is exactly
how we rule out bad claims. Of course,
many explanations are complicated and
involve multiple causes—as with car
accidents, as well as psychological
phenomena.

Karl Popper was an influential thinker regarding

scientific theory and reasoning. [Image: Lucinda
Douglas-Menzies, https://goo.gl/uuqxCe]
(https://goo.gl/uuqxCe%5D)

Test Yourself 1: Can It Be Falsified?

Which of the following hypotheses can be falsified? For each, be sure to consider what kind
of data could be collected to demonstrate that a statement is not true.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 9/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

A. Chocolate tastes better than pasta.

B. We live in the most violent time in history.

C. Time can run backward as well as forward.

D. There are no planets other than Earth that have water on them.

[See answer at end of this module]

Although the idea of falsification remains central to scientific data and theory development,
these days it’s not used strictly the way Popper originally envisioned it. To begin with,
scientists aren’t solely interested in demonstrating what isn’t. Scientists are also interested in
providing descriptions and explanations for the way things are. We want to describe different
causes and the various conditions under which they occur. We want to discover when young
children start speaking in complete sentences, for example, or whether people are happier
on the weekend, or how exercise impacts depression. These explorations require us to draw
conclusions from limited samples of data. In some cases, these data seem to fit with our
hypotheses and in others they do not. This is where interpretation and probability come in.

The Interpretation of Research Results

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 10/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Imagine a researcher wanting to examine the hypothesis—a specific prediction based on

previous research or scientific theory—that caffeine enhances memory. She knows there are
several published studies that suggest this might be the case, and she wants to further
explore the possibility. She designs an experiment to test this hypothesis. She randomly
assigns some participants a cup of fully caffeinated tea and some a cup of herbal tea. All the
participants are instructed to drink up, study a list of words, then complete a memory test.
There are three possible outcomes of this proposed study:

1. The caffeine group performs better (support for the hypothesis).

2. The no-caffeine group performs better (evidence against the hypothesis).

3. There is no difference in the performance between the two groups (also evidence against
the hypothesis).

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 11/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Let’s look, from a scientific point of view, at how the researcher should interpret each of these
three possibilities.

First, if the results of the memory test reveal that the caffeine group performs better, this is a
piece of evidence in favor of the hypothesis: It appears, at least in this case, that caffeine is
associated with better memory. It does not, however, prove that caffeine is associated with
better memory. There are still many questions left unanswered. How long does the memory
boost last? Does caffeine work the same way with people of all ages? Is there a difference in
memory performance between people who drink caffeine regularly and those who never
drink it? Could the results be a freak occurrence? Because of these uncertainties, we do not
say that a study—especially a single study—proves a hypothesis. Instead, we say the results of
the study offer evidence in support of the hypothesis. Even if we tested this across 10
thousand or 100 thousand people we still could not use the word “proven” to describe this
phenomenon. This is because inductive reasoning is based on probabilities. Probabilities are
always a matter of degree; they may be extremely likely or unlikely. Science is better at
shedding light on the likelihood—or probability—of something than at proving it. In this way,
data is still highly useful even if it doesn’t fit Popper’s absolute standards.

The science of meteorology helps illustrate this point. You might look at your local weather
forecast and see a high likelihood of rain. This is because the meteorologist has used
inductive reasoning to create her forecast. She has taken current observations—lots of

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 12/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

dense clouds coming toward your city—and compared them to historical weather patterns
associated with rain, making a reasonable prediction of a high probability of rain. The
meteorologist has not proven it will rain, however, by pointing out the oncoming clouds.

Proof is more associated with deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning starts with general
principles that are applied to specific instances (the reverse of inductive reasoning). When the
general principles, or premises, are true, and the structure of the argument is valid, the
conclusion is, by definition, proven; it must be so. A deductive truth must apply in all relevant
circumstances. For example, all living cells contain DNA. From this, you can reason—
deductively—that any specific living cell (of an elephant, or a person, or a snake) will therefore
contain DNA. Given the complexity of psychological phenomena, which involve many
contributing factors, it is nearly impossible to make these types of broad statements with
certainty.

Test Yourself 2: Inductive or Deductive?

A. The stove was on and the water in the pot was boiling over. The front door was standing
open. These clues suggest the homeowner left unexpectedly and in a hurry.

B. Gravity is associated with mass. Because the moon has a smaller mass than the Earth, it
should have weaker gravity.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 13/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

C. Students don’t like to pay for high priced textbooks. It is likely that many students in the
class will opt not to purchase a book.

D. To earn a college degree, students need 100 credits. Janine has 85 credits, so she cannot
graduate.

[See answer at end of this module]

The second possible result from the caffeine-memory study is that the group who had
no caffeine demonstrates better memory. This result is the opposite of what the researcher
expects to find (her hypothesis). Here, the researcher must admit the evidence does not
support her hypothesis. She must be careful, however, not to extend that interpretation to
other claims. For example, finding increased memory in the no-caffeine group would not be
evidence that caffeine harms memory. Again, there are too many unknowns. Is this finding a
freak occurrence, perhaps based on an unusual sample? Is there a problem with the design
of the study? The researcher doesn’t know. She simply knows that she was not able to
observe support for her hypothesis.

There is at least one additional consideration: The researcher originally developed her
caffeine-benefits-memory hypothesis based on conclusions drawn from previous research.
That is, previous studies found results that suggested caffeine boosts memory. The
researcher’s single study should not outweigh the conclusions of many studies. Perhaps the
earlier research employed participants of different ages or who had different baseline levels

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 14/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

of caffeine intake. This new study simply becomes a piece of fabric in the overall quilt of
studies of the caffeine-memory relationship. It does not, on its own, definitively falsify the
hypothesis.

Finally, it’s possible that the results show no difference in memory between the two groups.
How should the researcher interpret this? How would you? In this case, the researcher once
again has to admit that she has not found support for her hypothesis.

Interpreting the results of a study—regardless of outcome—rests on the quality of the

observations from which those results are drawn. If you learn, say, that each group in a study
included only four participants, or that they were all over 90 years old, you might have
concerns. Specifically, you should be concerned that the observations, even if accurate, aren’t
representative of the general population. This is one of the defining differences between
conclusions drawn from personal anecdotes and those drawn from scientific observations.
Anecdotal evidence—derived from personal experience and unsystematic observations (e.g.,
“common sense,”)—is limited by the quality and representativeness of observations, and by
memory shortcomings. Well-designed research, on the other hand, relies on observations
that are systematically recorded, of high quality, and representative of the population it
claims to describe.

Why Should I Trust Science If It Can’t Prove Anything?

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 15/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

It’s worth delving a bit deeper into why we ought to trust the scientific inductive process, even
when it relies on limited samples that don’t offer absolute “proof.” To do this, let’s examine a
widespread practice in psychological science: null-hypothesis significance testing.

To understand this concept, let’s begin with

another research example. Imagine, for
instance, a researcher is curious about the
ways maturity affects academic
performance. She might have a hypothesis
that mature students are more likely to be
responsible about studying and completing
homework and, therefore, will do better in
their courses. To test this hypothesis, the
researcher needs a measure of maturity and
a measure of course performance. She
might calculate the correlation—or
relationship—between student age (her
measure of maturity) and points earned in a Is there a relationship between student age and
course (her measure of academic academic performance? How could we research
performance). Ultimately, the researcher is this question? How confident can we be that our
interested in the likelihood—or probability— observations reflect reality? [Image: Jeremy
that these two variables closely relate to one Wilburn, https://goo.gl/i9MoJb,
another. Null-hypothesis significance

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 16/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

testing (NHST) assesses the probability that (https://goo.gl/i9MoJb,) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0,

the collected data (the observations) would https://goo.gl/SjTsDg] (https://goo.gl/SjTsDg%5D)
be the same if there were no relationship
between the variables in the study. Using
our example, the NHST would test the probability that the researcher would find a link
between age and class performance if there were, in reality, no such link.

Now, here’s where it gets a little complicated. NHST involves a null hypothesis, a statement
that two variables are not related (in this case, that student maturity and academic
performance are not related in any meaningful way). NHST also involves an alternative
hypothesis, a statement that two variables are related (in this case, that student maturity and
academic performance go together). To evaluate these two hypotheses, the researcher
collects data. The researcher then compares what she expects to find (probability) with what
she actually finds (the collected data) to determine whether she can falsify, or reject, the null
hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

How does she do this? By looking at the distribution of the data. The distribution is the
spread of values—in our example, the numeric values of students’ scores in the course. The
researcher will test her hypothesis by comparing the observed distribution of grades earned
by older students to those earned by younger students, recognizing that some distributions
are more or less likely. Your intuition tells you, for example, that the chances of every single
person in the course getting a perfect score are lower than their scores being distributed
across all levels of performance.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 17/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

The researcher can use a probability table to assess the likelihood of any distribution she
finds in her class. These tables reflect the work, over the past 200 years, of mathematicians
and scientists from a variety of fields. You can see, in Table 2a, an example of an expected
distribution if the grades were normally distributed (most are average, and relatively few are
amazing or terrible). In Table 2b, you can see possible results of this imaginary study, and can
clearly see how they differ from the expected distribution.

In the process of testing these hypotheses, there are four possible outcomes. These are
determined by two factors: 1) reality, and 2) what the researcher finds (see Table 3). The best
possible outcome is accurate detection. This means that the researcher’s conclusion mirrors
reality. In our example, let’s pretend the more mature students do perform slightly better. If
this is what the researcher finds in her data, her analysis qualifies as an accurate detection of
reality. Another form of accurate detection is when a researcher finds no evidence for a
phenomenon, but that phenomenon doesn’t actually exist anyway! Using this same example,
let’s now pretend that maturity has nothing to do with academic performance. Perhaps
academic performance is instead related to intelligence or study habits. If the researcher
finds no evidence for a link between maturity and grades and none actually exists, she will
have also achieved accurate detection.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 18/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 19/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Table 2a (Above): Expected grades if there were no difference between the two groups.
Table 2b (Below): Course grades by age

There are a couple of ways that research conclusions might be wrong. One is referred to as a
type I error—when the researcher concludes there is a relationship between two variables
but, in reality, there is not. Back to our example: Let’s now pretend there’s no relationship
between maturity and grades, but the researcher still finds one. Why does this happen? It
may be that her sample, by chance, includes older students who also have better study habits
and perform better: The researcher has “found” a relationship (the data appearing to show
age as significantly correlated with academic performance), but the truth is that the apparent
relationship is purely coincidental—the result of these specific older students in this
particular sample having better-than-average study habits (the real cause of the relationship).
They may have always had superior study habits, even when they were young.

Another possible outcome of NHST is a type II error, when the data fail to show a relationship
between variables that actually exists. In our example, this time pretend that maturity is —in
reality—associated with academic performance, but the researcher doesn’t find it in her
sample. Perhaps it was just her bad luck that her older students are just having an off day,
suffering from test anxiety, or were uncharacteristically careless with their homework: The
peculiarities of her particular sample, by chance, prevent the researcher from identifying the
real relationship between maturity and academic performance.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 20/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

These types of errors might worry you, that there is just no way to tell if data are any good or
not. Researchers share your concerns, and address them by using probability values (p-
values) to set a threshold for type I or type II errors. When researchers write that a particular
finding is “significant at a p < .05 level,” they’re saying that if the same study were repeated
100 times, we should expect this result to occur—by chance—fewer than five times. That is, in
this case, a Type I error is unlikely. Scholars sometimes argue over the exact threshold that
should be used for probability. The most common in psychological science are .05 (5%
chance), .01 (1% chance), and .001 (1/10th of 1% chance). Remember, psychological science
doesn’t rely on definitive proof; it’s about the probability of seeing a specific result. This is also
why it’s so important that scientific findings be replicated in additional studies.

Table 3: Accurate detection and errors in research

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 21/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

It’s because of such methodologies that science is generally trustworthy. Not all claims and
explanations are equal; some conclusions are better bets, so to speak. Scientific claims are
more likely to be correct and predict real outcomes than “common sense” opinions and
personal anecdotes. This is because researchers consider how to best prepare and measure
their subjects, systematically collect data from large and—ideally—representative samples,
and test their findings against probability.

Scientific Theories

The knowledge generated from research is organized according to scientific theories. A

scientific theory is a comprehensive framework for making sense of evidence regarding a
particular phenomenon. When scientists talk about a theory, they mean something different
from how the term is used in everyday conversation. In common usage, a theory is an
educated guess—as in, “I have a theory about which team will make the playoffs,” or, “I have a
theory about why my sister is always running late for appointments.” Both of these beliefs are
liable to be heavily influenced by many untrustworthy factors, such as personal opinions and
memory biases. A scientific theory, however, enjoys support from many research studies,
collectively providing evidence, including, but not limited to, that which has falsified
competing explanations. A key component of good theories is that they describe, explain, and
predict in a way that can be empirically tested and potentially falsified.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 22/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Theories are open to revision if new

evidence comes to light that compels
reexamination of the accumulated,
relevant data. In ancient times, for
instance, people thought the Sun
traveled around the Earth. This seemed
to make sense and fit with many
observations. In the 16th century,
however, astronomers began
systematically charting visible objects in
the sky, and, over a 50-year period, with
repeated testing, critique, and
refinement, they provided evidence for a
revised theory: The Earth and other
cosmic objects revolve around the Sun.
Early theories placed the Earth at the center of the
In science, we believe what the best and
solar system. We now know that the Earth revolves
most data tell us. If better data come
around the sun. [Image: Pearson Scott Foresman,
along, we must be willing to change our
https://goo.gl/W3izMR, (https://goo.gl/W3izMR,) Public
views in accordance with the new
Domain]
evidence.

Is Science Objective?

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 23/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Thomas Kuhn (2012), a historian of science, argued that science, as an activity conducted by
humans, is a social activity. As such, it is—according to Kuhn—subject to the same
psychological influences of all human activities. Specifically, Kuhn suggested that there is no
such thing as objective theory or data; all of science is informed by values. Scientists cannot
help but let personal/cultural values, experiences, and opinions influence the types of
questions they ask and how they make sense of what they find in their research. Kuhn’s
argument highlights a distinction between facts (information about the world), and values
(beliefs about the way the world is or ought to be). This distinction is an important one, even
if it is not always clear.

To illustrate the relationship between facts and values, consider the problem of global
warming. A vast accumulation of evidence (facts) substantiates the adverse impact that
human activity has on the levels of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere leading to
changing weather patterns. There is also a set of beliefs (values), shared by many people, that
influences their choices and behaviors in an attempt to address that impact (e.g., purchasing
electric vehicles, recycling, bicycle commuting). Our values—in this case, that Earth as we
know it is in danger and should be protected—influence how we engage with facts. People
(including scientists) who strongly endorse this value, for example, might be more attentive to
research on renewable energy.

The primary point of this illustration is that (contrary to the image of scientists as outside
observers to the facts, gathering them neutrally and without bias from the natural world) all
science—especially social sciences like psychology—involves values and interpretation. As a

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 24/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

result, science functions best when people with diverse values and backgrounds work
collectively to understand complex natural phenomena.

Indeed, science can benefit from multiple

perspectives. One approach to achieving
this is through levels of analysis. Levels of
analysis is the idea that a single
phenomenon may be explained at different
levels simultaneously. Remember the
question concerning cramming for a test
versus studying over time? It can be
answered at a number of different levels of
analysis. At a low level, we might use brain
scanning technologies to investigate
whether biochemical processes differ
between the two study strategies. At a
higher level—the level of thinking—we
might investigate processes of decision
making (what to study) and ability to focus, as they relate to cramming versus spaced
practice. At even higher levels, we might be interested in real world behaviors, such as how
long people study using each of the strategies. Similarly, we might be interested in how the
presence of others influences learning across these two strategies. Levels of analysis suggests
that one level is not more correct—or truer—than another; their appropriateness depends on

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 25/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

the specifics of the question asked. Ultimately, levels of analysis would suggest that we
cannot understand the world around us, including human psychology, by reducing the
phenomenon to only the biochemistry of genes and dynamics of neural networks. But,
neither can we understand humanity without considering the functions of the human
nervous system.

Science in Context

There are many ways to interpret the world around us. People rely on common sense,
personal experience, and faith, in combination and to varying degrees. All of these offer
legitimate benefits to navigating one’s culture, and each offers a unique perspective, with
specific uses and limitations. Science provides another important way of understanding the
world and, while it has many crucial advantages, as with all methods of interpretation, it also
has limitations. Understanding the limits of science—including its subjectivity and uncertainty
—does not render it useless. Because it is systematic, using testable, reliable data, it can allow
us to determine causality and can help us generalize our conclusions. By understanding how
scientific conclusions are reached, we are better equipped to use science as a tool of
knowledge.

Answer - Test Yourself 1: Can It Be Falsified?

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 26/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Answer explained: There are 4 hypotheses presented. Basically, the question asks “which of
these could be tested and demonstrated to be false?". We can eliminate answers A, B and C.
A is a matter of personal opinion. C is a concept for which there are currently no existing
measures. B is a little trickier. A person could look at data on wars, assaults, and other
forms of violence to draw a conclusion about which period is the most violent. The problem
here is that we do not have data for all time periods, and there is no clear guide to which
data should be used to address this hypothesis. The best answer is D, because we have the
means to view other planets and to determine whether there is water on them (for
example, Mars has ice).

Answer - Test Yourself 2: Inductive or Deductive

Answer explained: This question asks you to consider whether each of 4 examples
represents inductive or deductive reasoning. 1) Inductive—it is possible to draw the
conclusion—the homeowner left in a hurry—from specific observations such as the stove
being on and the door being open. 2) Deductive—starting with a general principle (gravity is
associated with mass), we draw a conclusion about the moon having weaker gravity than
does the Earth because it has smaller mass. 3) Deductive—starting with a general principle
(students do not like to pay for textbooks) it is possible to make a prediction about likely
student behavior (they will not purchase textbooks). Note that this is a case of prediction
rather than using observations. 4) Deductive—starting with a general principle (students
need 100 credits to graduate) it is possible to draw a conclusion about Janine (she cannot
graduate because she has fewer than the 100 credits required).

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 27/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Outside Resources

Article: A meta-analysis of research on combating mis-information

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617714579
(http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617714579)

Article: Fixing the Problem of Liberal Bias in Social Psychology

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-problem-of-liberal-bias-in-social-
psychology/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-problem-of-liberal-bias-in-
social-psychology/)

Article: Flat out science rejection is rare, but motivated rejection of key scientific claims is
relatively common.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/
(https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/)

Article: How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-
scientific-results/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-
undermine-scientific-results/)

Article: How fake news is affecting your memory

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 28/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

http://www.nature.com/news/how-facebook-fake-news-and-friends-are-warping-your-
memory-1.21596 (http://www.nature.com/news/how-facebook-fake-news-and-friends-are-
warping-your-memory-1.21596)

Article: New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-
psychologists/ (https://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-
social-psychologists/)

Article: The Objectivity Thing (or, Why Science Is a Team Sport).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-
science/httpblogsscientificamericancomdoing-good-science20110720the-objectivity-thing-or-
why-science-is-a-team-sport/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-
science/httpblogsscientificamericancomdoing-good-science20110720the-objectivity-thing-or-
why-science-is-a-team-sport/)

Article: Thomas Kuhn: the man who changed the way the world looked at science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-
revolutions (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-
scientific-revolutions)

Video: Karl Popper's Falsification - Karl Popper believed that human knowledge progresses
through 'falsification'. A theory or idea shouldn't be described as scientific unless it could, in

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 29/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

principle, be proven false.

Karl Popper's Falsification

Video: Karl Popper, Science, and Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 30/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8

Video: Simple visualization of Type I and Type II errors

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 31/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

False Positives, False Negatives & Type I & II Errors

Web: An overview and history of the concept of fake news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news)

Web: Heterodox Academy - an organization focused on improving "the quality of research

and education in universities by increasing viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding, and
constructive disagreement".

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 32/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

https://heterodoxacademy.org/ (https://heterodoxacademy.org/)

Web: The People's Science - An orgnization dedicated to removing barriers between scientists
and society. See examples of how researchers, including psychologists, are sharing their
research with students, colleagues and the general public.
http://thepeoplesscience.org/science-topic/human-sciences/
(http://thepeoplesscience.org/science-topic/human-sciences/)

Discussion Questions

1. When you think of a “scientist,” what image comes to mind? How is this similar to or
different from the image of a scientist described in this module?

2. What makes the inductive reasoning used in the scientific process different than the
inductive reasoning we employ in our daily lives? How do these differences influence
our trust in the conclusions?

3. Why aren’t horoscopes considered scientific?

4. If science cannot “prove” something, why do you think so many media reports of
scientific research use this word? As an educated consumer of research, what kinds of
questions should you ask when reading these secondary reports?

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 33/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

5. In thinking about the application of research in our lives, which is more meaningful:
individual research studies and their conclusions or scientific theories? Why?

6. Although many people believe the conclusions offered by science generally, there is
often a resistance to specific scientific conclusions or findings. Why might this be?

Vocabulary
Anecdotal evidence
A piece of biased evidence, usually drawn from personal experience, used to support a
conclusion that may or may not be correct.

Causality
In research, the determination that one variable causes—is responsible for—an effect.

Correlation
In statistics, the measure of relatedness of two or more variables.

Data (also called observations)

In research, information systematically collected for analysis and interpretation.

Deductive reasoning

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 34/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

A form of reasoning in which a given premise determines the interpretation of specific

observations (e.g., All birds have feathers; since a duck is a bird, it has feathers).

Distribution
In statistics, the relative frequency that a particular value occurs for each possible value of a
given variable.

Empirical
Concerned with observation and/or the ability to verify a claim.

Fact
Objective information about the world.

Falsify
In science, the ability of a claim to be tested and—possibly—refuted; a defining feature of
science.

Generalize
In research, the degree to which one can extend conclusions drawn from the findings of a
study to other groups or situations not included in the study.

Hypothesis
A tentative explanation that is subject to testing.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 35/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Induction
To draw general conclusions from specific observations.

Inductive reasoning
A form of reasoning in which a general conclusion is inferred from a set of observations (e.g.,
noting that “the driver in that car was texting; he just cut me off then ran a red light!” (a
specific observation), which leads to the general conclusion that texting while driving is
dangerous).

Levels of analysis
In science, there are complementary understandings and explanations of phenomena.

Null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST)

In statistics, a test created to determine the chances that an alternative hypothesis would
produce a result as extreme as the one observed if the null hypothesis were actually true.

Objective
Being free of personal bias.

Population
In research, all the people belonging to a particular group (e.g., the population of left handed
people).

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 36/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Probability
A measure of the degree of certainty of the occurrence of an event.

Probability values
In statistics, the established threshold for determining whether a given value occurs by
chance.

Pseudoscience
Beliefs or practices that are presented as being scientific, or which are mistaken for being
scientific, but which are not scientific (e.g., astrology, the use of celestial bodies to make
predictions about human behaviors, and which presents itself as founded in astronomy, the
actual scientific study of celestial objects. Astrology is a pseudoscience unable to be falsified,
whereas astronomy is a legitimate scientific discipline).

Representative
In research, the degree to which a sample is a typical example of the population from which it
is drawn.

Sample
In research, a number of people selected from a population to serve as an example of that
population.

Scientific theory

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 37/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

An explanation for observed phenomena that is empirically well-supported, consistent, and

fruitful (predictive).

Type I error
In statistics, the error of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true.

Type II error
In statistics, the error of failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false.

Value
Belief about the way things should be.

References

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago,
USA: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (2011). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice, in T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The
essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320-339).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 38/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

Authors

Erin I. Smith
Erin I. Smith is Associate Professor of Psychology at California Baptist
University. She earned her PhD in Developmental Psychology at the University
of California, Riverside. She was recently a visiting scholar in science and
religion with SCIO (Scholarship and Christianity in Oxford) and currently serves
as the director for the Center for the Study of Human Behavior at CBU.

Creative Commons License

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_US)

Thinking like a Psychological Scientist by Erin I. Smith (https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-

psychological-scientist#authors) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_US).
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available in our Licensing Agreement
(https://nobaproject.com/license-agreement).

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 39/40
1/6/25, 10:25 AM Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba

How to cite this Noba module using APA Style

I. Smith, E. (2025). Thinking like a psychological scientist. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds),
Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from
http://noba.to/nt3ysqcm (http://noba.to/nt3ysqcm)

About (/about-noba) Privacy (/privacy-policy) Terms (/terms-of-service) Licensing (/license-agreement) Contact (/contact-noba) © 2025 Diener Education Fund
Comments or questions? (/contact-noba)

https://nobaproject.com/modules/thinking-like-a-psychological-scientist 40/40