Read: George, Kelley, and Piferi: Chapter 1, pg 18-21

THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY

As can be seen in the historical foundations of the field of psychology, the field has changed from one grounded in philosophy and introspection to one based in the scientific method. Christian researchers continue to explore theological, philosophical, and scientific bases of human behavior today. You have read about a few of the founding theorists and researchers in the field of psychology; you can see how the field has developed to be a science and how Christians have also contributed to the scientific understanding of human behavior. The field of psychology today is rooted firmly in science, and throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st century, the scientific study of human behavior has addressed nearly every aspect of the human experience. As the field has grown and human behavior has been studied more and more, it has become apparent that the study of behavior and mental processes is exceedingly complicated. This should not be surprising, though, because we (i.e., humans) are exceedingly complicated. Just think about how many behaviors and thoughts you experience across a single day. More specifically, consider all the decisions you make from second to second (e.g., while driving), hour-to-hour (e.g., while working), and day-to-day (e.g., engaging in relationships)—easily, in culmination, thousands upon thousands of decisions in just one day. Trying to manage, understand, and plan for just your own life seems at times not just daunting but impossible.

How do we weigh all of the information available to make good decisions? For example, why did you pick out the clothes you are wearing now? Why did you select one thing for breakfast over another (i.e., Did you even have breakfast and, if you did not, why?)? Why did you stay up late watching television while simultaneously playing on your phone when you had so much work to do? Is it hard to answer these rather simple questions? Often, in fact, more often than not, we do not have direct access to the underlying mental processes involved in our own decision-making. This means we rarely know why or how we make our own decisions. So, if this is true, how do we even begin to understand the behavior of other people? Furthermore, if it is hard to understand people we know well, like family and friends, then how do we begin to understand the behavior of strangers or groups of people, especially if those people seem very different from us? To this end, how do we begin to understand such behaviors to explain and predict them?

Predicting behaviors is one of the essential goals of behavioral science because prediction allows for future planning and intervention. In the same way that you like to check the weather so that you can plan your day accordingly, we embrace the comfort of being able to do the same with people. Of course, weather predictions are not always right, and neither are even well-researched predictions about the behavior of people. However, with good methods and data, the accuracy of both can be increased. While people are all different, special, and unique, we operate through similar underlying mechanisms, from biological makeup to learning styles, to cultural influences. Across the planet and across time, people have more similarities than differences. These similarities reflect the fact that a natural order exists in God’s creation. These similarities also reflect the fact that all of God’s creation and all of mankind, specifically, were affected by the fall. Being created by God and all being fallen is why we have more similarities than differences, and these similarities make systematic studies of behavior and mental processes possible.

Psychological scientists study behavior and mental processes to help answer important questions on such contemporary topics as addiction, obesity, loneliness, grief, trauma, memory, attention, perception, and depression, as well as many other topics. As a scientific field of study, the field of psychology uses the same approaches as any other area of scientific inquiry. Thus, in order for psychology to be considered a science, it requires psychological conclusions to be based on evidence collected according to the scientific method. The scientific method, which will be discussed more in-depth later in this chapter, is a set of orderly steps used to analyze and solve problems. It is universally applied regardless of the specific scientific discipline. However, there are unique challenges to doing research in different disciplines and different perspectives within those disciplines. Additionally, this method uses objectively collected observations as the basis for drawing conclusions. This is important because behavior is the means by which living things respond to an ever-changing environment. Behavior is also defined as an action—something observable and measurable; however, just because it can be observed and measured does not mean it is easy to interpret and understand. The goal of behavioral scientists is to understand a particular subject, which can be a person, a mouse, or a chimpanzee. Behaviors, or actions, are often under the direct control of mental processes, that is, the inner workings of the brain. So, behavioral scientists are interested in understanding events such as thinking, planning, reasoning, creating, and dreaming and the behaviors that emanate from the processes.

In research, ultimately, the goal of understanding and predicting behavior is to be able to control it also. Controlling behavior does not imply one is being denied choices. Instead, psychologists view controlling behavior as a means to empower people with the ability to control or manage their lives more effectively. For example, psychologists may use a particular intervention to help people eliminate unhealthy behavior, like cigarette smoking. Similarly, different parenting practices have different effects on children, so teaching parents better ways to control their own behavior could make them better parents. Finally, strangers tend to be reluctant to help people in certain emergency situations. By understanding this pattern of behavior, one might be capable of overcoming these feelings and offer help. Thus, control is generally something that is passed on to individuals, not some unique power that psychologists alone are capable of yielding. Understanding behavior does not make you better at controlling others so much as it makes you better at anticipating different outcomes, increasing motivation, building resiliency, enhancing group/team dynamics, and being a better consumer of information.

Understanding behavior and being able to affect the behavior of individuals and groups is a high-demand skill. This is true because we are never separated from managing our own behaviors, nor do we accomplish much on our own. While the idea of control can be seen as ominous, it is not. Just like a great coach is able to strategize, what is equally important is the ability to motivate and challenge the players as well as bring their best attributes together for a collective goal—literally and figuratively. Would you not be happier and more successful if you and the people around you understood this? Many future employers think so since an introductory psychology course is a top-recommended course for undergraduate students.

If behaviors can be observed, then they can be measured. If they can be measured, then they can be studied and researched. When research is conducted in a specific area and that research is verifiable and has predictive value, then it can generate a scientific fact. This book and all other academic textbooks are full of facts. How much time and money, as well as other resources, are you investing to learn these facts? These facts must be rather valuable to extract so many of your and others’ resources. This begs the question, what is a fact, and how are facts created? This question is one of the most important, yet challenging, questions for this course. The question is so simple, but understanding it is quite complicated.

The Benefits and Limitations of Facts

In the simplest description, facts are objective observations of the world, and they do not change over time. Examples of such observations include your height or weight and skin or hair color. Each of the aforementioned characteristics can be measured and described with amazing precision. But wait, each can also change over time. So, does that mean that facts easily change over time? Not really. Your height and weight on that day and time will always be your height and weight, but it can change. The next time your height and weight are measured, those new numbers become new facts. So, it can be argued that facts are unchangeable, and things like height and weight change. How, then, do we reconcile this? It shows that sometimes the content and the context are important in deciding about a fact and its value.

There are different types of facts. Empirical facts are things we can assert about the way the world operates based on observational evidence. Conceptual facts are things we assert about the way the world operates based on strongly held views often derived from experience. A simple, everyday example would be someone saying their tea has a lot of sugar in it versus someone saying the tea is very sweet. It might seem like it is the same thing, but the amount of sugar is something that can be empirically determined; that is, the amount of sugar (i.e., weight) in a specific amount of tea (i.e., volume) can be quantified. Conceptual facts tend to be confirmed by reference to perceptions or ideas, whereas empirical facts tend to be confirmed by reference to experience. It is also likely that more empirical facts are based upon direct, measurable experiences, whereas conceptual facts are shaped by reference to concepts. Concepts can be more fluid as they are more dependent and influenced by the individual’s unique experiences (e.g., the tea is sweet versus very sweet). However, saying the tea is very sweet relies on an assertion that may not be held by everyone. Even excellent, detailed, and articulate ostensibly factual positions can be wrong—like saying the tea is very sweet. Perhaps, the one person who thought the tea was very sweet consumed some very bitter food or drink just before drinking the tea, making it seem very sweet when it was just sweet. It shows that our unique, individual experiences are highly fallible (i.e., imperfect), and our individual experiences can impact our interpretation of the world around us.

Often in science, and especially in research, these types of facts fall along a continuum more so than a clear dichotomy. We often start with conceptual facts, and as we engage in the topic area, our ability to understand and define the topic in more detail increases, making our observations more accurate and repeatable. This becomes even more challenging as it can be hard to differentiate between a fact versus an opinion or the combination of the two, which could be an assertion based on a fact. Too often, people like to represent their view of the world as a fact when it could very well be a preference or an assumption; this can also be true for research findings in which the fact is translated into potential value or perhaps policy. For example, about a decade ago, signs at Glacier National Park were installed noting that the park’s signature, tourist-attracting glaciers would be completely gone by 2020. The signs were installed to note the fact that the glaciers would be gone, and that fact was supported by an abundance of scientific evidence—empirical evidence. Some went so far as to state that the science was entirely settled; climate change (i.e., warming) is occurring; humans caused it; and it is irreversible—the disappearing glaciers were the scientific representation of this fact. In 2017, the park was informed that the glaciers would not be melting by that time, and the signs should be revised to reflect this new fact (Maxouris & Rose, 2020). We are past 2020 now, and the glaciers are still there. New evidence is showing that they are actually growing in size and not shrinking; so, what does that say about the science and about this fact? This fact was presented to guests of the park and featured in other places, like textbooks, and turned out to be less of a fact than originally presented.

In a similar way, what do we know about the relative safety of lead exposure or prenatal alcohol exposure? What is the safe level of lead in drinking water? What is the safe amount of alcohol to consume while pregnant? These are important and potentially life-changing questions. You might be surprised to discover that the safe amount of lead in drinking water and alcohol consumed during pregnancy has always trended downward, according to research. In the 1960s, the allowable and safe amount of lead was about 60 micrograms per deciliter. By the late 1970s, it was dropped to 30 micrograms per deciliter. Moving to the early 1990s, that number dropped again to 25; by 2012, it dropped even further to just 10. The current recommended amount is below 5 micrograms per deciliter (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2017). The reason for this dramatic shift in concentration over time is that new information—that is, observations—emerged about the neurological, reproductive, and cardiovascular toxicity of lead. As the research on the topic became more sophisticated and the measurements more precise, more harmful effects were discovered, and appropriate recommendations and public policy positions followed. This is important because lead can cause serious developmental problems in exposed children, and those problems can be irreversible.

Additionally, it was not long ago that it was considered normal, acceptable, and sometimes encouraged to have a glass of wine while pregnant or perhaps even several glasses. People did not think much about the consequences of drinking during pregnancy and later child development and dysfunction. Again, over time the safe amount of alcohol recommended during pregnancy dropped, and now the recommended amount is zero. That is a radical change from some casual drinking to zero (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2015, 2018). If you were to read textbooks from different decades past, the facts about lead and alcohol would be reflected in the books, but they would be wrong according to today’s data. Today’s facts might be wrong in 5 to 10 years. The fact that science changes as we gain awareness, knowledge, and better ways of obtaining data is an extremely important point and philosophical concept, and it is something for us all to be continually aware of as we read science.

Scientific Mistakes and Misconduct

Expanding on the concept and definition of scientific facts, it is further complicated by individual factors like ethics, motivation, and bias, as well as just mistakes. Science is actually very competitive and very fast-paced. To maintain a successful career as a scientist, there are grants to support research, laboratory management of people and equipment, and presentations and publications. With such pressure, there can be challenges, and sometimes those challenges are met with shortcuts at best and outright cheating and deception at worst. Mistakes can occur in many places along the path from an idea to the dissemination of results.

Considering the concept and definition of facts again, what does it mean to study, learn, and apply facts from a textbook only to find later that the research was compromised and shown to be false? Does this happen? Sadly, too often and, even worse, generally after that false information—fake facts—was used to influence or create policy. So, while the study might be retracted and the lead scientist might suffer professional and legal consequences, the policy positions that emerged from the research are rarely retracted or even changed.

For example, just recently, Frances H. Arnold, Ph.D., who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2018 and had a cameo in the hit television show The Big Bang Theory, officially retracted one of her prestigious papers in the Journal Science (see below). She stated, “It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted and did not do my job well” (Cho et al., 2019).

After publication of the Report “Site-selective enzymatic C—H amidation for synthesis of diverse lactams,” efforts to reproduce the work showed that the enzymes do not catalyze the reactions with the activities and selectivities claimed. Careful examination of the first author’s lab notebook then revealed missing contemporaneous entries and raw data for key experiments. The authors are therefore retracting the paper.

This case provides an important example that mistakes can happen in science, and while this mistake could ultimately have been avoided, there is a difference between oversight and error and deliberate scientific misconduct. It is actually quite impressive in today’s culture for such an esteemed scientist to so quickly note the problem, take responsibility, and formally retract the paper.

In contrast to the earlier example, at Duke University in 2013, a researcher working in the lab of a well-known and well-respected pulmonary scientist was arrested for stealing more than $25,000 from the Duke University Health System (Science News Staff, 2019). The stolen funds were used for purchasing merchandise from a variety of stores. She even created fake receipts to help legitimize her personal shopping spree. Despite the seriousness of the crimes, she was given a fine and sentenced to probation and community service. One quick question is how did the research successfully move forward with those funds removed? The University began to investigate the situation in more detail and discovered a variety of serious problems. In fact, 15 of her papers had to be retracted, not because of an accidental error but because of fraudulent data, that is, deliberate misconduct. This same data was used in the procurement of numerous grants in sum worth more than $200 million. Duke University reached a settlement in the lawsuit agreeing to pay $112.5 million to the U.S. government for falsifying data and promised to take needed steps to ensure the integrity of future research. Similarly, in 2009 and 2012, Weill Medical College of Cornell University settled cases involving scientists misusing research funding and falsifying data (McCook, 2016; Worrall, 2016).

Besides the legality of these cases, what does it say about the nature of scientific facts? While the articles were retracted, they were not removed from textbooks, nor were the findings removed from any medical protocols or public policy positions. So, it is likely that many students, researchers, and clinicians have been operating on the positive factual findings from these studies, not even knowing that the information is categorically wrong.

If something is factual and true, then it should be so regardless of place, time, or investigator. Simply put, if a research study yields a factual outcome through the appropriate application of the scientific method, then that same outcome should occur again and again. If that study occurs in the same laboratory a month or year later or in a laboratory across the country or globe, then you should see the same outcome. This is no different from following recipes when cooking or baking. No matter where or when, if you follow that recipe, then you should get the same delicious meal. If not, then there must have been a human or mechanical error. Alternatively, perhaps the recipe was never correct. It would be frustrating to work hard at an important meal to have it ruined by a flawed recipe. Similarly, science is dealing with an absolute crisis with replication. The media does not help as it elevates and sensationalizes select findings but rarely, if ever, notes retractions or modifications because of ongoing findings (Bohannon, 2015).

A recent study—the largest effort yet to replicate historically important psychological studies—found that only 39% could be reproduced (Baker, 2016). Some scientists might argue that this issue is more common in the behavioral sciences. However, the journal Nature carried out a large-scale study on the reproducibility of research in the physical and medical sciences. Of the 1,576 researchers who participated in the study, more than 70% reported trying and failing to reproduce another scientist’s study. Also, in this study, 52% of the respondents agreed that there was a significant crisis of reproducibility. The top five reasons reported for the lack of reproducible research were, in order, (1) selective reporting, (2) pressure to publish, (3) low statistical power or poor analysis, (4) not replicated enough in the original lab, and (5) insufficient oversight/ mentoring. Also, the top 10 factors impacting research quality included concerns over fraud. This is truly a crisis because so many fundamental facts throughout numerous textbooks read by millions of students are likely to be wrong, and those wrong facts might also serve as the stimuli for creating ideas for future research. How much of what you learned so far in your academic and professional life is wrong?