Science Practice 2 – Research Methods and Design

Psychology is a science that relies on rigorous research methods to study human behavior and mental processes. Science Practice 2— Research Methods and Design— focuses on understanding and evaluating the various approaches psychologists use to conduct research. This skill is crucial for distinguishing between different research methodologies, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach, and evaluating whether studies follow appropriate ethical guidelines. Developing these skills allows you to become a critical consumer of psychological research rather than passively accepting claims about human behavior.

Why Is This Important?

• 25% of the multiple-choice questions on the AP exam assess this skill.
• This skill is prominently featured in the Article Analysis Question (AAQ), where you'll analyze a summarized peer-reviewed study.
• In the AAQ, you'll need to identify research elements (methodology, variables, ethical guidelines), interpret statistics, evaluate generalizability, and connect findings to psychological concepts—all within 25 minutes.
• Understanding research methods helps you distinguish between scientific evidence and pseudoscience in everyday life.

Because psychology is built on empirical research, students must be able to evaluate how studies are designed and conducted. This skill not only improves exam performance but also develops critical thinking abilities that extend beyond psychology.

The Course and Exam Description (CED) breaks this skill into four key areas:

• 2A. Determine the type of research design(s) used in a given study.
• 2B. Evaluate the appropriate use of research design elements in experimental methodology.
• 2C. Evaluate the appropriate use of research design elements in non-experimental methodologies.
• 2D. Evaluate whether a psychological research scenario followed appropriate ethical procedures.

---

Science Practice 2A: Determine the type of research design(s) used in a given study

Science Practice 2A focuses on identifying and distinguishing between different research methodologies in psychology. Understanding these research designs is fundamental to evaluating psychological studies and their findings. This skill involves recognizing the key characteristics that define different research approaches and determining which approach is being used in a specific scenario.

Identifying Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Methods

To accurately identify research designs, you need to:

• Recognize the defining features of experimental methodology
  • Presence of independent variable(s) manipulated by researchers
  • Random assignment of participants to groups
  • Control of extraneous variables
  • Ability to establish cause-and-effect relationships
• Distinguish various non-experimental methodologies
  • Case studies: In-depth analysis of a single individual or small group
  • Correlational studies: Examining relationships between variables without manipulation
  • Meta-analyses: Statistical procedures combining results from multiple studies
  • Naturalistic observation: Observing behavior in real-world settings without intervention

When analyzing psychological research, identifying the methodology is the first step in evaluating the quality and validity of the findings. Experimental designs allow researchers to make causal claims, while non-experimental designs are valuable for studying phenomena that cannot be manipulated ethically or practically.

Example

If a scenario describes researchers randomly assigning participants to receive either a new therapy or standard treatment and then measuring anxiety levels, this is clearly experimental because it involves:

• Manipulation of an independent variable (type of therapy)
• Random assignment to groups
• Measurement of a dependent variable (anxiety levels)

If instead researchers are tracking the relationship between hours of sleep and test performance without manipulating either variable, this would be non-experimental, specifically correlational.

Science Practice 2B: Evaluate the appropriate use of research design elements in experimental methodology

Science Practice 2B builds on the ability to identify research designs by requiring evaluation of how well experimental research has been constructed. This involves examining multiple elements of research design to determine if a study is methodologically sound and whether its conclusions are valid and generalizable.

Evaluating Research Hypotheses and Variables

A strong experimental design begins with:

• Well-formulated hypotheses
  • Clear statement of expected relationship between variables
  • Falsifiability: Can be disproven through observation or experimentation
  • Based on existing theory or previous research
• Properly defined variables
  • Operational definitions: Precise descriptions of how variables are measured
  • Independent variables: What the researcher manipulates
  • Dependent variables: What the researcher measures as an outcome
  • Confounding variables: Unintended factors that might influence results

Assessing Sampling Procedures

The quality of a sample affects the validity of research:

• Sample selection considerations
  • Random sampling: Every member of the population has equal chance of selection
  • Convenience sampling: Participants selected based on availability
  • Sample representativeness: How well the sample reflects the larger population
  • Sampling bias: Systematic errors in the sampling process
• Generalizability factors
  • Sample size: Larger samples typically allow more confident generalizations
  • Demographic diversity: Inclusion of varied participants increases external validity
  • Sampling method: Random sampling generally provides stronger generalizability

Evaluating Control Procedures

Experimental control reduces the influence of unwanted variables:

• Group assignment
  • Experimental group: Receives the treatment or manipulation
  • Control group: Provides a baseline for comparison
  • Random assignment: Distributes participant characteristics evenly between groups
  • Placebo effect: Psychological impact of believing one is receiving treatment
• Experimental blindness
  • Single-blind procedures: Participants unaware of which condition they're in
  • Double-blind procedures: Neither participants nor researchers know who is in which condition
  • Controls for experimenter bias and social desirability bias

Assessing Measurement Tools

How variables are measured affects the quality of data:

• Qualitative measures
  • Structured interviews, open-ended questions, observational notes
  • Provide rich, detailed information but may be more subjective
• Quantitative measures
  • Likert scales, physiological measurements, performance scores
  • Provide numerical data that can be statistically analyzed

Understanding Scientific Progress

Experimental research contributes to scientific knowledge through:

• Peer review: Evaluation by other experts in the field
• Replication: Repeating studies to verify findings
• Appropriate representation: Including diverse participants to ensure findings apply broadly

When evaluating experimental research, consider how these elements work together to produce valid, reliable, and generalizable conclusions.

Science Practice 2D: Evaluate whether a psychological research scenario followed appropriate ethical procedures

Science Practice 2D focuses on ethical considerations in psychological research. The field has developed strict ethical guidelines following historical controversies, and understanding these ethics is essential for evaluating the appropriateness of research methods. This skill requires recognizing key ethical principles and determining whether they have been properly implemented in research scenarios.

Understanding Institutional Review

Institutional oversight provides critical ethical protection:

• Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
  • Independent committees that review research proposals
  • Evaluate potential risks to participants
  • Ensure benefits of research outweigh potential risks
  • Approve, modify, or reject research proposals
• Animal Care and Use Committees
  • Oversee research involving animal subjects
  • Ensure humane treatment and minimize suffering
  • Evaluate whether animal use is justified by scientific value

Institutional review helps prevent unethical research and protects vulnerable populations from exploitation. Before evaluating other ethical aspects of research, first consider whether proper institutional approval was obtained.

Evaluating Informed Consent and Assent

Participants must understand what they're agreeing to:

• Elements of proper informed consent
  • Full disclosure of research procedures and purpose
  • Explanation of potential risks and benefits
  • Clear statement that participation is voluntary
  • Information about right to withdraw at any time
  • Written documentation of agreement to participate
• Special considerations for vulnerable populations
  • Children: Requires parental consent plus child's assent
  • Individuals with cognitive impairments: May require guardian consent
  • Prisoners: Additional protections to prevent coercion

Research lacking proper informed consent/assent violates participants' autonomy and may be considered unethical regardless of other protections.

Assessing Protection from Harm

Researchers must minimize risks to participants:

• Physical protection considerations
  • Safety protocols for any physically demanding tasks
  • Medical screening when appropriate
  • Monitoring for adverse reactions
• Psychological protection considerations
  • Avoiding unnecessary stress or discomfort
  • Screening for vulnerabilities to research procedures
  • Having support resources available if needed

The principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires researchers to anticipate potential risks and take proactive steps to protect participants throughout the research process.

Evaluating Confidentiality and Anonymity

Participant privacy must be protected:

• Confidentiality procedures
  • Secure storage of identifying information
  • Limited access to data with personal identifiers
  • Proper data disposal after completion
• Anonymity considerations
  • Collection of data without identifying information
  • Reporting aggregated results rather than individual responses
  • Removing or altering identifying details in case studies

Privacy protections maintain participant dignity and prevent potential social, financial, or legal harm that could result from disclosure of sensitive information.

Assessing Use of Deception

Deception presents special ethical challenges:

• Types of deception in research
  • Withholding information about the true purpose of research
  • Misleading participants about procedures
  • Using confederates (research assistants posing as participants)
• Justification for deception
  • Must be essential to research objectives
  • No viable alternative methods
  • Minimal risk to participants
  • Full disclosure after participation

While deception can be ethically justified in some cases, researchers must demonstrate that benefits outweigh potential harm to participants' trust and autonomy.

Evaluating Debriefing Procedures

Proper conclusion of research protects participants:

• Elements of effective debriefing
  • Full disclosure of any deception used
  • Explanation of the true purpose of the study
  • Discussion of expected findings and their significance
  • Opportunity for participants to ask questions
  • Provision of support resources if needed
• Importance of debriefing
  • Restores participant autonomy
  • Reduces potential negative effects of deception
  • Provides educational value to participants
  • Maintains public trust in psychological research

Thorough debriefing is particularly important when research involves deception or potentially distressing procedures, as it helps ensure participants leave the study with a positive experience.

When evaluating psychological research scenarios, consider all these ethical dimensions together. Ethical research protects participants' rights and welfare while advancing scientific knowledge in a responsible manner. Even groundbreaking research with important findings may be considered unethical if it fails to meet these standards.

Science Practice 2D: Evaluate whether a psychological research scenario followed appropriate ethical procedures

Science Practice 2D focuses on ethical considerations in psychological research. The field has developed strict ethical guidelines following historical controversies, and understanding these ethics is essential for evaluating the appropriateness of research methods. This skill requires recognizing key ethical principles and determining whether they have been properly implemented in research scenarios.

Understanding Institutional Review

Institutional oversight provides critical ethical protection:

• Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
  • Independent committees that review research proposals
  • Evaluate potential risks to participants
  • Ensure benefits of research outweigh potential risks
  • Approve, modify, or reject research proposals
• Animal Care and Use Committees
  • Oversee research involving animal subjects
  • Ensure humane treatment and minimize suffering
  • Evaluate whether animal use is justified by scientific value

Institutional review helps prevent unethical research and protects vulnerable populations from exploitation. Before evaluating other ethical aspects of research, first consider whether proper institutional approval was obtained.

Evaluating Informed Consent and Assent

Participants must understand what they're agreeing to:

• Elements of proper informed consent
  • Full disclosure of research procedures and purpose
  • Explanation of potential risks and benefits
  • Clear statement that participation is voluntary
  • Information about right to withdraw at any time
  • Written documentation of agreement to participate
• Special considerations for vulnerable populations
  • Children: Requires parental consent plus child's assent
  • Individuals with cognitive impairments: May require guardian consent
  • Prisoners: Additional protections to prevent coercion

Research lacking proper informed consent/assent violates participants' autonomy and may be considered unethical regardless of other protections.

Assessing Protection from Harm

Researchers must minimize risks to participants:

• Physical protection considerations
  • Safety protocols for any physically demanding tasks
  • Medical screening when appropriate
  • Monitoring for adverse reactions
• Psychological protection considerations
  • Avoiding unnecessary stress or discomfort
  • Screening for vulnerabilities to research procedures
  • Having support resources available if needed

The principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires researchers to anticipate potential risks and take proactive steps to protect participants throughout the research process.

Evaluating Confidentiality and Anonymity

Participant privacy must be protected:

• Confidentiality procedures
  • Secure storage of identifying information
  • Limited access to data with personal identifiers
  • Proper data disposal after completion
• Anonymity considerations
  • Collection of data without identifying information
  • Reporting aggregated results rather than individual responses
  • Removing or altering identifying details in case studies

Privacy protections maintain participant dignity and prevent potential social, financial, or legal harm that could result from disclosure of sensitive information.

Assessing Use of Deception

Deception presents special ethical challenges:

• Types of deception in research
  • Withholding information about the true purpose of research
  • Misleading participants about procedures
  • Using confederates (research assistants posing as participants)
• Justification for deception
  • Must be essential to research objectives
  • No viable alternative methods
  • Minimal risk to participants
  • Full disclosure after participation

While deception can be ethically justified in some cases, researchers must demonstrate that benefits outweigh potential harm to participants' trust and autonomy.

Evaluating Debriefing Procedures

Proper conclusion of research protects participants:

• Elements of effective debriefing
  • Full disclosure of any deception used
  • Explanation of the true purpose of the study
  • Discussion of expected findings and their significance
  • Opportunity for participants to ask questions
  • Provision of support resources if needed
• Importance of debriefing
  • Restores participant autonomy
  • Reduces potential negative effects of deception
  • Provides educational value to participants
  • Maintains public trust in psychological research

Thorough debriefing is particularly important when research involves deception or potentially distressing procedures, as it helps ensure participants leave the study with a positive experience.

When evaluating psychological research scenarios, consider all these ethical dimensions together. Ethical research protects participants' rights and welfare while advancing scientific knowledge in a responsible manner. Even groundbreaking research with important findings may be considered unethical if it fails to meet these standards.