Dear Brad Jesness

All in all, it only depends on how the study variables are described and made operational.

Jose Luis

Skinner's behaviorism is completely rooted in experiments. Experiments are a very good methods for psychology in many ways:

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Yes, psychology is suitable for experimental research. Suffice it to say that most of the cognitive and social psycholology are nowadays experimental in their very natural. In both cognitive and social psychology, for example, there are experimental designs with dependent and independent variables. In other words, many desgins in cognitive and social psychology manipulate the independent variable or variables and see to what extent and how this manipulation affects the dependent variable or variables. Generally, in all studies of both cognitive and social psychology, reseachers advance hypotheses and/or theories and submitt them, say, to the Popperian test of falsifiability. Note that now many departments of psychology all over the world have laboraties and give a course of experimental psychology. I think that all of this shows that psychology is suitable for experimental research.

Kind regards,

Orlando

Absolutely, although there is always a need to design your experiment based on a theory, you design the experiment to test something specific, as Orlando wrote, many cognitive scientist design experiments to test memory, attention and so on.

Any science can have areas where it is suitable for experimental research *. One simply has to understand and obtain basically full agreement on the important CONTEXT of the factor(s) manipulated. This is because IT IS IN THAT/those CONTEXT(s) any finding is meaningful AND it is only with those necessary and relevant context(s) (clearly specified) that a finding (as it really is, overall) is verifiable. Verifiablility is essential for science. Without it, you have no science.

For MOST PSYCHOLOGY, MOST AREAS: Good thorough OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH is best NOW, to define important contexts, much more than has been done (IN MANY AREAS, it is ridiculous IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE). [ NOTE: inter-observer reliabilities (correlations) show strength as well or better than p

There is now a related topic and response on the thread (Question) : https://www.researchgate.net/post/Research_involves_deductive_and_inductive_approaches_Elaborate

Dear Duan Xian Xiang

I would ask the question in a different way:

Is the method of experimental research suitable for studying psychological phenomena? or

Can Psychology be studied in an appropriate way by means of the experimental research method?

If the experimental method is considered as one where phenomena are studied with adequate control of variables, both dependent and independent and strange or confusion; only research of this kind could be done in Biology.

• Example in basic research of spontaneous and induced behavior in animal models previously conditioned for this purpose, such as pigeons to investigate color vision
• Guidance behavior in a maze to find the exit using rats
• Construction and use of tools to solve problems such as feeding in higher mammals, care of the young and communication (anthropoids, elephants, dolphins) etc.

Regarding the investigation of psychological variables in humans, these are considered as soft variables and it is difficult to know ideas, thoughts, emotions and natural feelings and induced by specific stimuli, both introspection and external behavioral type (associationism and conditioning operating).

• In this case, the design and research method can be quasi-experimental, or "ex post facto" where the variables under study must be described and analyzed with qualitative statistics (ethnographic method, interviews, questionnaires, psychological tests of cognition and personality, etc.). ).

regards

Jose Luis

Dear José Luis García Vigil

I would just like to say: I believe Psychology can be a "hard" science, as least as "hard" as Biology (now considered a "natural science"). I have put forth a way to view Psychology as such a hard science ; and it sees Psychology, and not just part of psychological SCIENCE , but ALL that could ever be legitimate science, as a part or division of Biology.

Orlando M Lourenço

So how to use experiments to study schizophrenia's? Deliberately causing hearing hallucinations to the subject?

@ JoséLuisGarcíaVigil

Yes, Or " ex post facto "bette.

Brad Jesness

Do you think psychology is not suitable for experimental research?

Dear Duan Xian Xiang

I believe it is sometimes ready (let's not say: suitable) for experimentation; as an example of an area that is ready, I would cite research on the Memories (though there is room for improvement, even here).

Other areas (quite a lot of them) just need to observe enough first, to have legitimate models. Then, after that, they are ready for experiments.

I am in favor of eventual experiments in all Psychology areas; unfortunately the false limits of the lab keep being accepted, so Psychology (or most of it) has been bad (poor) for over 100 years.

Brad Jesness

There has been no development in psychology for a hundred years, is it because of the problem of research methods(experiments)? I think it's about research methods.

Brad Jesness

However well prepared, I'm afraid most psychological problems are difficult to study experimentally, such as schizophrenia and personality disorders.

Duan Xian Xiang

You say: "There has been no development in psychology for a hundred years, is it because of the problem of research methods(experiments)? I think it's about research methods."

Yes, I agree: grossly inadequate observational RESEARCH. Yes, then (due to this): the premature poorly-founded (poorly-based) models and premature experiments (without knowledge of true important pertinent contexts).

Brad Jesness

Our views are close.

Duan Xian Xiang

Experimental research is perfectly adapted to psychology. I think that the question that needs to be asked is more that of the objective or the epistemology of the research. What can experimental research bring from an ontological and axiological approach?

Duan, hope you say what you say just because you lack knowledge about psychology.

Bandura's and Milgram's experiments came from the beginning of 1961. Both researchers developed the social psychology " three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular contemporary question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?" Very important question.

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was a 1971 social psychology experiment that attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. It was conducted at Stanford University between August 14–20, 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo using college student

And so on, my own experiments included.

One positive result of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is "that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners, due to the risk of violence against them"

s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

Stanford Prison Experiment falsifies, subjects' behavior is deliberately guided.

Jeremie Aboiron

So, What can experimental research bring from an ontological and axiological approach?

Dear Brad Jesness

All in all, it only depends on how the study variables are described and made operational.

Jose Luis

Duan, that is not true. Instructions are to be given as long as we cannot read thoughts.. You shall check what epistemology, ontology and axiology mean. There are good explanations on YouTube. We do not need to spoon feed you particularly when you have so strong opinions about our research.

Dear José Luis García Vigil

I still think it is worth emphasizing doing thorough in-depth observational research (showing reliabilites) FIRST * . Then making any model LARGELY from this (and necessary principles) before guessing (i.e. before systematically hypothesizing) about what more may be found or what more may be found to be related. Perhaps this is what you meant by : " how the study variables are described and made operational ". BUT: Since my more lengthy statement is something not well-adhered to, I believe making all the points I make expressly and explicitly is necessary (and, over and over ... with each research consideration).

One certainly should NOT simply propose "operational definitions" that all can agree on and see that as enough (sufficient) -- that would be a standard inconsistent with good science.

* FOOTNOTE: I really believe one should be FORCED to stop just observing (all with inter-observer reliabilities, of course), when there comes a point where making models, etc. seems to be the only way to make progress (BUT: MAKING models rightly, ideally just from/through findings AND WITH PRINCIPLES (ideally, ones that are NECESSARILY APPLICABLE (e.g. from Biology) or from very consistent findings that seem to be principles)). Only at such a point, one should make the model and engage in hypothetico-deductive thought (i.e. make hypotheses).

It is good to put this post together with my more "close up" Definition of Science : https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_an_OVERALL_good_thorough_definition_TRUE_OF_ALL_LEGITIMATE_SCIENCE

P.S. I think my Ethogram Theory is a good example of how to do things correctly (a good model for how one should proceed).

Dear Duan Xian Xiang

By ontology, we seek to know, or determine, what is the reality? Reality can take many different forms. There can be as many realities as there are observers. Everyone will see different things, or only part of reality (cave syndrome). It is therefore necessary, through an ontological mail, to determine what this reality is.

Where it gets interesting is on the issue of axiology. Indeed, axiology is used to raise the question of value. What value does our reality have?

From this point on, it is interesting to build new knowledge that will certainly have an impact. The researcher will then have to consider what the consequences of his or her reality and value may be.

Experimental research is a scientific and systematic approach to research where the researcher manipulates one or more variables, controls and measures any change in the other variables. Experimental research is often used when there is a priority of time in a causal relationship, when the cause precedes the effect. Experimental research can then be the subject of a different vision of reality and thus feed a still limited knowledge.

If you seek a PhD and a University, welcome in mine!

Jeremie Aboiron

"reality" is similar to Wundt's "the element of consciousness"? Do you want to experiment to determine the nature of consciousness, the elements of consciousness? Like using a particle collider to find elements of matter(particles)?

Dear Brad Jesness

I know the whole process of research in both educational sciences and biomedicine and psychology, so I agree that not everything starts with the operational definition of variables but the entire content of a research project or protocol, from the theoretical framework conceptual, the scientific background, the research problem, the justification, objectives, hypothesis and in general the entire design and research procedure so that the content of the document is consistent, valid and reliable.

In my profile there are several dissemination works within my scientific contributions about how to develop research works and how to analyze and evaluate their results adequately. In addition, other documents to design and validate instruments necessary for certain types of research, especially in the field of psychology and education.

regards Jose Luis

Duan Xian Xiang

Reality is not totally similar to the element of consciousness you describe. The element of consciousness is, in my opinion, what is before, during and after. I am aware that something is happening, I observe it, I appropriate it and I do something with it. When I talk about reality, I mean the object of research, the existing and created knowledge about an object.

Jeremie Aboiron

Thank you, got it.

Dear José Luis García Vigil

Let me start by saying I do not doubt you, personally. BUT you do not speak indicating the ultimate or clearly-correct order of things (and making these explicit); this does not mean YOU do anything wrong, but we have to be careful in our definitions and procedures as we try to present the way real science is actually done to others in-general (even to others who should know).

I do appreciate how you seem to have provisions for every part of what has to be done. But, there still remains the matter of when each part is done -- the order and to what extent (and how). Some examples of bad order are (and there are many real-world examples of this, from serious researchers): "models FIRST" (based very little or too little on observation) -- not good. One must first face the true problem of observationally defining the "problem space" -- and this must be thoroughly done with inter-observer reliabilities (and perhaps using some well-established, known facts). THEN you are just about at the place you can design models. BUT not yet: first, there should be SOME theory-building (or a good outline of one) (some of this may even precede that important observational phase). In any case, to some noteworthy extent, these nascent "theories"should be built before models as well; we do this theory building when one has clearly identified some key true phenomenon of the "problem space", and we put their "story together" based on well-researched and defined set(s) of key established findings (facts) AND on the basis of established relevant principles. Surely, a good part of this TOO must be established before coming up with models. THEN FINALLY NOW MAKE YOUR MODEL(S). And: after models: hypotheses may be stated (with those "operational definitions", you talk about) and they are tested either in further observation of behavior patterns (with inter-observer reliabilities) AND/OR by experiments with good realistic operational definitions, and done in reasonable contexts.

José Luis García Vigil , you may do ALL things, I described, as I just described them; here (in this thread) I am making sure some facets are fully and well-recognized and well done, before some later steps (OR a bit of short-cutting or pretending might be happening, despite the provisions of guidance you provide -- leading, rather quickly, to "dead ends").

Dear Brad Jesness

I appreciate your prompt response and the clarity of your arguments and important point of view and respect. Of course, the better we describe what we do and compare the ideal with the real in a logical way and with qualitative and quantitative evidence, we can continue to advance and provide some information and guidance to those who are still in formation and those who are still developing

regards Jose Luis

What justifies the application of one research approach rather than another is the nature of the constructs we want to measure. Psychology like other disciplines involves both concrete and abstract variables which evoke the use of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.

Reza Biria

What should psychology measure? How does psychology quantify?

It is difficult in quantitative research. It is most suitable in qualitative research.

Following.

Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin

But does any science ultimately require quantification? Experimental psychologists already think they're doing quantitative research.

Following

Hi all

All results of research carried out by means of science and described and analyzed by means of the scientific method and its mathematical tools such as biostatistics; They begin with a sensation, a perception, an idea and a feeling that something is known and understood, but not totally.

Then ideas arise from formal thoughts, conjectures and hypotheses, the approach of the problem to be investigated, the proposal of a theory and an initial model to make the inquiry operational through a project and a proven method, the scientific method and finally the falsifiability of the results (Popper) to give the discoveries more truth content each time.

In synthesis, all discovery and all new knowledge, begins as an idea, materializes in a thought and in a series of methodical actions that finally reach one of the goals proposed by the researcher in terms of original knowledge, new technology and technological innovation .

Each of these parts of the research process and the discovery can be taken only through the logical, argumentative and emotional truths; that is, psychological (soft variables that can become quasi-hard variables to be defined and operational, or through the neurobiological and neuropathological mechanisms that underpin cognition and some awareness, or unraveling the objective world of natural dynamics of the context that surrounds us (which are properly hard or true variables, in our case, of biomedicine and biology).

Jose Luis

What is the nature of the experimentation in psychology you are interested in pursuing?

Psychology has a long history of research, both quantative and qualatative.

Dennis Mazur

I think that the purpose of the experiment was to find the "psychological phenomenon," although some of the "psychological phenomenon" are as small as the tip of the needle.

As I see it, the history of psychology shows us that psychology is the study of psychological phenomena or human behavior through experimental research, be it quantitive and/or qualitative. Of course, the experimental method is more applicable in certain domains (e.g. cognitive and social psychology) than in other ones (e.g. developmental psychology).

Best regards,

Orlando

Orlando M Lourenço

Yeah, exactly.

The answer is relative rather than absolute. There are certain phenomenon within psychology that needs experiments, whereas there are other which cannot be studied using experimental methods.

Depending on the area is science, first comes the qualatative research, then comes the quantative once the concepts become clearer and agreed upon.

Yes. Certainly.

Yes, indeed it is.

It depnds on the field of Psychology. Psychoanalysis, for eexample, is not suitable for experimental research. This is not the case of cognitive and social psychology. In these two fields you have nice experiments.

KInd regards,

Orlando

Yes, it is. It may influence the level of the researches and the quality of the results.