Why do many psychologists prefertheory to common sense? As you can see from Table T-1, there are at least eightreasons why scientists prefer theory to common sense.
First,theories tend to be more internally consistent than common sense. That is, atheory usually doesn’t contradict itself. Common sense, on the otherhand, often contradicts itself (“absence makes the heart growfonder,” but “out of sight, out of mind”). Researchers findit easier to make clear, consistent predictions from a consistent theory ratherthan from inconsistent common sense.
Second, theories tendto be more consistent with existing facts than common sense. Often, theoriesare constructed by systematically collecting data and carefully analyzing thedata for patterns. But even when facts do not play a dominant role in givingbirth to a theory, facts will usually shape the theory’s development.Generally, if deductions from a theory are incorrect, the theory will bechanged or abandoned. Thus, unlike common sense, theories do not ignore facts.Consequently, a hypothesis based on an established theory is a more educatedguess and should have a greater chance of being correct than one based oncommon sense.
Third,theories are not restricted to making commonsense or intuitively obviouspredictions. Theories can make predictions that are counter-intuitive. Forexample, social learning theory predicts that rewarding a child for a behaviorcould make the child like doing the behavior less (because the child may decidethat he or she does the behavior because of the reward, rather than because thechild likes it). Because theories are not limited to making predictions thatare consistent with common sense, a theory may suggest controversial, new waysof viewing the world. For instance, Darwin’s theory on evolution had uslook at apes as relatives, Einstein’s theory of relativity had us look atmatter and energy as being the same thing, Freud’s theory had us look atourselves as being motivated by forces of which we weren’t aware, andWatson’s theory had us look at ourselves as a set of reflexes.
Fourth,theories summarize and organize a great deal of information. Just as the plotof a movie may connect thousands of otherwise unrelated images, theoriesconnect individual facts and give them meaning. That is, theories try toexplain facts. The ability of theories to connect facts means that theory-basedresearch will not produce isolated bits of trivia. Instead, the findings willfit into a framework that connects many other studies. In other words, thefacts revealed by theory-based research are not merely of interest for theirown sake, but also for how they relate to the theory’s explanation of howthe world works. For example, consider the following fact: around age 7,children stop believing in Santa Claus. In its own right, this is a relativelytrivial fact. However, when put in the context of Piaget’s theory, whichstates that around age 7, children are able to think logically about concreteevents (and thus realize that Santa Claus can’t be everywhere at once andcan’t carry that many toys), the finding has deeper significance.
Fifth,in addition to giving individual facts a meaningful context, theories focusresearch. Because many researchers try to test theories, findings fromtheory-based research are not only relevant to the theory’s explanationof events, but also to the findings of other researchers. Because progress inscience comes from researchers building on each other’s work, the importanceof a theory’s ability to coordinate individual scientists’ effortsshould not be underestimated.
Sixth,theories are often broad in scope. Because theories can be applied to a widerange of situations, researchers can generate a wide variety of studies from asingle theory. For example, social learning theory can be applied to prisons,businesses, advertising, politics, schizophrenics, smokers, librarians, maddogs, and Englishmen. Similarly, Freud’s theory of the unconscious can beapplied to virtually any situation.
Seventh,theories try to explain the facts with only a few core ideas. That is, theytend to be parsimonious: explaining a broad range of phenomena with a fewprinciples. The value of parsimony is evident when you consider that a majorfunction of science is to simplify our world. The parsimonious theory providesa few simple rules that summarize hundreds of observations. These general rulesmaking existing knowledge easier to understand, remember, and use. Therefore,scientists prefer theories with a few far-reaching principles to theories thatrequire a different principle to explain each new phenomenon. Thus, it shouldbe no surprise that two theories that have enjoyed greatpopularity--evolutionary theory and social learning theory--possess only a few,broad-ranging principles.
Finally,theories are often more testable than common sense. That is, by talking aboutvariables that can be objectively measured and by making specific predictions,a good theory is easy to test.
Using “Good” Theories to Generate Research Ideas
Despite their similarities, alltheories are not equally good. Some are more parsimonious than others, some arebroader than others, some are more logically consistent than others, some makemore interesting predictions than others, and some are more consistent with thefacts than others. However, if you are trying to develop a research hypothesis,the most important difference between theories is that some theories are moretestable--and thus more useful--than others. Therefore, when choosing a theory,make sure that it is testable.
Characteristics of a Testable Theory
Tobe testable, a theory must:
1. make predictions rather thanrely entirely on after-the-fact explanations;
2. predict one outcome rather thanseveral contradictory outcomes;
3. make a specific prediction,rather than an extremely vague one; and
4. make a prediction that can beverified through objective observation.
Prediction rather than postdiction.
To be testable, a theory must tell youabout events that have not yet been observed. Unfortunately, not all theoriesmake such predictions. Instead, some, such as McDougall’s (1908) instincttheory, only explain what happened after the fact. For example, after a womanpicked apples from her orchard, McDougall might say, “she picked applesbecause the instinct to pick apples from an orchard was activated.”However,
McDougall’s theory could notmake before-the-fact predictions because his theory didn’t tell us whento expect instincts to be aroused or how to tell whether someone would inherita high level of an instinct.
Prediction rather than predictions.
To be testable, a theory must be capableof making one and only one prediction about what would happen in a certainsituation. To illustrate the problem of making more than one prediction,consider Freudian theory. According to Freudian theory, receiving a severebeating from one’s father could result in any of the following outcomes:
1. no apparent effect (we try notto think about it: repression or
suppression);
2. deep anger and resentment atpeople similar to our father
(displacement);
3. great love for our father(reaction formation); or
4. hate for ourselves(internalization).
Given all these predictions, it ishard to imagine an outcome that would not agree with one of them. Freudiantheory would be more testable if it made one prediction.
Precision in prediction.
Almost as useless asmaking many predictions about what would happen in a certain situation ismaking one extremely vague prediction. Some theories purport to makepredictions about the future, but these predictions are so vague that they areuntestable. An extremely vague prediction may remind us of the fortune cookiesthat read, “You will make a decision soon.”
Precision is the reasonwe often like to see quantitative statements in theories. For instance, thestatement, “People taking drug A will remember twice as much as those nottaking A,” is more precise than the statement, “People taking drugA will remember more than those not taking A.”
Operationalism.
Even if a theory makes specific,unambiguous predictions about the future, these predictions must involvepublicly observable events--if the theory is to be testable. That is, for therelevant variables, we must be able to provide operational definitions:publicly observable sets of procedures (operations) to manipulate or measurevariables.
To illustrate theimportance of operational definitions, consider the statement: “When youdie, you will go to heaven.” Although this is a prediction about futureevents, it cannot be scientifically tested because we cannot find any publiclyobservable, physical evidence that would help us determine whether a person hasgone to heaven. Since religion makes such metaphysical (beyond the physicalworld) statements, science and religion usually do not mix. Analogously, a fewscientists have argued that science and psychoanalysis do not mix because wecannot observe the unconscious. Such is the fate of theories whose variablescannot be operationalized.
We should caution,however, that not all variables in a theory must be directly observable. Manytheories discuss hypothetical constructs: entities that we cannot, with ourpresent technology, observe directly. Gravity, electrons, love, learning, andmemory are all hypothetical constructs because they are invisible. Althoughhypothetical constructs can’t be seen, we may be able to infer theirpresence from their traces or impact. With enough indirect, physical evidence,scientists can make a very convincing case for the existence of an invisibleentity (a hypothetical construct). Thus, although no one has ever seen a quark,physicists have demonstrated that quarks exist.
In psychology, thechallenge has not been to see inside the atom, but to see inside the head. Likequarks, mental states cannot be directly observed. For example, we cannotdirectly observe learning. However, we can see its effect on performance. Thatis, we can operationally define learning as an increase in performance. Thus,if we see someone improve their performance after practicing a task, we wouldconclude that learning has occurred. Similarly, we can provide operationaldefinitions for such intangible hypothetical constructs as hunger, thirst,mood, love, etc.
You now know how tojudge whether a theory can help you generate research ideas. But where do youfind theories?
Finding a Testable Theory
To find a useful theory, start byreading textbook summaries of theories. Reading a textbook summary should atleast acquaint you with some of the theory’s propositions (to go beyond your text's brief explanation of dissonance theory, you can go tothe article that launched dissonance theory ,or, to get an online summary of the theory's relevance to modern life, try thislink or thisone) . Although thesesummaries will allow you to select a theory, do not rely exclusively ontextbook summaries--such summaries may oversimplify the theory. Thus, theresearcher who relies exclusively on textbook summaries may be accused ofignoring key propositions of the theory or of using a straw theory: anexaggerated, oversimplified caricature of the theory. Therefore, in addition toreading textbook summaries, you should also see how other researchers havesummarized the theory. To find these summaries, consult journal articles thatdescribe studies based on the theory (e.g., “Elation and Depression: Atest of opponent process theory”). Usually, the beginnings of these articles includea brief description of the theory that the study tests.
Once you have selecteda theory, read the original statement of the theory (the citation will be inthe texts or articles that you read). Then, to keep up-to-date about changes inthe theory, use Psychological Abstracts to find books and review articlesdevoted to the theory (see Appendix B).
Ways of Deducing Hypotheses From Theory
Once you understand thetheory, your task is to apply your powers of deduction. You have these powersor you wouldn’t have passed high school geometry and you wouldn’tbe able to write an essay. In fact, much of your everyday thinking involvesdeductive logic. For example, you may say, “The important thing about acollege education is to learn how to think. This assignment doesn’t helpme learn how to think. Therefore, this assignment is not important to mycollege education.” If your premises were sound, your statement would bean example of sound, deductive logic.
In deducing hypothesesfrom theory, you will use the same deductive logic illustrated above. That is,you will apply a general rule to a specific instance. The only difference isthat the general rule comes from a theory instead of from the top of your head.To reassure yourself that you can apply deductive reasoning to propositionsthat were made up by someone else, try this deductive reasoning test:
1. All people treated like b turnout c.
2. Person a is being treated likeb.
3. Person a will turn out___________.
1. All behavior can be changed bycontrolling its consequences.
2. Al’s behavior is bad.
3. Al’s bad behavior can bechanged by ___________.
As this“test” illustrates, if you know the premises and set them upcorrectly, deductive logic can be as simple as 1-2-3. Thus, because you knowcommon sense’s premises, you probably had no problem deducing researchideas from common sense. Consequently, once you know what a theory’spremises are, your problem will not be how to think deductively, but what tothink about. In the next few pages, we will give you some strategies that willhelp you focus your deductive reasoning.
Apply it to solve a practical problem.
Contrary to commonstereotypes about theories, theories can be applied to practical situations. AsKurt Lewin said, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.”For example, social learning theory has been used to cure shyness, promoteenergy conservation, address speech problems, reduce violence, and improvestudying behavior.
To take a closer lookat how theory can help you attack a practical problem, consider cognitivedissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). According to cognitive dissonance theory,if a person holds two thoughts that he considers inconsistent, he willexperience dissonance (see Table T-2). Since dissonance is unpleasant, theperson will try to reduce it, much as the person would try to reduce hunger,thirst, or anxiety (Aronson, 1990).
Let’s see howdissonance theory was used to get people to conserve energy. After being toldthey would get their names in the paper if they conserved energy, people cutback on their energy use. Then, dissonance was induced by telling them thattheir names would not be printed. This created dissonance between twoinconsistent ideas: (1) I do things for a reason, and (2) I went without airconditioning for no reason. Participants resolved the dissonance by cuttingenergy use even more! That is, they decided: (1) I do things for a reason, and(2) I went without air conditioning because I believe in energy conservation(Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980). Similarly, Stone, Aronson, Crain,Winslow, and Fried (1994) applied dissonance theory to getting people to engagein safe sex. Specifically, they created dissonance by (1) having participantspublicly advocate the importance of safe sex and then (2) reminding eachparticipant about times when that participant had failed to use condoms. Stoneand his colleagues found that participants reduced this feeling of dissonanceby buying condoms.
Use theory to understand a real life situation.
Many researchers takeadvantage of the fact that a major purpose of theories is to explain whathappens in the world. For example, researchers wanted to understand whyfraternities engage in hazing (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Gerard &Mathewson, 1966). They wondered if cognitive dissonance theory could explainhazing. Consequently, they tried to induce dissonance in some participants byhaving them suffer electrical shocks as a requirement for being accepted into a“boring” group, whereas other participants were able to join thegroup without an “initiation.” The researchers found that the participantswho received shocks resolved the dissonance caused by the opposing thoughts,“I am a logical person,” and, “I went through unpleasantnessto join a boring group,” by deciding that the boring group was a prettyinteresting group after all.
Look for moderator variables.
Theories are general rules that,ideally, hold most of the time under specific conditions. Therefore, askyourself, “under what situations or conditions, does the theory notapply?” That is, has the theory neglected to specify important moderatorvariables: variables that can intensify, weaken, or reverse the relationshipbetween two other variables?
Because researchersasked this question about cognitive dissonance theory, we now know that peopledo not change their attitude every time they behave in a way that goes againsttheir attitudes. Instead, the presence of certain moderator variables willdetermine whether performing a counter-attitudinal behavior will changeparticipants’ attitudes (Aronson, 1989; Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger& Carlsmith, 1959). Specifically, if participants are going to change theirattitudes after doing a counter-attitudinal behavior, the following conditionsmust be met:
1. participants must believe thatthey engaged in the behavior of their own free will (perceived freedom);
2. they do not receive a largereward for doing the behavior (insufficient justification); and
3. they view the attitude asimportant to their self-concept (self-relevance).
For example, if asmoker is forced at gunpoint to say smoking is bad, or given $10,000 for sayingsmoking is bad, or does not view smoking as important to his self-concept, thesmoker will not change his or her attitude about smoking. That is, perceivedfreedom, insufficient justification, and self-relevance are all variables thatmoderate the relationship between doing a counter-attitudinal behavior andchanging one’s attitude. Can you think of other moderator variables thatshould be included in dissonance theory? To answer this question, think about factors,situations, or circ*mstances that might prevent people from trying to eliminateinconsistencies between their attitudes and actions.
When looking formoderating variables, ask yourself whether the theory might be tooparsimonious. For example, operant conditioning theory’s rule that abehavior reinforced under a partial reinforcement schedule is more resistant toextinction is too simple. A behavior reinforced under a partial reinforcementschedule is more resistant to extinction only when the person believes thereward is controlled by external forces, such as chance, fate, or theexperimenter’s whim. Partially reinforced behaviors are not moreresistant to extinction when the participant believes that gettingreinforcement depends on skill (Rotter, 1990). In other words, the relationshipbetween reinforcement schedules and extinction is moderated by the variable ofperceived control.
Go for the jugular.
Another way to generateresearch ideas from a theory is to design a study that tests the accuracy ofthe theory’s core assumptions. Often, attacking the heart of the theoryinvolves examining the physiological or cognitive events that are--according tothe theory--the underlying causes (mediators) of a phenomenon. For instance,cognitive dissonance theory assumes that when people have two beliefs that theysee as contradictory, they experience an unpleasant, anxiety-provoking statecalled dissonance. To reduce dissonance, people will reconcile theinconsistency. In other words, dissonance theorists assume that dissonancemediates attitude change.
To test thisassumption, you might try to induce and maintain dissonance in participants anddetermine whether they do find dissonance an unpleasant, anxiety-provokingstate (Elliot & Devine, 1994). If participants felt decreased arousal, itwould seem that you had disproved a core assumption of the theory. That is, youwould have cast doubt on the belief that the state of dissonance is a mediatingvariable--physiological process or mental state that is the mechanism for howan event has its effect--for attitude change.
In addition to tryingto measure an alleged mediating variable, you may try to manipulate it. Forexample, suppose that a certain manipulation tends to cause attitude change,presumably because it creates a cognitive and physiological state of dissonancethat people then reduce. If the psychological state of dissonance is really themechanism by which attitude change occurs, interfering with that psychologicalstate should reduce attitude change. Therefore, you might expose all yourparticipants to the attitude change manipulation, but do something so that halfof your participants would be less likely to experience the physiologicalarousal of the dissonance state. For example, you might reduce any feelings ofdissonance-related arousal by giving one group
a tranquilizing drug. If dissonancereally is the mediating variable for attitude change, your tranquilizedparticipants should experience less dissonance-related arousal and thus lessattitude change than your other participants.
Pit two theories against each other.
Rather than trying to torpedo a theory,some researchers think the best hypotheses are those in which two theories makeopposite predictions. Ideally, these studies, called critical experiments, tryto settle the question of which theory’s view of the world is morecorrect. One of the first critical experiments was simple but persuasive.Participants looked at two lights. Almost as soon as one went on, the otherwent off. According to structuralism, the person should see one light going on,another going off. However, according to Gestalt theory, participants shouldsee the illusion of a single light moving back and forth. Gestalt theory wassupported.
More recently,cognitive dissonance theorists have taken on psychoanalysis. Specifically,dissonance researchers tested the psychoanalytic position that if you expresshostility towards a person, you’ll release pent up anger and consequentlyfeel better about the person. Dissonance theory, on the other hand, predictsthat if people are mad at someone and then hurt that person, then people willjustify their aggression by denigrating that person. Consequently, afterexpressing their aggression toward a person, people will feel more hostilitytoward that person. Experiments support the dissonance prediction (Aronson,1990).
If you can devise asituation where two theories make different predictions, you have probablydesigned a study your professor will want to hear about. However, even if youperform a critical experiment, do not expect the “loser” of yourstudy to be replaced. The loser has only lost a battle, not a war. There isusually enough vagueness in any theory for its arch-supporters to
minimize the extent of the damage.That is, they may argue that their theory wouldn’t necessarily make theprediction that you claimed it would. In other words, they may say that you putwords in their theory’s mouth. If they can’t claim that you putwords in their theory’s mouth, they may concede that their theory appliesto a more limited set of situations than they thought or they may modify thetheory to account for the results (Greenwald, 1975). Because scientists usuallyrespond to a damaging set of findings by modifying an established theory ratherthan “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” Darwin’stheory of evolution and Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonancesurvive today, but not in their original form. That is, by adapting to newdata, theories evolve.
Conclusions about Generating Research Ideas from Theory
As you have seen, theory is a veryuseful tool for developing research ideas and tying those ideas to existingknowledge. Without research based on theory, psychology would chaotically movein every direction with little purpose, like a chicken with its head cut off.Indeed, theory-based research is responsible for much of psychology’sprogress since 1892, when psychology was described by William James (p. 468)as:
a string of raw facts;. . . but not a single law in the sense in which physics shows us laws, not asingle proposition from which any consequence can causally be deduced . . .This is no science. . . .
Yet not everyonebelieves that theory-based research is always best (Greenwald et al., 1986;Kuhn, 1970; Skinner, 1956). (See Table T-3 for pros and cons of theory-basedresearch.) Thomas Kuhn (1970) argues that theories can serve as blinders,causing us to ignore problems that don’t fit nicely into existing theory.Skinner (1956) also argues that sticking to a theory’s narrow path maycause us to ignore interesting side streets. Specifically, Skinner’sadvice to investigators was “when you find something of interest, studyit.”
In addition to stoppingus from seeking new facts, theories may also stop us from seeing old facts innew ways. Thus, we may fail to make the kind of discoveries Darwin, Freud, andSkinner made--the ones that result from seeing what everyone else has seen, butthinking what no one else has thought. As physicists learned whenNewton’s theory was largely overturned by Einstein, looking at thingsexclusively through one theory’s perspective is especially dangerous whenthe theory has not been extensively tested. In other words, some experts(Greenwald et al., 1986; Kuhn, 1970; Skinner, 1968) would agree with SherlockHolmes’ statement about the danger of premature theorizing: “Onebegins to twist facts to fit theories rather than theories to fit facts.”
Fortunately, as Aronson(1989) points out, science is like a big circus tent. Under the tent, there isroom for research derived from theory, but there is also room in the tent forresearchers who follow hunches.
Not only canhunch-based and theory-based research share the same circus tent, but they cansometimes share the same ring. For example, suppose that an intuitive hunch ledyou to predict that having pets would cause the elderly to be more mentallyalert and healthy. You might then use theory to help you clearly articulate alogical rationale for your prediction--or even to help you refine yourprediction. For example, according to learned helplessness theory, a lack ofcontrol over outcomes may cause depression. Therefore, having a pet, or even aplant, may give one more of a sense of control and thus make one lessvulnerable to helplessness (Langer & Rodin, 1976).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
