By Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler and Dana C. Leighton, adapted by Marc Chao and Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim

Human curiosity about the world, and ourselves, has been a driving force behind knowledge and discovery for millennia. From ancient philosophers pondering the nature of the human mind to modern scientists decoding the brain’s neural pathways, this fundamental curiosity has shaped our quest for understanding. It is likely this same drive that inspired you to study psychology, a field dedicated to unravelling the complexities of human thought, emotion, and behaviour. Science, as a method for systematically exploring these questions, has proven to be the most effective tool for acquiring accurate, reliable, and verifiable knowledge about these intricate phenomena.

In psychology, scientific research forms the backbone of what we know about human behaviour. From the intricate workings of the brain’s cortical regions to the principles that guide learning and memory, almost every insight in the field stems from rigorous scientific inquiry. Research has illuminated everything from how we make decisions under pressure to why we are prone to cognitive biases and what motivates acts of altruism. The knowledge housed in a typical introductory psychology textbook represents the cumulative effort of thousands of researchers over many decades, each contributing a piece to the ever-growing puzzle of human nature. Yet, despite these advances, our understanding of human behaviour remains incomplete. Scientific research in psychology is ongoing, with new discoveries continuously reshaping what we know and revealing how much more there is to learn.

The Three Goals of Science

Scientific research in psychology is driven by three interconnected goals: to describe, predict, and explain phenomena. These goals provide a framework for how psychologists approach their investigations and build knowledge over time.

The first goal, to describe, focuses on systematically observing and recording behaviours, events, or phenomena to create a clear and accurate picture of what is happening. This step is foundational because meaningful insights must start with precise and detailed observations. For example, if researchers want to understand why patients use medical marijuana, they might collect data from licensing centres, survey patients, or analyse patient reports. Findings from such descriptive studies have shown that medical marijuana is most commonly used to treat pain, followed by symptoms of anxiety and depression (Sexton et al., 2016). Descriptive research does not necessarily tell us why or how these relationships exist, but it sets the stage for further investigation.

Building on description, the second goal of science is to predict. Once scientists observe consistent relationships between two variables, they can make informed predictions about future behaviour or events. For instance, if research consistently shows that medical marijuana is primarily used for pain management, scientists can reasonably predict that a patient using medical marijuana is likely dealing with pain-related symptoms. While predictions are rarely 100% accurate, they often provide better-than-random accuracy, especially when the observed relationships are robust and well-documented. Prediction allows scientists to anticipate outcomes, develop interventions, and prepare for potential consequences based on established patterns.

The third and most ambitious goal of science is to explain. Describing and predicting are important, but the ultimate objective is to understand why certain phenomena occur. Explanation involves uncovering the causal mechanisms and processes that drive behaviour or events. For example, in the context of medical marijuana, researchers might ask: How does marijuana alleviate pain? Does it work by reducing inflammation, or does it primarily lower the emotional distress associated with pain without affecting its physical intensity? Answering such questions goes beyond surface-level observations and delves into the deeper mechanisms governing behaviour. Scientific explanations aim to connect observations and predictions into a coherent, causal understanding that can be tested, refined, and expanded upon over time.

Basic versus Applied Research

Scientific research in psychology is often categorised into two broad types: basic research and applied research. While they serve distinct purposes, they are deeply interconnected and often inform one another.

Basic research focuses on building fundamental knowledge about psychological processes without a specific practical application in mind. The goal is to uncover general principles and mechanisms that explain how behaviour, cognition, and emotion operate. For example, studies exploring differences in talkativeness between men and women are not necessarily aimed at solving a specific problem but rather at expanding our understanding of communication patterns and gender dynamics. This kind of research forms the foundation upon which applied research is built.

On the other hand, applied research is driven by practical concerns and aims to address real-world problems directly. Studies investigating the effects of cell phone use on driving behaviour are a good example of applied research. Motivated by safety concerns, such research has influenced public policy and led to legislation aimed at reducing distracted driving accidents. Applied research bridges the gap between scientific knowledge and everyday challenges, translating insights from research into tangible solutions.

While it is convenient to separate research into these two categories, the line between basic and applied research is often blurred. Insights from basic research frequently lead to unexpected practical applications, while applied research often generates new theoretical knowledge. For example, basic research on gender differences in talkativeness might eventually inform communication strategies in marriage counselling, and applied research on cell phone use while driving might reveal new insights about attention and cognitive load.

In essence, both basic and applied research play indispensable roles in advancing our understanding of human behaviour. Basic research builds the theoretical foundation, while applied research ensures that this knowledge is used to address pressing societal issues. Together, they create a cycle of discovery and application that drives progress in the field of psychology.

Science and Common Sense

Many people question whether scientific research in psychology is truly necessary. After all, can we not simply rely on common sense or intuition to understand human behaviour? While it is true that we all possess intuitive beliefs about people’s thoughts, emotions, and actions, which psychologists refer to as folk psychology, these beliefs are not always accurate. In fact, scientific research has consistently shown that many widely accepted “common-sense” ideas about behaviour are misleading, incomplete, or outright false.

One classic example is the belief that venting anger, through actions like punching a pillow, screaming into the void, or otherwise “letting it out”, can reduce feelings of anger. This idea feels deeply intuitive and emotionally satisfying. However, research reveals the opposite: venting anger in these ways tends to intensify feelings of anger rather than alleviate them (Bushman, 2002). Similarly, many people assume that no one would confess to a crime they did not commit unless they were being physically tortured. Yet, extensive psychological studies have shown that false confessions are alarmingly common and can arise from a range of psychological pressures, including fatigue, fear, coercion, and the desire to escape a stressful interrogation (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004).

These examples demonstrate a broader truth: intuition, while often helpful in our day-to-day lives, is not a reliable guide when it comes to understanding complex patterns of human behaviour.

Some Common Myths

Psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and his colleagues explored many such misconceptions in their book, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. The book highlights numerous common-sense beliefs about human behaviour that have been debunked by scientific research. For example, many people believe that humans only use 10% of their brainpower, that most people experience a midlife crisis in their 40s or 50s, or that students learn best when teaching styles match their preferred “learning style”. Other myths include the idea that low self-esteem is a primary cause of psychological problems or that psychiatric admissions and crime rates spike during full moons.

Despite being widely accepted and repeated in popular culture, these beliefs fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. They persist because they are intuitive, often repeated, and sometimes emotionally comforting. But their persistence highlights the need for rigorous scientific investigation to separate fact from fiction.

Why Are Our Intuitions So Often Wrong?

It is a fair question: If common sense is so fallible, why do we rely on it so heavily? Psychological research points to several key reasons.

Firstly, forming accurate beliefs about human behaviour requires careful observation, precise memory, and detailed analysis. These are abilities that our brains are not naturally equipped to perform on a large scale. For instance, accurately counting and averaging the number of words spoken by men and women in various settings, and drawing valid conclusions from those observations, would be nearly impossible to achieve intuitively.

Instead, we rely on mental shortcuts called heuristics to make sense of the world. These shortcuts are often helpful for making quick decisions in everyday life, but they come with significant limitations. One particularly influential shortcut is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to notice and remember evidence that supports our preexisting beliefs while ignoring or forgetting evidence that contradicts them. For example, if someone believes women talk more than men, they will likely notice and remember talkative women and quiet men while overlooking talkative men and quiet women.

Secondly, many beliefs persist because they are emotionally reassuring. For instance, the idea that calorie-restrictive diets are effective for long-term weight loss persists despite scientific evidence to the contrary (Mann et al., 2007). People often cling to such beliefs because they offer hope, reinforce societal ideals, or provide a sense of personal control.

These cognitive biases and emotional reinforcements create a powerful barrier to changing our minds, even in the face of clear evidence.

The Role of Scepticism

Scientists, including psychologists, are just as vulnerable to cognitive biases as anyone else. What sets them apart is their cultivated attitude of scepticism. Scientific scepticism is not about being cynical, dismissive, or distrusting everything. Instead, it involves a deliberate pause to question assumptions, seek alternative explanations, and, most importantly, demand evidence, especially systematically collected empirical evidence, before drawing conclusions.

For example, imagine reading an article claiming that giving children a weekly allowance teaches them financial responsibility. A sceptical approach would not involve dismissing this claim outright but would instead prompt a series of questions:

• What evidence supports this claim?
• Was the claim derived from systematic research?
• Is the author qualified to make this claim?
• Are there alternative explanations for the observed outcomes?

If the issue is particularly significant, a sceptical approach might also involve digging into the research literature to see whether multiple studies support or contradict the claim.

Tolerance for Uncertainty

Another hallmark of scientific thinking is a tolerance for uncertainty. Scientists understand that evidence is often incomplete and that many questions remain unanswered. For instance, there is currently no definitive scientific evidence showing whether receiving a weekly allowance helps children become financially responsible or encourages materialistic behaviour.

While uncertainty can feel frustrating in everyday decision-making, it is a driving force for scientific discovery. Unanswered questions present opportunities for investigation, experimentation, and innovation. In this sense, uncertainty is not a barrier but an invitation; an open door for scientists and students alike to contribute to our growing body of knowledge.

The Limits of Common Sense

Common sense and intuition have their place in everyday decision-making. They allow us to make quick judgements, navigate social situations, and respond effectively to immediate challenges. However, when it comes to understanding complex psychological phenomena, like the roots of human emotion, the effects of social influence, or the cognitive processes behind decision-making, common sense or intuition often falls short.

Scientific research offers a more systematic, objective, and reliable approach to answering these questions. By combining scepticism, tolerance for uncertainty, and a commitment to empirical evidence, psychology transcends the limitations of intuition and folklore.

In the end, the goal is not to reject common sense entirely but to recognise its limitations. Science does not seek to eliminate intuition; it seeks to refine and validate it through careful observation, analysis, and testing. This evidence-based approach not only advances our understanding of human behaviour but also helps us make better-informed decisions in our personal and professional lives.

References

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724-731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289002

Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. I(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.3.221

Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x

Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A.-M., Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007). Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. I(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.220

Sexton, M., Cuttler, C., Finnell, J. S., & Laurie K. Mischley, L. K. (2016). A cross-sectional survey of medical cannabis users: Patterns of use and perceived efficacy. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 131-13. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2016.0007