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

Drawing Conclusions

Scientific research is inherently probabilistic, meaning its findings are subject to uncertainty and the possibility of error. Because of this, a single study can rarely, if ever, offer absolute certainty about a theory. Instead of aiming to “prove” theories, scientists focus on supporting, refuting, or refining them based on patterns of evidence that emerge from empirical studies.

When the results of a study are statistically significant and align with the predictions made by a hypothesis, researchers can conclude that the findings support the underlying theory. In such cases, the theory not only made an accurate prediction, but it now accounts for a new phenomenon supported by empirical data. Conversely, when the results fail to support the hypothesis, the theory is weakened. The inaccurate prediction suggests a gap in the theory’s explanatory power, highlighting a phenomenon it does not fully address.

However, this process is not as straightforward as it may initially seem. A confirmed hypothesis can strengthen a theory, but it cannot definitively prove it. Scientists are careful to avoid using the word “prove” when discussing their theories for several reasons. First, statistically significant results could still stem from a Type I error, which is a false positive where the observed effect occurred by chance. Second, multiple theories may predict the same hypothesis, meaning that confirming a hypothesis could equally support all those competing theories. Finally, the problem of induction, a well-known philosophical issue, underscores that no number of confirming observations can eliminate the possibility of encountering a disconfirming one in the future. For instance, observing countless white swans cannot rule out the existence of a single black swan. Because of these limitations, even widely accepted theories remain subject to revision as new evidence emerges.

Disconfirmed hypotheses also introduce their own complexities. According to the strict hypothetico-deductive method, if a hypothesis derived from a theory is not supported, it logically suggests that the theory itself is flawed. In formal logic, if the premise “If A, then B” is paired with the observation “not B”, the conclusion must be “not A”. In practice, however, scientists rarely discard a theory after a single disconfirmed hypothesis. There are several reasons for this caution. A failed hypothesis could result from a Type II error, where a real effect was missed due to insufficient statistical power or a small sample size. Alternatively, the research design might have been flawed; for example, the independent variable may not have been manipulated effectively, or the dependent variable may not have been measured accurately.

Sometimes, disconfirmation reveals a previously overlooked assumption within the theory. For example, if Zajonc had failed to find evidence for social facilitation in cockroaches, he might have concluded that the drive theory still holds but applies only to organisms with more complex nervous systems. In such cases, researchers refine or adjust their theories rather than discarding them entirely. However, repeated disconfirmations across multiple studies, especially with improved methodologies, eventually necessitate abandoning the theory in favour of one better supported by evidence.

The key takeaway is that science deals in evidence, not proof. Because all studies carry some level of error and uncertainty, scientific conclusions are always open to refinement, reinterpretation, or rejection in light of new data.

Reporting the Results

The final step in the scientific research process is communicating the findings to the broader scientific community and, in some cases, to the public. Transparent and thorough reporting is essential for advancing knowledge, fostering collaboration, and enabling others to replicate or build upon the research.

One of the most prestigious and rigorous methods for sharing research findings is through peer-reviewed journal articles. These articles are submitted to academic journals and undergo a thorough peer-review process, where other experts in the field critically evaluate the study’s methodology, analysis, and conclusions. If the research meets the journal’s standards, it is accepted for publication. In psychology, these articles are usually written in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) style, a standardised format that ensures clarity, consistency, and proper attribution of sources.

Another common platform for sharing research findings is through book chapters in edited volumes. These chapters are typically contributions from various researchers, each focusing on a specific aspect of a broader topic. While some edited volumes undergo peer review, others may rely on the expertise of the editors to ensure quality. Book chapters allow researchers to delve deeper into their findings and explore theoretical implications in a more extended format than a journal article might allow.

In addition to written publications, many researchers choose to present their findings at academic conferences. Conferences provide an opportunity for direct engagement with peers, fostering discussion, feedback, and potential collaborations. Presentations at conferences generally take one of two forms: oral presentations or poster presentations.

Oral presentations involve standing in front of an audience and delivering a talk that typically lasts between 10 minutes and an hour, followed by a question-and-answer session. These presentations allow researchers to highlight their most significant findings and clarify complex points in real time.

Poster presentations, on the other hand, consist of summarising the study on a large printed or digital poster. Posters typically include key sections such as purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. Researchers stand by their posters during designated sessions, answering questions and engaging in discussions with attendees who stop to learn more about their work. Poster presentations are especially valuable for receiving constructive feedback before submitting a manuscript for peer-reviewed publication.

Beyond academic channels, researchers may also disseminate their findings through public talks, blog posts, and media interviews, depending on the nature of the research and its relevance to broader audiences. Sharing research publicly helps bridge the gap between academia and society, ensuring that scientific insights contribute to public knowledge, policy changes, and real-world applications.