advantages of using theory to generate ideas

1/6/2015 Advantages of Using Theory to Generate Ideas

http://www.jolley-mitchell.com/Appendix/Theory_Appendix/Using_Theory.htm 1/13

GO BACK

2004, 2007 Mark L. Mitchell & Janina M. Jolley. All rights reserved.

Advantages of Using Theory to Generate Ideas

Why do many psychologists prefer theory to common sense? As you can

see from Table T-1, there are at least eight reasons why scientists prefer

theory to common sense.

First, theories tend to be more internally consistent than

common sense. That is, a theory usually doesnt contradict itself. Common

sense, on the other hand, often contradicts itself (absence makes the

heart grow fonder, but out of sight, out of mind). Researchers find it

easier to make clear, consistent predictions from a consistent theory

rather than from inconsistent common sense.

Second, theories tend to be more consistent with existing facts than

common sense. Often, theories are constructed by systematically

collecting data and carefully analyzing the data for patterns. But even

when facts do not play a dominant role in giving birth to a theory, facts

will usually shape the theorys development. Generally, if deductions from

a theory are incorrect, the theory will be changed or abandoned. Thus,

unlike common sense, theories do not ignore facts. Consequently, a

hypothesis based on an established theory is a more educated guess and

should have a greater chance of being correct than one based on common

sense.

Third, theories are not restricted to making commonsense or

intuitively obvious predictions. Theories can make predictions that are

counter-intuitive. For example, social learning theory predicts that

rewarding a child for a behavior could make the child like doing the

behavior less (because the child may decide that he or she does the

behavior because of the reward, rather than because the child likes it).

Because theories are not limited to making predictions that are consistent

with common sense, a theory may suggest controversial, new ways of

viewing the world. For instance, Darwins theory on evolution had us look

at apes as relatives, Einsteins theory of relativity had us look at matter

and energy as being the same thing, Freuds theory had us look at

ourselves as being motivated by forces of which we werent aware, and



Watsons theory had us look at ourselves as a set of reflexes.

Fourth, theories summarize and organize a great deal of

information. Just as the plot of a movie may connect thousands of

otherwise unrelated images, theories connect individual facts and give

them meaning. That is, theories try to explain facts. The ability of theories

to connect facts means that theory-based research will not produce

isolated bits of trivia. Instead, the findings will fit into a framework that

connects many other studies. In other words, the facts revealed by

theory-based research are not merely of interest for their own sake, but

also for how they relate to the theorys explanation of how the world

works. For example, consider the following fact: around age 7, children

stop believing in Santa Claus. In its own right, this is a relatively trivial fact.

However, when put in the context of Piagets theory, which states that

around age 7, children are able to think logically about concrete events

(and thus realize that Santa Claus cant be everywhere at once and cant

carry that many toys), the finding has deeper significance.

Fifth, in addition to giving individual facts a meaningful

context, theories focus research. Because many researchers try to test

theories, findings from theory-based research are not only relevant to the

theorys explanation of events, but also to the findings of other

researchers. Because progress in science comes from researchers building

on each others work, the importance of a theorys ability to coordinate

individual scientists efforts should not be underestimated.

Sixth, theories are often broad in scope. Because theories can

be applied to a wide range of situations, researchers can generate a wide

variety of studies from a single theory. For example, social learning theory

can be applied to prisons, businesses, advertising, politics, schizophrenics,

smokers, librarians, mad dogs, and Englishmen. Similarly, Freuds theory of

the unconscious can be applied to virtually any situation.

Seventh, theories try to explain the facts with only a few core

ideas. That is, they tend to be parsimonious: explaining a broad range of

phenomena with a few principles. The value of parsimony is evident when

you consider that a major function of science is to simplify our world. The

parsimonious theory provides a few simple rules that summarize hundreds

of observations. These general rules making existing knowledge easier to



understand, remember, and use. Therefore, scientists prefer theories with

a few far-reaching principles to theories that require a different principle to

explain each new phenomenon. Thus, it should be no surprise that two

theories that have enjoyed great popularity--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 about variables 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, all theories are not equally good. Some are more

parsimonious than others, some are broader than others, some are more

logically consistent than others, some make more interesting predictions

than others, and some are more consistent with the facts than others.

However, if you are trying to develop a research hypothesis, the most

important difference between theories is that some theories are more

testable--and thus more useful--than others. Therefore, when choosing a

theory, make sure that it is testable.

Characteristics of a Testable Theory

To be testable, a theory must:

1. make predictions rather than rely entirely on after-the-fact

explanations;

2. predict one outcome rather than several contradictory outcomes;

3. make a specific prediction, rather than an extremely vague one; and

4. make a prediction that can be verified through objective observation.

Prediction rather than postdiction.

To be testable, a theory must tell you about events that have not

yet been observed. Unfortunately, not all theories make such predictions.

Instead, some, such as McDougalls (1908) instinct theory, only explain

what happened after the fact. For example, after a woman picked apples

from her orchard, McDougall might say, she picked apples because the

instinct to pick apples from an orchard was activated. However,

McDougalls theory could not make before-the-fact predictions because his

theory didnt tell us when to expect instincts to be aroused or how to tell



whether someone would inherit a high level of an instinct.

Prediction rather than predictions.

To be testable, a theory must be capable of making one and onlyone prediction about what would happen in a certain situation. To illustratethe problem of making more than one prediction, consider Freudian theory.According to Freudian theory, receiving a severe beating from ones fathercould result in any of the following outcomes:1. no apparent effect (we try not to think about it: repression orsuppression);2. deep anger and resentment at people similar to our father(displacement);3. great love for our father (reaction formation); or4. hate for ourselves (internalization).Given all these predictions, it is hard to imagine an outcome that wouldnot agree with one of them. Freudian theory would be more testable if itmade one prediction.

Precision in prediction.

Almost as useless as making many predictions about what wouldhappen in a certain situation is making one extremely vague prediction.Some theories purport to make predictions about the future, but thesepredictions are so vague that they are untestable. An extremely vagueprediction may remind us of the fortune cookies that read, You will makea decision soon.

Precision is the reason we often like to see quantitative statementsin theories. For instance, the statement, People taking drug A willremember twice as much as those not taking A, is more precise than thestatement, People taking drug A will remember more than those nottaking A.

Operationalism.

Even if a theory makes specific, unambiguous predictions about thefuture, these predictions must involve publicly observable events--if thetheory is to be testable. That is, for the relevant variables, we must beable to provide operational definitions: publicly observable sets of



procedures (operations) to manipulate or measure variables.

To illustrate the importance of operational definitions, consider the

statement: When you die, you will go to heaven. Although this is a

prediction about future events, it cannot be scientifically tested because

we cannot find any publicly observable, physical evidence that would help

us determine whether a person has gone to heaven. Since religion makes

such metaphysical (beyond the physical world) statements, science and

religion usually do not mix. Analogously, a few scientists have argued that

science and psychoanalysis do not mix because we cannot observe the

unconscious. Such is the fate of theories whose variables cannot be

operationalized.

We should caution, however, that not all variables in a theory must

be directly observable. Many theories discuss hypothetical constructs:

entities that we cannot, with our present technology, observe directly.

Gravity, electrons, love, learning, and memory are all hypothetical

constructs because they are invisible. Although hypothetical constructs

cant be seen, we may be able to infer their presence from their traces or

impact. With enough indirect, physical evidence, scientists can make a

very convincing case for the existence of an invisible entity (a hypothetical

construct). Thus, although no one has ever seen a quark, physicists have

demonstrated that quarks exist.

In psychology, the challenge has not been to see inside the atom,

but to see inside the head. Like quarks, mental states cannot be directly

observed. For example, we cannot directly observe learning. However, we

can see its effect on performance. That is, we can operationally define

learning as an increase in performance. Thus, if we see someone improve

their performance after practicing a task, we would conclude that learning

has occurred. Similarly, we can provide operational definitions for such

intangible hypothetical constructs as hunger, thirst, mood, love, etc.

You now know how to judge whether a theory can help you generate

research ideas. But where do you find theories?

Finding a Testable Theory

To find a useful theory, start by reading textbook summaries of theories.

Reading a textbook summary should at least acquaint you with some of



the theorys propositions (to go beyond your text's brief explanation of

dissonance theory, you can go to the article that launched dissonance

theory ,or, to get an online summary of the theory's relevance to modern

life, try this link or this one) . Although these summaries will allow you to

select a theory, do not rely exclusively on textbook summaries--such

summaries may oversimplify the theory. Thus, the researcher who relies

exclusively on textbook summaries may be accused of ignoring key

propositions of the theory or of using a straw theory: an exaggerated,

oversimplified caricature of the theory. Therefore, in addition to reading

textbook summaries, you should also see how other researchers have

summarized the theory. To find these summaries, consult journal articles

that describe studies based on the theory (e.g., Elation and Depression: A

test of opponent process theory). Usually, the beginnings of these

articles include a brief description of the theory that the study tests.

Once you have selected a theory, read the original statement of the

theory (the citation will be in the texts or articles that you read). Then, to

keep up-to-date about changes in the theory, use Psychological Abstracts

to find books and review articles devoted to the theory (see Appendix B).

Ways of Deducing Hypotheses From Theory

Once you understand the theory, your task is to apply your powers

of deduction. You have these powers or you wouldnt have passed high

school geometry and you wouldnt be able to write an essay. In fact, much

of your everyday thinking involves deductive logic. For example, you may

say, The important thing about a college education is to learn how to

think. This assignment doesnt help me learn how to think. Therefore, this

assignment is not important to my college education. If your premises

were sound, your statement would be an example of sound, deductive

logic.

In deducing hypotheses from 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 is that 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 propositions that were made up by

someone else, try this deductive reasoning test:



1. All people treated like b turn out c.2. Person a is being treated like b.3. Person a will turn out ___________.1. All behavior can be changed by controlling its consequences.2. Als behavior is bad.3. Als bad behavior can be changed 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 youknow common senses premises, you probably had no problem deducingresearch ideas from common sense. Consequently, once you know what atheorys premises are, your problem will not be how to think deductively,but what to think about. In the next few pages, we will give you somestrategies that will help you focus your deductive reasoning.

Apply it to solve a practical problem.

Contrary to common stereotypes about theories, theories can beapplied to practical situations. As Kurt Lewin said, there is nothing sopractical as a good theory. For example, social learning theory has beenused to cure shyness, promote energy conservation, address speechproblems, reduce violence, and improve studying behavior.

To take a closer look at how theory can help you attack a practicalproblem, consider cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957).According to cognitive dissonance theory, if a person holds two thoughtsthat he considers inconsistent, he will experience dissonance (see Table T-2). Since dissonance is unpleasant, the person will try to reduce it, muchas the person would try to reduce hunger, thirst, or anxiety (Aronson,1990).

Lets see how dissonance theory was used to get people toconserve energy. After being told they would get their names in the paperif they conserved energy, people cut back on their energy use. Then,dissonance was induced by telling them that their names would not beprinted. This created dissonance between two inconsistent ideas: (1) I dothings for a reason, and (2) I went without air conditioning for no reason.Participants resolved the dissonance by cutting energy 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 engage in safe sex.Specifically, they created dissonance by (1) having participants publiclyadvocate the importance of safe sex and then (2) reminding eachparticipant about times when that participant had failed to use condoms.Stone and his colleagues found that participants reduced this feeling ofdissonance by buying condoms.

Use theory to understand a real life situation.

Many researchers take advantage of the fact that a major purposeof theories is to explain what happens in the world. For example,researchers wanted to understand why fraternities engage in hazing(Aronson & Mills, 1959; Gerard & Mathewson, 1966). They wondered ifcognitive dissonance theory could explain hazing. Consequently, they triedto induce dissonance in some participants by having them suffer electricalshocks as a requirement for being accepted into a boring group, whereasother participants were able to join the group without an initiation. Theresearchers found that the participants who received shocks resolved thedissonance caused by the opposing thoughts, I am a logical person, and,I went through unpleasantness to join a boring group, by deciding thatthe boring group was a pretty interesting group after all.

Look for moderator variables.

Theories are general rules that, ideally, hold most of the time underspecific conditions. Therefore, ask yourself, under what situations orconditions, does the theory not apply? That is, has the theory neglectedto specify important moderator variables: variables that can intensify,weaken, or reverse the relationship between two other variables?

Because researchers asked this question about cognitive dissonancetheory, we now know that people do not change their attitude every timethey behave in a way that goes against their attitudes. Instead, thepresence of certain moderator variables will determine whether performinga counter-attitudinal behavior will change participants attitudes (Aronson,1989; Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Specifically, ifparticipants are going to change their attitudes after doing a counter-



attitudinal behavior, the following conditions must be met:

1. participants must believe that they engaged in the behavior of their

own free will (perceived freedom);

2. they do not receive a large reward for doing the behavior (insufficient

justification); and

3. they view the attitude as important to their self-concept (self-

relevance).

For example, if a smoker is forced at gunpoint to say smoking is bad,

or given $10,000 for saying smoking is bad, or does not view smoking as

important to his self-concept, the smoker will not change his or her

attitude about smoking. That is, perceived freedom, insufficient

justification, and self-relevance are all variables that moderate the

relationship between doing a counter-attitudinal behavior and changing

ones attitude. Can you think of other moderator variables that should be

included in dissonance theory? To answer this question, think about

factors, situations, or circumstances that might prevent people from

trying to eliminate inconsistencies between their attitudes and actions.

When looking for moderating variables, ask yourself whether the

theory might be too parsimonious. For example, operant conditioning

theorys rule that a behavior reinforced under a partial reinforcement

schedule is more resistant to extinction is too simple. A behavior

reinforced under a partial reinforcement schedule is more resistant to

extinction only when the person believes the reward is controlled by

external forces, such as chance, fate, or the experimenters whim. Partially

reinforced behaviors are not more resistant to extinction when the

participant believes that getting reinforcement depends on skill (Rotter,

1990). In other words, the relationship between reinforcement schedules

and extinction is moderated by the variable of perceived control.

Go for the jugular.

Another way to generate research ideas from a theory is to design a

study that tests the accuracy of the theorys core assumptions. Often,

attacking the heart of the theory involves examining the physiological or

cognitive events that are--according to the theory--the underlying causes

(mediators) of a phenomenon. For instance, cognitive dissonance theory



assumes that when people have two beliefs that they see as

contradictory, they experience an unpleasant, anxiety-provoking state

called dissonance. To reduce dissonance, people will reconcile the

inconsistency. In other words, dissonance theorists assume that

dissonance mediates attitude change.

To test this assumption, you might try to induce and maintain

dissonance in participants and determine whether they do find dissonance

an unpleasant, anxiety-provoking state (Elliot & Devine, 1994). If

participants felt decreased arousal, it would seem that you had disproved

a core assumption of the theory. That is, you would have cast doubt on

the belief that the state of dissonance is a mediating variable--

physiological process or mental state that is the mechanism for how an

event has its effect--for attitude change.

In addition to trying to measure an alleged mediating variable, you

may try to manipulate it. For example, suppose that a certain manipulation

tends to cause attitude change, presumably because it creates a cognitive

and physiological state of dissonance that people then reduce. If the

psychological state of dissonance is really the mechanism by which

attitude change occurs, interfering with that psychological state should

reduce attitude change. Therefore, you might expose all your participants

to the attitude change manipulation, but do something so that half of your

participants would be less likely to experience the physiological arousal of

the dissonance state. For example, you might reduce any feelings of

dissonance-related arousal by giving one group

a tranquilizing drug. If dissonance really is the mediating variable for

attitude change, your tranquilized participants should experience less

dissonance-related arousal and thus less attitude 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 make opposite

predictions. Ideally, these studies, called critical experiments, try to settle

the question of which theorys view of the world is more correct. One of

the first critical experiments was simple but persuasive. Participants looked



at two lights. Almost as soon as one went on, the other went off.

According to structuralism, the person should see one light going on,

another going off. However, according to Gestalt theory, participants

should see the illusion of a single light moving back and forth. Gestalt

theory was supported.

More recently, cognitive dissonance theorists have taken on

psychoanalysis. Specifically, dissonance researchers tested the

psychoanalytic position that if you express hostility towards a person,

youll release pent up anger and consequently feel better about the

person. Dissonance theory, on the other hand, predicts that if people are

mad at someone and then hurt that person, then people will justify their

aggression by denigrating that person. Consequently, after expressing

their aggression toward a person, people will feel more hostility toward

that person. Experiments support the dissonance prediction (Aronson,

1990).

If you can devise a situation where two theories make different

predictions, you have probably designed a study your professor will want

to hear about. However, even if you perform a critical experiment, do not

expect the loser of your study to be replaced. The loser has only lost a

battle, not a war. There is usually enough vagueness in any theory for its

arch-supporters to

minimize the extent of the damage. That is, they may argue that their

theory wouldnt necessarily make the prediction that you claimed it would.

In other words, they may say that you put words in their theorys mouth.

If they cant claim that you put words in their theorys mouth, they may

concede that their theory applies to a more limited set of situations than

they thought or they may modify the theory to account for the results

(Greenwald, 1975). Because scientists usually respond to a damaging set

of findings by modifying an established theory rather than throwing the

baby out with the bath water, Darwins theory of evolution and

Festingers theory of cognitive dissonance survive today, but not in their

original form. That is, by adapting to new data, theories evolve.

Conclusions about Generating Research Ideas from Theory

As you have seen, theory is a very useful tool for developing research



ideas and tying those ideas to existing knowledge. Without research basedon theory, psychology would chaotically move in every direction with littlepurpose, like a chicken with its head cut off. Indeed, theory-based researchis responsible for much of psychologys progress since 1892, whenpsychology was described by William James (p. 468) as:

a string of raw facts; . . . but not a single law in the sense in whichphysics shows us laws, not a single proposition from which anyconsequence can causally be deduced . . . This is no science. . . .

Yet not everyone believes that theory-based research is always best(Greenwald et al., 1986; Kuhn, 1970; Skinner, 1956). (See Table T-3 forpros and cons of theory-based research.) Thomas Kuhn (1970) arguesthat theories can serve as blinders, causing us to ignore problems thatdont fit nicely into existing theory. Skinner (1956) also argues thatsticking to a theorys narrow path may cause us to ignore interesting sidestreets. Specifically, Skinners advice to investigators was when you findsomething of interest, study it.

In addition to stopping us from seeking new facts, theories may alsostop us from seeing old facts in new ways. Thus, we may fail to make thekind of discoveries Darwin, Freud, and Skinner made--the ones that resultfrom seeing what everyone else has seen, but thinking what no one elsehas thought. As physicists learned when Newtons theory was largelyoverturned by Einstein, looking at things exclusively through one theorysperspective is especially dangerous when the theory has not beenextensively tested. In other words, some experts (Greenwald et al., 1986;Kuhn, 1970; Skinner, 1968) would agree with Sherlock Holmes statementabout the danger of premature theorizing: One begins to twist facts to fittheories rather than theories to fit facts.

Fortunately, as Aronson (1989) points out, science is like a bigcircus tent. Under the tent, there is room for research derived fromtheory, but there is also room in the tent for researchers who followhunches.

Not only can hunch-based and theory-based research share thesame circus tent, but they can sometimes share the same ring. Forexample, suppose that an intuitive hunch led you to predict that havingpets would cause the elderly to be more mentally alert and healthy. You



might then use theory to help you clearly articulate a logical rationale foryour prediction--or even to help you refine your prediction. For example,according to learned helplessness theory, a lack of control over outcomesmay cause depression. Therefore, having a pet, or even a plant, may giveone more of a sense of control and thus make one less vulnerable tohelplessness (Langer & Rodin, 1976).

Back to Research Design Explained Student Home Page

advantages of using theory to generate ideas

Documents