Most people are avid amateur social psychologists who might have ample wisdom and experience to support their social phenomena conclusions. What sets the social psychologist apart from the amateur observer is that the social psychologist applies systematic methods for studying people in context. While the amateur observer comes to conclusions through experience, the scientist asks questions, conducts experiments, and finds answers (Aronson, 2008; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007; Myers, 2008). Stated simply, the amateur observer has wisdom, experience, and culture; the social psychologist has research.

The social psychologist uses the scientific method to identify the lawful relationship among things (Aronson, 2008). The steps in this process are:

Observe phenomena.
Guess the lawful relationship of variables in the phenomena.
Frame the guess as a hypothesis to test.
Design and experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Understanding the research methodologies and tools of social psychology helps find answers and generate an understanding of how social psychologists study social behavior while providing amateurs with a foundation for critically assessing research results.

Theory

To understand people in context, social psychologists organize ideas into theories that they test using descriptive, correlational, and experimental research. Social psychology theories are “integrated sets of ideas and principles that explain and predict observed events” (Myers, 2008, p. 17). Theories differ from facts in that theories are ideas that explain facts and predict events. The predictions in theories are called hypotheses. A hypothesis is a guess or assumption (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007; Aronson, 2008) that allows the social psychologist to test and modify a theory, give direction to research, and offer practical applications for the theory.

Descriptive methods

Social psychologists have a toolkit of descriptive methods to observe, measure, and record behavior in real-world situations. The typical descriptive methods include naturalistic observation, case studies, archives, surveys, and psychological tests (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007, p. 18).

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation involves observing behavior in a natural setting. Naturalistic observation allows the researchers to observe spontaneous rather than artificial behavior. A limitation of natural observation is that bias can shade what the researcher sees and reports.

Case studies

Social psychologists develop case studies when they want to observe an individual or a group intensely. The case study is particularly useful for gaining an understanding of unusual behavior. However, researcher bias can limit case studies. For example, the researcher may report only the behavior that supports the hypothesis. An additional problem with case studies is that they might be on isolated and rare cases that do not generalize, offering limited relevancy outside of the case study.

Surveys

Using the survey method, researchers ask a random sample of people questions about their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors, then extrapolate results to a population (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). Survey results allow social psychologists to identify correlation among variables, like the connection between a demographic trait and health. Surveys can provide an incomplete snapshot of a population by taking unrepresentative samples and introducing researcher bias through the wording and order of questions and selecting and ordering response options (Myers, 2008). Whether by accident or by design, such weaknesses make surveys ideal tools for manipulating attitudes and behavior.

Psychological tests

Psychological tests assess the differences between the abilities, cognitions, motivations, and behaviors of respondents. All psychological tests have issues with reliability and validity. Consistency of test results threatens reliability; respondents can get different results every time they take an assessment. This can reflect an inaccurate assessment or indicate that the assessment is measuring a dynamic process. Different personality characteristics emerge depending on the context. Assessments that do not measure what they are designed to measure threaten test validity.

Correlational method

Correlational research uses the data from descriptive methods to reveal the correlation among independent variables in real-world settings. However, the relationship between cause and effect in correlational research can be ambiguous (Myers, 2008) because correlation does not equal causality. Correlation provides hints about a relationship that allows predictability but does not tell if changing one variable will cause changes in another variable (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). In other words, correlation does not allow conclusions about cause and effect. As a result, Myers declares, “the correlation-causation confusion is behind much-muddled thinking in social psychology” (p. 19). The experimental method provides some clarity for this muddled thinking.

Experimental method

Due to the challenges of identifying cause and effect among variables in the real world, most social psychology researchers attempt to create laboratory simulations to observe behavior changes caused by manipulating some aspects of the situation while controlling others (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). Laboratory experiments' essential advantages are as follows (Aronson, 2008).

Control. Experimenters can control the environment and the variables in a lab.
Consistency. Researchers can turn social behaviors on and off (Kipnis, 1994) while ensuring that the participants have similar experiences.
Random assignment. Random assignment helps ensure that each participant has an equal chance of taking part in experimental conditions. Random assignment offers an essential advantage over non-experimental research methods by allowing researchers to distribute uncontrolled variables across the experiment, so they do not have systematic consequences. For example, random assignment can evenly distribute across experimental conditions the differences in participant personality and experience.
Tools and practices. The laboratory provides tools and techniques for controlling human social behavior (Kipnis, 1994).

A problem with experiments is that findings in controlled laboratory settings do not necessarily translate into dynamic real-world applications. The experimental approach to understanding complex problems does not provide a solution. Limitations in internal validity can introduce challenges in making confident conclusions about cause and effect.

Similarly, limitations in external validity can introduce challenges applying the findings outside of a controlled setting in the real world. Further, because the lab is not reality, and the participants know that researchers are watching, the experimental method results are artificial and may lack internal and external validity. As observed by Pepitone, (1981) “it is doubtful whether a deep understanding of human social behavior can ever be achieved without observing individuals in the manifold contexts in which they interdependently live and work” (p. 976).

One way to reduce the experimental method's limitations is to conduct field research; get out of the lab, and experience social behavior. By moving the laboratory into a real-world setting, experimenters can manipulate variables on unknowing participants (Myers, 2008; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). However, Pepitone (1981) observed that learning about social psychology by getting out of the lab and observing how people interact in the real world is anathema to theoretical social psychologists because they cannot control the variables.

Combined

Since one research method's weakness can be another method’s strength, social psychologists can combine research methodologies to reach more accurate conclusions (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). The experimental method can help researchers to identify cause and effect, but the results are artificial. In contrast, the descriptive correlation method allows researchers to provide real-world data but does not allow cause-effect conclusions. Combining the approaches helps to balance out the weakness of one method with the strengths of the other.

Research methods in social psychology