Psychology: Assessing Research Validity Through Scientific Principles

This essay critically evaluates psychological research, focusing on the application of scientific principles to assess the validity and reliability of research findings. It examines a scenario involving conflicting research results from Dr. Cuddles of Switzerland University and Japanese researchers regarding the impact of cuddling breathing teddy bears on infant sleep. The analysis incorporates principles such as ruling out rival hypotheses, correlation versus causation, falsifiability, and the avoidance of overreliance on anecdotes. The essay argues that Dr. Cuddles's dismissal of the Japanese researchers' findings based on 'shaky methodology' is scientifically inappropriate and emphasizes the importance of refuting claims with proper scientific justifications or accepting contradictory evidence. It also highlights the dangers of pseudoscience and the need for data-backed evidence over anecdotal statements in research.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology
Name of the Student
Name of University
Author’s note

1
PSYCHOLOGY
According to the ruling out rival hypothesis, when there are two contradictory
hypotheses, additional research is required to identify the correct hypothesis (Lilienfeld et al.,
2014). In the selected research description, the findings of the research undertaken by Dr
Cuddless of Switzerland University conflicted with the findings of the research undertaken by
Japanese researchers. It is unfair from Dr Cuddles’s end to rule out the study of the Japanese
researchers via evoking allegations of “shaky methodology” against them. The different in the
study results might be due to difference in the follow up tenure that is 3 consecutive days for Dr
Cuddles and 3-month for Japanese researchers. In order to establish their findings, Dr Cuddles is
required to cross-check the results of the rival hypothesis in order to explain their specific pattern
of results (Willig, 2013).
According to the scientific principle of correlation vs. causation, an association between
two things does not signify cause and effect relationship. It is important to ask whether the casual
connection that is implied (for example A causes B) could be reversed (that is B causes A) or
whether the use of third variable will help to explain the relationship between A and B
(Lilienfeld et al., 2014). However, research undertaken by Dr Cuddles though showed that
breathing bear (A) induced sleep to infants (B) but it failed to show the reversal of causal
connection. Because one group had teddy breathing teddy bear while other group had no
interventions at all. Allocation of another group with normal teddy bears (no breathing) (as done
by the Japanese researchers) could be helpful in explaining correlation vs. causation (Ghazban,
2018).

2
PSYCHOLOGY
According to scientific principle of falsifiability if there are no evident data which could
possibly highlight that any stated ideas is wrong then that very idea is not truly scientific. Thus it
can be said that claims must be capable of being disapproved (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). However,
when the researchers of Japan proposed a conflicting hypothesis that cuddling breathing kitty for
3 months caused no significant improvement in quality sleep time of the infants up-to 5 months
of age, Dr Cuddles took it as an offense and refuting Japanese findings. Refuting findings as
“shaky methodology” is not scientifically appropriate; it is the duty of the researcher to refute
with proper scientific justifications or to accept the claim as any scientific hypothesis might have
contradicting claims (Coolican, 2017).
Pseudoscience is an imposter science which mainly encompasses a set of claims that
apparently seems scientific but actually it is not. According to the scientific principle of
overreliances on anecdotes statements which are backed up by data are required to be preferred
over the statements which reflect the opinion of a single person. This is because any single
person’s observation can be influenced by biases (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). In order to refute the
findings of the Japanese researchers Dr Cuddles mainly up-held the experience of the mothers of
the infants who participated in the researcher with a special mention to Natalie. Though the
experiences are than one but were no strong numeral or scientific data present by Dr Cuddles in
order to refute the claims of Japanese researchers. Thus the set of claims made by Dr Cuddles
cannot solely be regarded as scientific (Coolican, 2017).

3
PSYCHOLOGY
References
Coolican, H. (2017). Research methods and statistics in psychology. Psychology Press.
Ghazban,N. (2018, September). The tactics of psychological research. Psychology 102:
Introduction to Psychology I. University of Ryerson, Toronto, ON
Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S. J., Namy, L., Woolf, N., Jamieson, G., Marks, A., & Slaughter, V.
(2014). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. 3rd Canadian Edition. Toronto, ON:
Pearson Higher Education AU; pp: 30-35.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).