sections of a research report psychology

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11: Presenting Your Research

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behaviour?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
“Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
“Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
“Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
“Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
“How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behaviour (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humourous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humour and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favourite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behaviour during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centred on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Three ways of organizing an APA-style method. Long description available.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how can they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What new research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centred at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centred at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Key Takeaways

An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g., Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different colour each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.1 long description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials” (“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

The page at the beginning of an APA-style research report containing the title of the article, the authors’ names, and their institutional affiliation.

A summary of a research study.

The third page of a manuscript containing the research question, the literature review, and comments about how to answer the research question.

An introduction to the research question and explanation for why this question is interesting.

A description of relevant previous research on the topic being discusses and an argument for why the research is worth addressing.

The end of the introduction, where the research question is reiterated and the method is commented upon.

The section of a research report where the method used to conduct the study is described.

The main results of the study, including the results from statistical analyses, are presented in a research article.

Section of a research report that summarizes the study's results and interprets them by referring back to the study's theoretical background.

Part of a research report which contains supplemental material.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

sections of a research report psychology

Lab Report Format: Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

In psychology, a lab report outlines a study’s objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions, ensuring clarity and adherence to APA (or relevant) formatting guidelines.

A typical lab report would include the following sections: title, abstract, introduction, method, results, and discussion.

The title page, abstract, references, and appendices are started on separate pages (subsections from the main body of the report are not). Use double-line spacing of text, font size 12, and include page numbers.

The report should have a thread of arguments linking the prediction in the introduction to the content of the discussion.

This must indicate what the study is about. It must include the variables under investigation. It should not be written as a question.

Title pages should be formatted in APA style .

The abstract provides a concise and comprehensive summary of a research report. Your style should be brief but not use note form. Look at examples in journal articles . It should aim to explain very briefly (about 150 words) the following:

Start with a one/two sentence summary, providing the aim and rationale for the study.
Describe participants and setting: who, when, where, how many, and what groups?
Describe the method: what design, what experimental treatment, what questionnaires, surveys, or tests were used.
Describe the major findings, including a mention of the statistics used and the significance levels, or simply one sentence summing up the outcome.
The final sentence(s) outline the study’s “contribution to knowledge” within the literature. What does it all mean? Mention the implications of your findings if appropriate.

The abstract comes at the beginning of your report but is written at the end (as it summarises information from all the other sections of the report).

Introduction

The purpose of the introduction is to explain where your hypothesis comes from (i.e., it should provide a rationale for your research study).

Ideally, the introduction should have a funnel structure: Start broad and then become more specific. The aims should not appear out of thin air; the preceding review of psychological literature should lead logically into the aims and hypotheses.

The funnel structure of the introducion to a lab report

Start with general theory, briefly introducing the topic. Define the important key terms.
Explain the theoretical framework.
Summarise and synthesize previous studies – What was the purpose? Who were the participants? What did they do? What did they find? What do these results mean? How do the results relate to the theoretical framework?
Rationale: How does the current study address a gap in the literature? Perhaps it overcomes a limitation of previous research.
Aims and hypothesis. Write a paragraph explaining what you plan to investigate and make a clear and concise prediction regarding the results you expect to find.

There should be a logical progression of ideas that aids the flow of the report. This means the studies outlined should lead logically to your aims and hypotheses.

Do be concise and selective, and avoid the temptation to include anything in case it is relevant (i.e., don’t write a shopping list of studies).

USE THE FOLLOWING SUBHEADINGS:

Participants

How many participants were recruited?
Say how you obtained your sample (e.g., opportunity sample).
Give relevant demographic details (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age range, mean age, and standard deviation).
State the experimental design .
What were the independent and dependent variables ? Make sure the independent variable is labeled and name the different conditions/levels.
For example, if gender is the independent variable label, then male and female are the levels/conditions/groups.
How were the IV and DV operationalized?
Identify any controls used, e.g., counterbalancing and control of extraneous variables.
List all the materials and measures (e.g., what was the title of the questionnaire? Was it adapted from a study?).
You do not need to include wholesale replication of materials – instead, include a ‘sensible’ (illustrate) level of detail. For example, give examples of questionnaire items.
Include the reliability (e.g., alpha values) for the measure(s).
Describe the precise procedure you followed when conducting your research, i.e., exactly what you did.
Describe in sufficient detail to allow for replication of findings.
Be concise in your description and omit extraneous/trivial details, e.g., you don’t need to include details regarding instructions, debrief, record sheets, etc.
Assume the reader has no knowledge of what you did and ensure that he/she can replicate (i.e., copy) your study exactly by what you write in this section.
Write in the past tense.
Don’t justify or explain in the Method (e.g., why you chose a particular sampling method); just report what you did.
Only give enough detail for someone to replicate the experiment – be concise in your writing.
The results section of a paper usually presents descriptive statistics followed by inferential statistics.
Report the means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each IV level. If you have four to 20 numbers to present, a well-presented table is best, APA style.
Name the statistical test being used.
Report appropriate statistics (e.g., t-scores, p values ).
Report the magnitude (e.g., are the results significant or not?) as well as the direction of the results (e.g., which group performed better?).
It is optional to report the effect size (this does not appear on the SPSS output).
Avoid interpreting the results (save this for the discussion).
Make sure the results are presented clearly and concisely. A table can be used to display descriptive statistics if this makes the data easier to understand.
DO NOT include any raw data.
Follow APA style.

Use APA Style

Numbers reported to 2 d.p. (incl. 0 before the decimal if 1.00, e.g., “0.51”). The exceptions to this rule: Numbers which can never exceed 1.0 (e.g., p -values, r-values): report to 3 d.p. and do not include 0 before the decimal place, e.g., “.001”.
Percentages and degrees of freedom: report as whole numbers.
Statistical symbols that are not Greek letters should be italicized (e.g., M , SD , t , X 2 , F , p , d ).
Include spaces on either side of the equals sign.
When reporting 95%, CIs (confidence intervals), upper and lower limits are given inside square brackets, e.g., “95% CI [73.37, 102.23]”
Outline your findings in plain English (avoid statistical jargon) and relate your results to your hypothesis, e.g., is it supported or rejected?
Compare your results to background materials from the introduction section. Are your results similar or different? Discuss why/why not.
How confident can we be in the results? Acknowledge limitations, but only if they can explain the result obtained. If the study has found a reliable effect, be very careful suggesting limitations as you are doubting your results. Unless you can think of any c onfounding variable that can explain the results instead of the IV, it would be advisable to leave the section out.
Suggest constructive ways to improve your study if appropriate.
What are the implications of your findings? Say what your findings mean for how people behave in the real world.
Suggest an idea for further research triggered by your study, something in the same area but not simply an improved version of yours. Perhaps you could base this on a limitation of your study.
Concluding paragraph – Finish with a statement of your findings and the key points of the discussion (e.g., interpretation and implications) in no more than 3 or 4 sentences.

Reference Page

The reference section lists all the sources cited in the essay (alphabetically). It is not a bibliography (a list of the books you used).

In simple terms, every time you refer to a psychologist’s name (and date), you need to reference the original source of information.

If you have been using textbooks this is easy as the references are usually at the back of the book and you can just copy them down. If you have been using websites then you may have a problem as they might not provide a reference section for you to copy.

References need to be set out APA style :

Author, A. A. (year). Title of work . Location: Publisher.

Journal Articles

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Article title. Journal Title, volume number (issue number), page numbers

A simple way to write your reference section is to use Google scholar . Just type the name and date of the psychologist in the search box and click on the “cite” link.

Next, copy and paste the APA reference into the reference section of your essay.

Once again, remember that references need to be in alphabetical order according to surname.

Psychology Lab Report Example

Quantitative paper template.

Quantitative professional paper template: Adapted from “Fake News, Fast and Slow: Deliberation Reduces Belief in False (but Not True) News Headlines,” by B. Bago, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, 2020, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 149 (8), pp. 1608–1613 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Qualitative paper template

Qualitative professional paper template: Adapted from “‘My Smartphone Is an Extension of Myself’: A Holistic Qualitative Exploration of the Impact of Using a Smartphone,” by L. J. Harkin and D. Kuss, 2020, Psychology of Popular Media , 10 (1), pp. 28–38 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000278 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Providing a study guide and revision resources for students and psychology teaching resources for teachers.

Psychological Report Writing

March 8, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | research methods.

Back to Paper 2 - Research Methods

Writing up Psychological Investigations

Through using this website, you have learned about, referred to, and evaluated research studies. These research studies are generally presented to the scientific community as a journal article. Most journal articles follow a standard format. This is similar to the way you may have written up experiments in other sciences.

In research report there are usually six sub-sections:

(1) Abstract: This is always written last because it is a very brief summary:

Include a one sentence summary, giving the topic to be studied. This may include the hypothesis and some brief theoretical background research, for example the name of the researchers whose work you have replicated.
Describe the participants, number used and how they were selected.
Describe the method and design used and any questionnaires etc. you employed.
State your major findings, which should include a mention of the statistics used the observed and critical values and whether or not your results were found to be significant, including the level of significance
Briefly summarise what your study shows, the conclusion of your findings and any implications it may have. State whether the experimental or null hypothesis has been accepted/rejected.
This should be around 150 words.

(2) Introduction:

This tells everyone why the study is being carried out and the commentary should form a ‘funnel’ of information. First, there is broad coverage of all the background research with appropriate evaluative comments: “Asch (1951) found…but Crutchfield (1955) showed…” Once the general research has been covered, the focus becomes much narrower finishing with the main researcher/research area you are hoping to support/refute. This then leads to the aims and hypothesis/hypotheses (i.e. experimental and null hypotheses) being stated.

(3) Method:

Method – this section is split into sub-sections:

(1) Design:

What is the experimental method that has been used?
Experimental Design type independent groups, repeated measures, matched pairs? Justify?
What is the IV, DV? These should be operationalised.
Any potential EVs?
How will these EVs be overcome?
Ethical issues? Strategies to overcome these ethical issues

(2) Participants:

Who is the target population? Age/socio-economic status, gender, etc.
What sampling technique has been used? Why?
Details of participants that have been used? Do they have certain characteristics
How have participants been allocated to conditions

(3) Materials:

Description of all equipment used and how to use it (essential for replication)
Stimulus materials for participants should be in the appendix

(4) Procedure:

This is a step-by-step guide of how the study was carried out when, where, how
Instructions to participants must be standardised to allow replication
Lengthy sets of instructions and instructions to participants should be in the appendix

(4) Results:

This section contains:

A summary of the data. All raw data and calculations are put in the appendix.
This generally starts with a section of descriptive statistics measures of central tendency and dispersion.
Summary tables, which should be clearly labelled and referred to in the text, e.g., “Table One shows that…” Graphical representations of the data must also be clear and properly labelled and referred to in the text, e.g., “It can be seen from Figure 1 that…”
Once the summary statistics have been explained, there should be an analysis of the results of any inferential tests, including observed values, how these relate to the critical table value, significance level and whether the test was one- or two-tailed.
This section finishes with the rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.

(5) Discussion:

This sounds like a repeat of the results section, but here you need to state what you’ve found in terms of psychology rather than in statistical terms, in particular relate your findings to your hypotheses. Mention the strength of your findings, for example were they significant and at what level. If your hypothesis was one tailed and your results have gone in the opposite direction this needs to be indicated. If you have any additional findings to report, other than those relating to the hypotheses then they too can be included.

All studies have flaws, so anything that went wrong or the limitations of the study are discussed together with suggestions for how it could be improved if it were to be repeated. Suggestions for alternative studies and future research are also explored. The discussion ends with a paragraph summing up what was found and assessing the implications of the study and any conclusions that can be drawn from it.

(6) Referencing (Harvard Referencing):

References should contain details of all the research covered in a psychological report. It is not sufficient to simply list the books used.

What you should do:

Look through your report and include a reference every researcher mentioned. A reference should include; the name of the researcher, the date the research was published, the title of the book/journal, where the book was published (or what journal the article was published in), the edition number of the book/volume of the journal article, the page numbers used.

Example: Paivio, A., Madigan, S.A. (1970). Noun imagery and frequency in paired-associate and free learning recall. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 24, pp353-361.

Other Rules Make sure that the references are placed in alphabetical order.

Exam Tip: In the exam, the types of questions you could expect relating to report writing include; defining what information you would find in each section of the report, in addition, on the old specification, questions linked to report writing have included; writing up a method section, results section and designing a piece of research.

In addition, in the exam, you may get asked to write; a consent form , debriefing sheet or a set of standardised instructions.

Writing a Consent Form for a Psychological Report Remember the mnemonic TAPCHIPS

Your consent form should include the following;

(1) T itle of the Project:

(2) A im of the study?

(3) P rocedure – What will I be asked to do if I take part?

You should give a brief description of what the participants will have to do if they decide to consent to take part in the study (i.e. complete a 15-minute memory test etc )

(4) Will your data be kept C onfidential?

Explain how you will make sure that all personal details will be kept confidential.

(5) Do I H ave to take part?

Explain to the participant that they don’t have to take part in the study, explain about their right to withdraw.

(6) I nformation? Where can I obtained further information if I need it?

Provide the participant with the contact details of the key researchers carrying out the study.

(7) P articipant responses to the following questions:

Have you received enough information about the study? YES/NO

Do you consent for your data to be used in this study and retained for use in other studies? YES/NO

Do you understand that you do not need to take part in the study and that you can; withdraw your participation at any time without reason or detriment? YES/NO

(8) S ignature from the participant and the researcher: will need to be acquired at the bottom of the consent form.

Writing a set of Standardised Instructions for a Psychological Investigation

When writing a set of standardised instructions, it is essential that you include:

1. Enough information to allow for replication of the study

2. You must write the instructions so that they can simply be read out by the researcher to the participants.

3. You should welcome the participants to the study.

4. Thank the participants for giving their consent to take part.

5. Explain to the participants what will happen in the study, what they will be expected to do (step by step), how long the task/specific parts of the task will take to complete.

6. Remind participants that they have the right to withdraw throughout the study.

7. Ask that participants at the end if they have any questions

8. Check that the participants are still happy to proceed with the study.

Writing a Debriefing Form for a Psychological Report

This is the form that you should complete with your participants at the end of the study to ensure that they are happy with the way the study has been conducted, to explain to them the true nature of the study, to confirm consent and to give them the researcher’s contact details in case they want to ask any further questions.

Thank the participants for taking part in the study.
Outline the true aims of the research (what were the participants expected to do? What happened in each of the different conditions?)
Explain what you were looking to find.
Explain how the data will be used now and in the future.
Remind the participants that they have the right to withdraw now and after the study.
Thank participants once again for taking part.
Remind the participant of the researcher(s) contact details.

Designing Research

One of the questions that you may get asked in the exam is to design a piece of research. The best way to go about this is to include similar information to what you would when writing up the method section of a psychological report.

Things to Consider…

What is the experimental method/non-experimental method will you use? ( Lab, field, natural experiment? Questionnaire (open/closed questions?), Interviews (structured, unstructured, semi-structured?), Observation).
Why? ( does this method allow a great deal of control? Is it in a natural setting and would show behaviour reflective of real life? Would it allow participants to remain anonymous and therefore, they are more likely to tell the truth/act in a realistic way? Does the method avoid demand characteristics?)
Experimental Design type ( independent groups, repeated measures, matched pairs? Justify you choice?)
What is the IV, DV? These should be operationalised ( how are you going to measure these variables?)
Any potential EVs? ( Participant variables, experimenter effects, demand characteristics, situational variables?)
How will these EVs be overcome? ( Are you going to out some control mechanisms in place? Are you going to use standardised instructions? Double or single blind? Will the experimental design that you are using help to overcome EVs?)
Ethical issues? ( What are the potential ethical issues and what strategies are you going to use to overcome these ethical issues?)
Who is the target population? Age/socio-economic status, gender, etc.
How have participants been allocated to conditions ( have you used random allocation? Why have you adopted this technique?
This is a step-by-step guide of how the study was carried out – from beginning to end, how are you going to carry out the study.
Psychopathology
Social Psychology
Approaches To Human Behaviour
Biopsychology
Research Methods
Issues & Debates
Teacher Hub
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
[email protected]
www.psychologyhub.co.uk

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
Contact & Directions
Climate Statement
Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Social Psychology
Adjunct Faculty
Non-Senate Instructors
Researchers
Psychology Grads
Affiliated Grads
New and Prospective Students
Honors Program
Experiential Learning
Programs & Events
Psi Chi / Psychology Club
Prospective PhD Students
Current PhD Students
Area Brown Bags
Colloquium Series
Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
Speaker Videos
Undergraduate Program

Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

Writing Research Papers

Information and resources.

One of the most important skills that you can learn in this department is how to write a research paper. For many of you, this will be in fulfillment of the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement and/or the Psychology Honors Program Thesis requirement. You may also be writing an American Psychological Association (APA) formatted research paper for a Psychology course (such as a term paper or a summary of an empirical research paper). In some cases, such as for certain job, graduate school, and fellowship applications, you may be asked to provide a writing sample; a well-written research paper can be ideal for that purpose. The ability to write research papers is crucial for those who wish to pursue graduate school and research careers. To assist with these potential goals, we’ve gathered important information and helpful tips for you.

Should I Use a Specific Format and Style?

In the psychological sciences, it is common for research papers to adhere to the guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (papers in other fields often use APA format as well). APA guidelines not only specify the types of sections that a research paper should have, but also the order of those sections, the manner in which scholarly sources should be cited in the text and in a separate references section, appropriate methods of reporting experimental and statistical results, the proper use of language, and other details. A well-written psychology research paper typically follows those guidelines .

How to Write a Successful Research Paper in APA Style

For more information on writing research papers in APA style, please checking out the following pages. Here you’ll find details on multiple aspects of the research paper writing process, ranging from how the paper should be structured to how to write more effectively.

Structure and Format – the critical components of each section of an APA-formatted research paper (Introduction, Methods, and on), as well as how those sections should be formatted according to APA guidelines.

► Structure of Research Papers in APA Style

► Formatting Research Papers in APA Style

Finding, Evaluating, and Citing References – how to search databases, how to obtain references, how to take notes when reading references, what types of references to use, how to include in-text citations, and how to create an APA-formatted reference list.

► Using Databases and Finding References

► What Types of References Are Appropriate for Research Papers?

► Evaluating References and Taking Notes

► Citing References in APA Style

Writing a Literature Review, the Writing Process, and Improving Writing – how to write a literature review (an overview or summary of prior research, which is a common technique of introducing a research topic in the early sections of a paper), as well as recommendations for the writing process, improving clarity and conciseness, examples of adequate and better paragraphs, and links to resources on improving writing.

► Writing Literature Reviews

► Writing Process and Revising

► Improving Scientific Writing

Avoiding Plagiarism – how to make sure that your research paper represents your writing and ideas and does not erroneously or unethically appropriate the works of others.

► Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism

How-To Videos – for video guides to the different major sections of research papers, plus literature reviews and references, please see the following:

► Writing Research Papers Videos

In addition, you may be interested in downloading “ How to Write a Research Paper in APA Style ”, a comprehensive guide developed by Prof. Emma Geller, “ Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers ” (a short summary of multiple aspects of the paper-writing process), and an Example B.S. Degree Research Paper written in APA Style .

Workshops and Downloadable Resources

For in-person discussion of the process of writing research papers, please consider attending this department’s “Writing Research Papers” workshop (for dates and times, please check the undergraduate workshops calendar).
How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – empirical research) [ PDF ]
Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

OASIS Language and Writing Program
UCSD Writing Programs and Resources
UCSD Muir College Writing Hub
UCSD Writing Hub

External Resources

APA Style Guide from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL)
APA Tutorial on the Basics of APA Style
EasyBib Guide to Writing and Citing in APA Format
Formatting APA Style Papers in Microsoft Word
How to Write an APA Style Research Paper from Hamilton University
Online Learning: Plagiarism and Paraphrasing
Sample APA Formatted Paper with Comments
Sample APA Formatted Paper
Tips for Writing a Paper in APA Style
WikiHow Guide to Writing APA Research Papers

Research Paper Structure
Formatting Research Papers
Using Databases and Finding References
What Types of References Are Appropriate?
Evaluating References and Taking Notes
Citing References
Writing a Literature Review
Writing Process and Revising
Improving Scientific Writing
Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
Writing Research Papers Videos
Effective Studying

11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report A type of journal article in which the author reports on a new empirical research study. , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page The first page of an APA-style manuscript, containing the title, author names and affiliations, and author note. . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

It’s Soooo Cute!

How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

“Let’s Get Serious: Communicating Commitment in Romantic Relationships”
“Through the Looking Glass Clearly: Accuracy and Assumed Similarity in Well-Adjusted Individuals’ First Impressions”
“Don’t Hide Your Happiness! Positive Emotion Dissociation, Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning”
“Forbidden Fruit: Inattention to Attractive Alternatives Provokes Implicit Relationship Reactance”

The abstract A short summary (approximately 200 words) of a research article. In an APA-style manuscript, the abstract appears on the second page. is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction The first major section of an APA-style empirical research report. It typically includes an opening, a literature review, and a closing. begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The opening The first paragraph or two of the introduction of an APA-style empirical report. It introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003). Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

Breaking the Rules

Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review A written summary of previous research on a topic. It constitutes the bulk of the introduction of an APA-style empirical research report. , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing The last paragraph or two of the introduction of an APA-style empirical research report. It restates the research question and comments on the method. of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions (p. 378).

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section The section of an APA-style empirical research report in which the method is described in detail. At minimum, it includes a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsections. is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 "Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method" shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

The results section The section of an APA-style empirical research report in which the results are described in detail. is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Some journals now make the raw data available online.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

The discussion The final major section of an APA-style empirical research report. It typically includes a summary of the research, a discussion of theoretical and practical implications of the study, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968), Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendixes, Tables, and Figures

Appendixes, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix An optional section at the end of an APA-style manuscript used to present important supplemental material. is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendixes come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figure 11.2 "Title Page and Abstract" , Figure 11.3 "Introduction and Method" , Figure 11.4 "Results and Discussion" , and Figure 11.5 "References and Figure" show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract

This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method

Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion

The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.

Figure 11.5 References and Figure

If there were appendixes or tables, they would come before the figure.

Key Takeaways

An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g., Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different color each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology

In anticipation of the impending revision of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , APA’s Publications and Communications Board formed the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) and charged it to provide the board with background and recommendations on information that should be included in manuscripts submitted to APA journals that report (a) new data collections and (b) meta-analyses. The JARS Group reviewed efforts in related fields to develop standards and sought input from other knowledgeable groups. The resulting recommendations contain (a) standards for all journal articles, (b) more specific standards for reports of studies with experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions using research designs involving random or nonrandom assignment, and (c) standards for articles reporting meta-analyses. The JARS Group anticipated that standards for reporting other research designs (e.g., observational studies, longitudinal studies) would emerge over time. This report also (a) examines societal developments that have encouraged researchers to provide more details when reporting their studies, (b) notes important differences between requirements, standards, and recommendations for reporting, and (c) examines benefits and obstacles to the development and implementation of reporting standards.

The American Psychological Association (APA) Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (the JARS Group) arose out of a request for information from the APA Publications and Communications Board. The Publications and Communications Board had previously allowed any APA journal editor to require that a submission labeled by an author as describing a randomized clinical trial conform to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines ( Altman et al., 2001 ; Moher, Schulz, & Altman, 2001 ). In this context, and recognizing that APA was about to initiate a revision of its Publication Manual ( American Psychological Association, 2001 ), the Publications and Communications Board formed the JARS Group to provide itself with input on how the newly developed reporting standards related to the material currently in its Publication Manual and to propose some related recommendations for the new edition.

The JARS Group was formed of five current and previous editors of APA journals. It divided its work into six stages:

establishing the need for more well-defined reporting standards,
gathering the standards developed by other related groups and professional organizations relating to both new data collections and meta-analyses,
drafting a set of standards for APA journals,
sharing the drafted standards with cognizant others,
refining the standards yet again, and
addressing additional and unresolved issues.

This article is the report of the JARS Group’s findings and recommendations. It was approved by the Publications and Communications Board in the summer of 2007 and again in the spring of 2008 and was transmitted to the task force charged with revising the Publication Manual for consideration as it did its work. The content of the report roughly follows the stages of the group’s work. Those wishing to move directly to the reporting standards can go to the sections titled Information for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report New Data Collections and Information for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report Meta-Analyses.

Why Are More Well-Defined Reporting Standards Needed?

The JARS Group members began their work by sharing with each other documents they knew of that related to reporting standards. The group found that the past decade had witnessed two developments in the social, behavioral, and medical sciences that encouraged researchers to provide more details when they reported their investigations. The first impetus for more detail came from the worlds of policy and practice. In these realms, the call for use of “evidence-based” decision making had placed a new emphasis on the importance of understanding how research was conducted and what it found. For example, in 2006, the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice defined the term evidence-based practice to mean “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise” (p. 273; italics added). The report went on to say that “evidence-based practice requires that psychologists recognize the strengths and limitations of evidence obtained from different types of research” (p. 275).

In medicine, the movement toward evidence-based practice is now so pervasive (see Sackett, Rosenberg, Muir Grey, Hayes & Richardson, 1996 ) that there exists an international consortium of researchers (the Cochrane Collaboration; http://www.cochrane.org/index.htm ) producing thousands of papers examining the cumulative evidence on everything from public health initiatives to surgical procedures. Another example of accountability in medicine, and the importance of relating medical practice to solid medical science, comes from the member journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2007) , who adopted a policy requiring registration of all clinical trials in a public trials registry as a condition of consideration for publication.

In education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) required that the policies and practices adopted by schools and school districts be “scientifically based,” a term that appears over 100 times in the legislation. In public policy, a consortium similar to that in medicine now exists (the Campbell Collaboration; http://www.campbellcollaboration.org ), as do organizations meant to promote government policymaking based on rigorous evidence of program effectiveness (e.g., the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy; http://www.excelgov.org/index.php?keyword=a432fbc34d71c7 ). Each of these efforts operates with a definition of what constitutes sound scientific evidence. The developers of previous reporting standards argued that new transparency in reporting is needed so that judgments can be made by users of evidence about the appropriate inferences and applications derivable from research findings.

The second impetus for more detail in research reporting has come from within the social and behavioral science disciplines. As evidence about specific hypotheses and theories accumulates, greater reliance is being placed on syntheses of research, especially meta-analyses ( Cooper, 2009 ; Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009 ), to tell us what we know about the workings of the mind and the laws of behavior. Different findings relating to a specific question examined with various research designs are now mined by second users of the data for clues to the mediation of basic psychological, behavioral, and social processes. These clues emerge by clustering studies based on distinctions in their methods and then comparing their results. This synthesis-based evidence is then used to guide the next generation of problems and hypotheses studied in new data collections. Without complete reporting of methods and results, the utility of studies for purposes of research synthesis and meta-analysis is diminished.

The JARS Group viewed both of these stimulants to action as positive developments for the psychological sciences. The first provides an unprecedented opportunity for psychological research to play an important role in public and health policy. The second promises a sounder evidence base for explanations of psychological phenomena and a next generation of research that is more focused on resolving critical issues.

The Current State of the Art

Next, the JARS Group collected efforts of other social and health organizations that had recently developed reporting standards. Three recent efforts quickly came to the group’s attention. Two efforts had been undertaken in the medical and health sciences to improve the quality of reporting of primary studies and to make reports more useful for the next users of the data. The first effort is called CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; Altman et al., 2001 ; Moher et al., 2001 ). The CONSORT standards were developed by an ad hoc group primarily composed of biostatisticians and medical researchers. CONSORT relates to the reporting of studies that carried out random assignment of participants to conditions. It comprises a checklist of study characteristics that should be included in research reports and a flow diagram that provides readers with a description of the number of participants as they progress through the study—and by implication the number who drop out—from the time they are deemed eligible for inclusion until the end of the investigation. These guidelines are now required by the top-tier medical journals and many other biomedical journals. Some APA journals also use the CONSORT guidelines.

The second effort is called TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonexperimental Designs; Des Jarlais, Lyles, Crepaz, & the TREND Group, 2004 ). TREND was developed under the initiative of the Centers for Disease Control, which brought together a group of editors of journals related to public health, including several journals in psychology. TREND contains a 22-item checklist, similar to CONSORT, but with a specific focus on reporting standards for studies that use quasi-experimental designs, that is, group comparisons in which the groups were established using procedures other than random assignment to place participants in conditions.

In the social sciences, the American Educational Research Association (2006) recently published “Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications.” These standards encompass a broad range of research designs, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and are divided into eight general areas, including problem formulation; design and logic of the study; sources of evidence; measurement and classification; analysis and interpretation; generalization; ethics in reporting; and title, abstract, and headings. They contain about two dozen general prescriptions for the reporting of studies as well as separate prescriptions for quantitative and qualitative studies.

Relation to the APA Publication Manual

The JARS Group also examined previous editions of the APA Publication Manual and discovered that for the last half century it has played an important role in the establishment of reporting standards. The first edition of the APA Publication Manual , published in 1952 as a supplement to Psychological Bulletin ( American Psychological Association, Council of Editors, 1952 ), was 61 pages long, printed on 6-in. by 9-in. paper, and cost $1. The principal divisions of manuscripts were titled Problem, Method, Results, Discussion, and Summary (now the Abstract). According to the first Publication Manual, the section titled Problem was to include the questions asked and the reasons for asking them. When experiments were theory-driven, the theoretical propositions that generated the hypotheses were to be given, along with the logic of the derivation and a summary of the relevant arguments. The method was to be “described in enough detail to permit the reader to repeat the experiment unless portions of it have been described in other reports which can be cited” (p. 9). This section was to describe the design and the logic of relating the empirical data to theoretical propositions, the subjects, sampling and control devices, techniques of measurement, and any apparatus used. Interestingly, the 1952 Manual also stated, “Sometimes space limitations dictate that the method be described synoptically in a journal, and a more detailed description be given in auxiliary publication” (p. 25). The Results section was to include enough data to justify the conclusions, with special attention given to tests of statistical significance and the logic of inference and generalization. The Discussion section was to point out limitations of the conclusions, relate them to other findings and widely accepted points of view, and give implications for theory or practice. Negative or unexpected results were not to be accompanied by extended discussions; the editors wrote, “Long ‘alibis,’ unsupported by evidence or sound theory, add nothing to the usefulness of the report” (p. 9). Also, authors were encouraged to use good grammar and to avoid jargon, as “some writing in psychology gives the impression that long words and obscure expressions are regarded as evidence of scientific status” (pp. 25–26).

Through the following editions, the recommendations became more detailed and specific. Of special note was the Report of the Task Force on Statistical Inference ( Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999 ), which presented guidelines for statistical reporting in APA journals that informed the content of the 4th edition of the Publication Manual . Although the 5th edition of the Manual does not contain a clearly delineated set of reporting standards, this does not mean the Manual is devoid of standards. Instead, recommendations, standards, and requirements for reporting are embedded in various sections of the text. Most notably, statements regarding the method and results that should be included in a research report (as well as how this information should be reported) appear in the Manual ’s description of the parts of a manuscript (pp. 10–29). For example, when discussing who participated in a study, the Manual states, “When humans participated as the subjects of the study, report the procedures for selecting and assigning them and the agreements and payments made” (p. 18). With regard to the Results section, the Manual states, “Mention all relevant results, including those that run counter to the hypothesis” (p. 20), and it provides descriptions of “sufficient statistics” (p. 23) that need to be reported.

Thus, although reporting standards and requirements are not highlighted in the most recent edition of the Manual, they appear nonetheless. In that context, then, the proposals offered by the JARS Group can be viewed not as breaking new ground for psychological research but rather as a systematization, clarification, and—to a lesser extent than might at first appear—an expansion of standards that already exist. The intended contribution of the current effort, then, becomes as much one of increased emphasis as increased content.

Drafting, Vetting, and Refinement of the JARS

Next, the JARS Group canvassed the APA Council of Editors to ascertain the degree to which the CONSORT and TREND standards were already in use by APA journals and to make us aware of other reporting standards. Also, the JARS Group requested from the APA Publications Office data it had on the use of auxiliary websites by authors of APA journal articles. With this information in hand, the JARS Group compared the CONSORT, TREND, and AERA standards to one another and developed a combined list of nonredundant elements contained in any or all of the three sets of standards. The JARS Group then examined the combined list, rewrote some items for clarity and ease of comprehension by an audience of psychologists and other social and behavioral scientists, and added a few suggestions of its own.

This combined list was then shared with the APA Council of Editors, the APA Publication Manual Revision Task Force, and the Publications and Communications Board. These groups were requested to react to it. After receiving these reactions and anonymous reactions from reviewers chosen by the American Psychologist , the JARS Group revised its report and arrived at the list of recommendations contained in Tables 1 , ,2, 2 , and and3 3 and Figure 1 . The report was then approved again by the Publications and Communications Board.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms239779f1.jpg

Note. This flowchart is an adaptation of the flowchart offered by the CONSORT Group ( Altman et al., 2001 ; Moher, Schulz, & Altman, 2001 ). Journals publishing the original CONSORT flowchart have waived copyright protection.

Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS): Information Recommended for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report New Data Collections Regardless of Research Design

Module A: Reporting Standards for Studies With an Experimental Manipulation or Intervention (in Addition to Material Presented in Table 1 )

Reporting Standards for Studies Using Random and Nonrandom Assignment of Participants to Experimental Groups

Information for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report New Data Collections

The entries in Tables 1 through through3 3 and Figure 1 divide the reporting standards into three parts. First, Table 1 presents information recommended for inclusion in all reports submitted for publication in APA journals. Note that these recommendations contain only a brief entry regarding the type of research design. Along with these general standards, then, the JARS Group also recommended that specific standards be developed for different types of research designs. Thus, Table 2 provides standards for research designs involving experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions (Module A). Next, Table 3 provides standards for reporting either (a) a study involving random assignment of participants to experimental or intervention conditions (Module A1) or (b) quasi-experiments, in which different groups of participants receive different experimental manipulations or interventions but the groups are formed (and perhaps equated) using a procedure other than random assignment (Module A2). Using this modular approach, the JARS Group was able to incorporate the general recommendations from the current APA Publication Manual and both the CONSORT and TREND standards into a single set of standards. This approach also makes it possible for other research designs (e.g., observational studies, longitudinal designs) to be added to the standards by adding new modules.

The standards are categorized into the sections of a research report used by APA journals. To illustrate how the tables would be used, note that the Method section in Table 1 is divided into subsections regarding participant characteristics, sampling procedures, sample size, measures and covariates, and an overall categorization of the research design. Then, if the design being described involved an experimental manipulation or intervention, Table 2 presents additional information about the research design that should be reported, including a description of the manipulation or intervention itself and the units of delivery and analysis. Next, Table 3 presents two separate sets of reporting standards to be used depending on whether the participants in the study were assigned to conditions using a random or nonrandom procedure. Figure 1 , an adaptation of the chart recommended in the CONSORT guidelines, presents a chart that should be used to present the flow of participants through the stages of either an experiment or a quasi-experiment. It details the amount and cause of participant attrition at each stage of the research.

In the future, new modules and flowcharts regarding other research designs could be added to the standards to be used in conjunction with Table 1 . For example, tables could be constructed to replace Table 2 for the reporting of observational studies (e.g., studies with no manipulations as part of the data collection), longitudinal studies, structural equation models, regression discontinuity designs, single-case designs, or real-time data capture designs ( Stone & Shiffman, 2002 ), to name just a few.

Additional standards could be adopted for any of the parts of a report. For example, the Evidence-Based Behavioral Medicine Committee ( Davidson et al., 2003 ) examined each of the 22 items on the CONSORT checklist and described for each special considerations for reporting of research on behavioral medicine interventions. Also, this group proposed an additional 5 items, not included in the CONSORT list, that they felt should be included in reports on behavioral medicine interventions: (a) training of treatment providers, (b) supervision of treatment providers, (c) patient and provider treatment allegiance, (d) manner of testing and success of treatment delivery by the provider, and (e) treatment adherence. The JARS Group encourages other authoritative groups of interested researchers, practitioners, and journal editorial teams to use Table 1 as similar starting point in their efforts, adding and deleting items and modules to fit the information needs dictated by research designs that are prominent in specific subdisciplines and topic areas. These revisions could then be in corporated into future iterations of the JARS.

Information for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report Meta-Analyses

The same pressures that have led to proposals for reporting - standards for manuscripts that report new data collections have led to similar efforts to establish standards for the reporting of other types of research. Particular attention has been focused on the reporting of meta-analyses.

With regard to reporting standards for meta-analysis, the JARS Group began by contacting the members of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology and asking them to share with the group what they felt were the critical aspects of meta-analysis conceptualization, methodology, and results that need to be reported so that readers (and manuscript reviewers) can make informed, critical judgments about the appropriateness of the methods used for the inferences drawn. This query led to the identification of four other efforts to establish reporting standards for meta-analysis. These included the QUOROM Statement (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis; Moher et al., 1999 ) and its revision, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & the PRISMA Group, 2008 ), MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; Stroup et al., 2000 ), and the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis ( Cook, Sackett, & Spitzer, 1995 ).

Next the JARS Group compared the content of each of the four sets of standards with the others and developed a combined list of nonredundant elements contained in any or all of them. The JARS Group then examined the combined list, rewrote some items for clarity and ease of comprehension by an audience of psychologists, and added a few suggestions of its own. Then the resulting recommendations were shared with a subgroup of members of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology who had experience writing and reviewing research syntheses in the discipline of psychology. After these suggestions were incorporated into the list, it was shared with members of the Publications and Communications Board, who were requested to react to it. After receiving these reactions, the JARS Group arrived at the list of recommendations contained in Table 4 , titled Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS). These were then approved by the Publications and Communications Board.

Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS): Information Recommended for Inclusion in Manuscripts Reporting Meta-Analyses

Other Issues Related to Reporting Standards

A definition of “reporting standards”.

The JARS Group recognized that there are three related terms that need definition when one speaks about journal article reporting standards: recommendations, standards, and requirements. According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (n.d.) , to recommend is “to present as worthy of acceptance or trial … to endorse as fit, worthy, or competent.” In contrast, a standard is more specific and should carry more influence: “something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.” And finally, a requirement goes further still by dictating a course of action—“something wanted or needed”—and to require is “to claim or ask for by right and authority … to call for as suitable or appropriate … to demand as necessary or essential.”

With these definitions in mind, the JARS Group felt it was providing recommendations regarding what information should be reported in the write-up of a psychological investigation and that these recommendations could also be viewed as standards or at least as a beginning effort at developing standards. The JARS Group felt this characterization was appropriate because the information it was proposing for inclusion in reports was based on an integration of efforts by authoritative groups of researchers and editors. However, the proposed standards are not offered as requirements. The methods used in the subdisciplines of psychology are so varied that the critical information needed to assess the quality of research and to integrate it successfully with other related studies varies considerably from method to method in the context of the topic under consideration. By not calling them “requirements,” the JARS Group felt the standards would be given the weight of authority while retaining for authors and editors the flexibility to use the standards in the most efficacious fashion (see below).

The Tension Between Complete Reporting and Space Limitations

There is an innate tension between transparency in reporting and the space limitations imposed by the print medium. As descriptions of research expand, so does the space needed to report them. However, recent improvements in the capacity of and access to electronic storage of information suggest that this trade-off could someday disappear. For example, the journals of the APA, among others, now make available to authors auxiliary websites that can be used to store supplemental materials associated with the articles that appear in print. Similarly, it is possible for electronic journals to contain short reports of research with hot links to websites containing supplementary files.

The JARS Group recommends an increased use and standardization of supplemental websites by APA journals and authors. Some of the information contained in the reporting standards might not appear in the published article itself but rather in a supplemental website. For example, if the instructions in an investigation are lengthy but critical to understanding what was done, they may be presented verbatim in a supplemental website. Supplemental materials might include the flowchart of participants through the study. It might include oversized tables of results (especially those associated with meta-analyses involving many studies), audio or video clips, computer programs, and even primary or supplementary data sets. Of course, all such supplemental materials should be subject to peer review and should be submitted with the initial manuscript. Editors and reviewers can assist authors in determining what material is supplemental and what needs to be presented in the article proper.

Other Benefits of Reporting Standards

The general principle that guided the establishment of the JARS for psychological research was the promotion of sufficient and transparent descriptions of how a study was conducted and what the researcher(s) found. Complete reporting allows clearer determination of the strengths and weaknesses of a study. This permits the users of the evidence to judge more accurately the appropriate inferences and applications derivable from research findings.

Related to quality assessments, it could be argued as well that the existence of reporting standards will have a salutary effect on the way research is conducted. For example, by setting a standard that rates of loss of participants should be reported (see Figure 1 ), researchers may begin considering more concretely what acceptable levels of attrition are and may come to employ more effective procedures meant to maximize the number of participants who complete a study. Or standards that specify reporting a confidence interval along with an effect size might motivate researchers to plan their studies so as to ensure that the confidence intervals surrounding point estimates will be appropriately narrow.

Also, as noted above, reporting standards can improve secondary use of data by making studies more useful for meta-analysis. More broadly, if standards are similar across disciplines, a consistency in reporting could promote interdisciplinary dialogue by making it clearer to researchers how their efforts relate to one another.

And finally, reporting standards can make it easier for other researchers to design and conduct replications and related studies by providing more complete descriptions of what has been done before. Without complete reporting of the critical aspects of design and results, the value of the next generation of research may be compromised.

Possible Disadvantages of Standards

It is important to point out that reporting standards also can lead to excessive standardization with negative implications. For example, standardized reporting could fill articles with details of methods and results that are inconsequential to interpretation. The critical facts about a study can get lost in an excess of minutiae. Further, a forced consistency can lead to ignoring important uniqueness. Reporting standards that appear comprehensive might lead researchers to believe that “If it’s not asked for or does not conform to criteria specified in the standards, it’s not necessary to report.” In rare instances, then, the setting of reporting standards might lead to the omission of information critical to understanding what was done in a study and what was found.

Also, as noted above, different methods are required for studying different psychological phenomena. What needs to be reported in order to evaluate the correspondence between methods and inferences is highly dependent on the research question and empirical approach. Inferences about the effectiveness of psychotherapy, for example, require attention to aspects of research design and analysis that are different from those important for inferences in the neuroscience of text processing. This context dependency pertains not only to topic-specific considerations but also to research designs. Thus, an experimental study of the determinants of well-being analyzed via analysis of variance engenders different reporting needs than a study on the same topic that employs a passive longitudinal design and structural equation modeling. Indeed, the variations in substantive topics and research designs are factorial in this regard. So experiments in psychotherapy and neuroscience could share some reporting standards, even though studies employing structural equation models investigating well-being would have little in common with experiments in neuroscience.

Obstacles to Developing Standards

One obstacle to developing reporting standards encountered by the JARS Group was that differing taxonomies of research approaches exist and different terms are used within different subdisciplines to describe the same operational research variations. As simple examples, researchers in health psychology typically refer to studies that use experimental manipulations of treatments conducted in naturalistic settings as randomized clinical trials, whereas similar designs are referred to as randomized field trials in educational psychology. Some research areas refer to the use of random assignment of participants, whereas others use the term random allocation. Another example involves the terms multilevel model, hierarchical linear model, and mixed effects model, all of which are used to identify a similar approach to data analysis. There have been, from time to time, calls for standardized terminology to describe commonly but inconsistently used scientific terms, such as Kraemer et al.’s (1997) distinctions among words commonly used to denote risk. To address this problem, the JARS Group attempted to use the simplest descriptions possible and to avoid jargon and recommended that the new Publication Manual include some explanatory text.

A second obstacle was that certain research topics and methods will reveal different levels of consensus regarding what is and is not important to report. Generally, the newer and more complex the technique, the less agreement there will be about reporting standards. For example, although there are many benefits to reporting effect sizes, there are certain situations (e.g., multilevel designs) where no clear consensus exists on how best to conceptualize and/or calculate effect size measures. In a related vein, reporting a confidence interval with an effect size is sound advice, but calculating confidence intervals for effect sizes is often difficult given the current state of software. For this reason, the JARS Group avoided developing reporting standards for research designs about which a professional consensus had not yet emerged. As consensus emerges, the JARS can be expanded by adding modules.

Finally, the rapid pace of developments in methodology dictates that any standards would have to be updated frequently in order to retain currency. For example, the state of the art for reporting various analytic techniques is in a constant state of flux. Although some general principles (e.g., reporting the estimation procedure used in a structural equation model) can incorporate new developments easily, other developments can involve fundamentally new types of data for which standards must, by necessity, evolve rapidly. Nascent and emerging areas, such as functional neuroimaging and molecular genetics, may require developers of standards to be on constant vigil to ensure that new research areas are appropriately covered.

Questions for the Future

It has been mentioned several times that the setting of standards for reporting of research in psychology involves both general considerations and considerations specific to separate subdisciplines. And, as the brief history of standards in the APA Publication Manual suggests, standards evolve over time. The JARS Group expects refinements to the contents of its tables. Further, in the spirit of evidence-based decision making that is one impetus for the renewed emphasis on reporting standards, we encourage the empirical examination of the effects that standards have on reporting practices. Not unlike the issues many psychologists study, the proposal and adoption of reporting standards is itself an intervention. It can be studied for its effects on the contents of research reports and, most important, its impact on the uses of psychological research by decision makers in various spheres of public and health policy and by scholars seeking to understand the human mind and behavior.

The Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards was composed of Mark Appelbaum, Harris Cooper (Chair), Scott Maxwell, Arthur Stone, and Kenneth J. Sher. The working group wishes to thank members of the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Publications and Communications Board, the APA Council of Editors, and the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology for comments on this report and the standards contained herein.

Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001. pp. 663–694. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.consort-statement.org/ [ PubMed ]
American Educational Research Association. Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher. 2006; 35 (6):33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 5. Washington, DC: Author; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
American Psychological Association, Council of Editors. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Psychological Bulletin. 1952; 49 (Suppl, Pt 2) [ Google Scholar ]
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist. 2006; 61 :271–283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1995; 48 :167–171. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. 4. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Davidson KW, Goldstein M, Kaplan RM, Kaufmann PG, Knatterud GL, Orleans TC, et al. Evidence-based behavioral medicine: What is it and how do we achieve it? Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003; 26 :161–171. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N the TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health. 2004. pp. 361–366. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.trend-statement.org/asp/documents/statements/AJPH_Mar2004_Trendstatement.pdf . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. 2007. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.icmje.org/#clin_trials . [ PubMed ]
Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1997; 54 :337–343. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. nd. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D for the QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999; 354 :1896–1900. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001. pp. 657–662. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://www.consort-statement.org . [ PubMed ]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. 2008. Manuscript submitted for publication. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002, January 8).
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Grey JA, Hayes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal. 1996; 312 :71–72. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stone AA, Shiffman S. Capturing momentary, self-report data: A proposal for reporting guidelines. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2002; 24 :236–243. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000; 283 :2008–2012. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilkinson L the Task Force on Statistical Inference. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist. 1999; 54 :594–604. [ Google Scholar ]

User's guide

This guide explains the purpose, structure, use, and navigation of Psychology Laboratory Report Writing .

The purpose of this site is to assist students and other users to acquire the skills that are necessary for writing a psychology laboratory report.

This site has a structure that essentially follows that of a psychology laboratory report. There are six core modules – Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion . These six modules cover the major sections of a psychology report. Two additional modules outline the preparation of tables and of figures in a psychology report. Another two focus on the References section and the Appendices . A final module has been designed to highlight important issues concerning the style of writing expected in a psychology laboratory report.

Each module identifies the principles involved in writing the relevant section of the psychology report and examples that are designed to illustrate how those principles can be translated into practice.

Using Psychology Laboratory Report Writing

Most students would probably benefit from working through the modules, from the first to the last. Other users might have particular needs. They might find it more efficient, therefore, to go directly to the module or modules that meet those needs. The modules are designed to be used together, in sequence, to help in the writing of a complete report. However, each module stands on its own and can be used independently.

Navigating the Psychology Laboratory Report Writing

At the top of every page is the menu bar. The menu bar takes you to 5 different pages. These are:

You can use this menu bar at any time to go to any one of those pages.

Writing the report links to the writing modules. You can begin at the beginning with Title page , or select the area of the report that you need help with. At the beginning and end of each module, there are links to the preceding module and to the following module. Clicking on those also allows you to navigate your way through the modules.

Worked examples contains annotated examples of completed reports, demonstrating how they are constructed in accordance with these guidelines. It also contains the full text for all the guidelines and examples that are presented in Writing the report .

Additional resources shows useful references.

FOPs contains examples of Frequently Observed Problems, to assist you in reviewing your own writing.

Please go to Writing the report to begin navigating the web site.

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

Research design
Participants
Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
The population from which your participants were drawn
Any restrictions on your pool of participants
How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

Testing instruments
Technical equipment
Any psychological assessments that were used
Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

The independent variables
Dependent variables
Control variables
Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a within-groups or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

What the participants did
How data was collected
The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

APA Sample Paper: Experimental Psychology

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

It’s Soooo Cute! How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
“Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
“Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
“Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
“Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
“How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Introduction

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

Breaking the Rules

The Literature Review

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question and hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on. The materials subsection is also a good place to refer to the reliability and/or validity of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items and that they accurately measure what they are intended to measure.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to display graphs, illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract. This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method. Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.

Figure 11.5 References and Figure. If there were appendices or tables, they would come before the figure.

Key Takeaways

An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g., Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different color each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

Ten-year impact award for seminal paper that questioned psychology research practices

A 2011 paper co-authored by Professor Leif Nelson, which helped trigger a movement that toppled famous psychology studies and fueled reforms to increase research transparency in the social sciences, has been recognized with a 10-Year Impact Award from academic publisher Sage Publishing.

The paper, “ False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant ,” was published in Psychological Science and co-authored by Joseph P. Simmons and Uri Simonson.

The paper questioned several common research practices that the authors dubbed “P-hacking”—a reference to P-value, a calculation which researchers use to determine the statistical significance of a study’s findings. These practices were leading researchers to selective reporting of the results, in the pressure to publish, the authors contended.

The paper led researchers to revisit the findings of many prior studies, many of which could not be replicated.

The award from SAGE Publishing recognizes authors of the most cited papers in Sage Journals from 2011. “False Positive Psychology” has been cited more than 7,500 times by other academic researchers. Read more on the award .

The post Ten-year impact award for seminal paper that questioned psychology research practices appeared first on Haas News | Berkeley Haas .

[ad_2] Source link

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health
Treatments & Tests
Health Inc.
Public Health

How to Thrive as You Age

Got tinnitus a device that tickles the tongue helps this musician find relief.

Allison Aubrey

After using the Lenire device for an hour each day for 12 weeks, Victoria Banks says her tinnitus is "barely noticeable." David Petrelli/Victoria Banks hide caption

After using the Lenire device for an hour each day for 12 weeks, Victoria Banks says her tinnitus is "barely noticeable."

Imagine if every moment is filled with a high-pitched buzz or ring that you can't turn off.

More than 25 million adults in the U.S., have a condition called tinnitus, according to the American Tinnitus Association. It can be stressful, even panic-inducing and difficult to manage. Dozens of factors can contribute to the onset of tinnitus, including hearing loss, exposure to loud noise or a viral illness.

There's no cure, but there are a range of strategies to reduce the symptoms and make it less bothersome, including hearing aids, mindfulness therapy , and one newer option – a device approved by the FDA to treat tinnitus using electrical stimulation of the tongue.

The device has helped Victoria Banks, a singer and songwriter in Nashville, Tenn., who developed tinnitus about three years ago.

"The noise in my head felt like a bunch of cicadas," Banks says. "It was terrifying." The buzz made it difficult for her to sing and listen to music. "It can be absolutely debilitating," she says.

Shots - Health News

Tinnitus bothers millions of americans. here's how to turn down the noise.

Banks tried taking dietary supplements , but those didn't help. She also stepped up exercise, but that didn't bring relief either. Then she read about a device called Lenire, which was approved by the FDA in March 2023. It includes a plastic mouthpiece with stainless steel electrodes that electrically stimulate the tongue. It is the first device of its kind to be approved for tinnitus.

"This had worked for other people, and I thought I'm willing to try anything at this point," Banks recalls.

She sought out audiologist Brian Fligor, who treats severe cases of tinnitus in the Boston area. Fligor was impressed by the results of a clinical trial that found 84% of participants who tried Lenire experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. He became one of the first providers in the U.S. to use the device with his patients. Fligor also served on an advisory panel assembled by the company who developed it.

"A good candidate for this device is somebody who's had tinnitus for at least three months," Fligor says, emphasizing that people should be evaluated first to make sure there's not an underlying medical issue.

Tinnitus often accompanies hearing loss, but Victoria Banks' hearing was fine and she had no other medical issue, so she was a good candidate.

Banks used the device for an hour each day for 12 weeks. During the hour-long sessions, the electrical stimulation "tickles" the tongue, she says. In addition, the device includes a set of headphones that play a series of tones and ocean-wave sounds.

The device works, in part, by shifting the brain's attention away from the buzz. We're wired to focus on important information coming into our brains, Fligor says. Think of it as a spotlight at a show pointed at the most important thing on the stage. "When you have tinnitus and you're frustrated or angry or scared by it, that spotlight gets really strong and focused on the tinnitus," Fligor says.

"It's the combination of what you're feeling through the nerves in your tongue and what you're hearing through your ears happening in synchrony that causes the spotlight in your brain to not be so stuck on the tinnitus," Fligor explains.

A clinical trial found 84% of people who used the device experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. Brian Fligor hide caption

A clinical trial found 84% of people who used the device experienced a significant reduction in symptoms.

"It unsticks your spotlight" and helps desensitize people to the perceived noise that their tinnitus creates, he says.

Banks says the ringing in her ears did not completely disappear, but now it's barely noticeable on most days.

"It's kind of like if I lived near a waterfall and the waterfall was constantly going," she says. Over time, the waterfall sound fades out of consciousness.

"My brain is now focusing on other things," and the buzz is no longer so distracting. She's back to listening to music, writing music, and performing music." I'm doing all of those things," she says.

When the buzz comes back into focus, Banks says a refresher session with the device helps.

A clinical trial found that 84% of people who tried Lenire , saw significant improvements in their condition. To measure changes, the participants took a questionnaire that asked them to rate how much tinnitus was impacting their sleep, sense of control, feelings of well-being and quality of life. After 12 weeks of using the device, participants improved by an average of 14 points.

"Where this device fits into the big picture, is that it's not a cure-all, but it's quickly become my go-to," for people who do not respond to other ways of managing tinnitus, Fligor says.

One down-side is the cost. Banks paid about $4,000 for the Lenire device, and insurance doesn't cover it. She put the expense on her credit card and paid it off gradually.

Fligor hopes that as the evidence of its effectiveness accumulates, insurers will begin to cover it. Despite the cost, more than 80% of participants in the clinical trial said they would recommend the device to a friend with tinnitus.

But, it's unclear how long the benefits last. Clinical trials have only evaluated Lenire over a 1-year period. "How durable are the effects? We don't really know yet," says audiologist Marc Fagelson, the scientific advisory committee chair of the American Tinnitus Association. He says research is promising but there's still more to learn.

Fagelson says the first step he takes with his patients is an evaluation for hearing loss. Research shows that hearing aids can be an effective treatment for tinnitus among people who have both tinnitus and hearing loss, which is much more common among older adults. An estimated one-third of adults 65 years of age and older who have hearing loss, also have tinnitus.

"We do see a lot of patients, even with very mild loss, who benefit from hearing aids," Fagelson says, but in his experience it's about 50-50 in terms of improving tinnitus. Often, he says people with tinnitus need to explore options beyond hearing aids.

Bruce Freeman , a scientist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, says he's benefitted from both hearing aids and Lenire. He was fitted for the device in Ireland where it was developed, before it was available in the U.S.

Freeman agrees that the ringing never truly disappears, but the device has helped him manage the condition. He describes the sounds that play through the device headphones as very calming and "almost hypnotic" and combined with the tongue vibration, it's helped desensitize him to the ring.

Freeman – who is a research scientist – says he's impressed with the results of research, including a study published in Nature, Scientific Reports that points to significant improvements among clinical trial participants with tinnitus.

Freeman experienced a return of his symptoms when he stopped using the device. "Without it the tinnitus got worse," he says. Then, when he resumed use, it improved.

Freeman believes his long-term exposure to noisy instruments in his research laboratory may have played a role in his condition, and also a neck injury from a bicycle accident that fractured his vertebra. "All of those things converged," he says.

Freeman has developed several habits that help keep the high-pitched ring out of his consciousness and maintain good health. "One thing that does wonders is swimming," he says, pointing to the swooshing sound of water in his ears. "That's a form of mindfulness," he explains.

When it comes to the ring of tinnitus, "it comes and goes," Freeman says. For now, it has subsided into the background, he told me with a sense of relief. "The last two years have been great," he says – a combination of the device, hearing aids and the mindfulness that comes from a swim.

This story was edited by Jane Greenhalgh

ringing in ears
hearing loss

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Presenting Your Research

49 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

It’s Soooo Cute! How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
“Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
“Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
“Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
“Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
“How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Introduction

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that they enjoy smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

Breaking the Rules

The Literature Review

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

The Closing

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method. Image description available.

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Many journals encourage the open sharing of raw data online, and some now require open data and materials before publication.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Image Description

Figure 11.1 image description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵
Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

An article that presents the results of one or more new studies.

A brief summary of the study's research question, methods, results and conclusions.

Describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length.

Where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2023 by William L. Kelemen, Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 19672

Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton

Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton
Kwantlen Polytechnic U., Washington State U., & Texas A&M U.—Texarkana

Learning Objectives

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

It’s Soooo Cute! How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
“Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
“Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
“Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
“Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
“How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Introduction

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

Breaking the Rules

The Literature Review

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.
An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).
We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

The Closing

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure $\PageIndex{1}$ shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Many journals encourage the open sharing of raw data online, and some now require open data and materials before publication.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures $\PageIndex{1}$-$\PageIndex{5}$ show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

IMAGES

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style
FREE 10+ Sample Psychological Reports in PDF
Psychology Case Study Report Format
How To Write A Psychology Lab Report Results
How To Write A Lab Report In Psychology » TestBookpdf.com
Psychological Report Sample Nxiety For Student Behavioral Inside

VIDEO

PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH METHODS 9: SECTIONS OF A SCIENTIFIC REPORT
Unit 1: Intro to Research (AP Psychology)
Research Methodologies
Maximizing Your Membership: RCOT membership benefits webinar from 30 October 2023
Research Report Writing (APA style )
PSYI619 Internship Report-Psychology Assignment No. 01IRL Spring 2023 II How to Solve IRL II PSYI619

COMMENTS

Research Paper Structure
A complete research paper in APA style that is reporting on experimental research will typically contain a Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References sections. 1 Many will also contain Figures and Tables and some will have an Appendix or Appendices. These sections are detailed as follows (for a more in ...
Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA
An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references. The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the ...
Lab Report Format: Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
A typical lab report would include the following sections: title, abstract, introduction, method, results, and discussion. The title page, abstract, references, and appendices are started on separate pages (subsections from the main body of the report are not). Use double-line spacing of text, font size 12, and include page numbers.
PDF Guide to Writing a Psychology Research Paper
Component 1: The Title Page. • On the right side of the header, type the first 2-3 words of your full title followed by the page number. This header will appear on every page of you report. • At the top of the page, type flush left the words "Running head:" followed by an abbreviation of your title in all caps.
Psychological Report Writing
In research report there are usually six sub-sections: (1) Abstract: This is always written last because it is a very brief summary: Include a one sentence summary, giving the topic to be studied. This may include the hypothesis and some brief theoretical background research, for example the name of the researchers whose work you have replicated.
PDF A Brief Guide to Writing the Psychology Paper
design a research study but not to conduct the research. This is a research proposal. This type of paper tends to be divided into six parts, indicated by subheadings: • Abstract The abstract is a summary (usually 150 words or fewer) that provides the reader a framework for what is to come. The abstract should appear on a
Writing Research Papers
For more information on writing research papers in APA style, please checking out the following pages. Here you'll find details on multiple aspects of the research paper writing process, ranging from how the paper should be structured to how to write more effectively. Structure and Format - the critical components of each section of an APA ...
PDF Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology
In many ways, the report of a psychology research project contains a recipe. Without accurate descriptions of the ingredients (the manipulations and measures) and the ... section, which sets out the background for the study, why it is important, and what the hypotheses were. Chapter 3 describes the Method section.
How to Write a Psychology Research Paper
Remember to follow APA format as you write your paper and include in-text citations for any materials you reference. Make sure to cite any information in the body of your paper in your reference section at the end of your document. Writing a psychology research paper can be intimidating at first, but breaking the process into a series of ...
PDF Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology
Chapters 4 through 7 consider the typical sections of a qualitative research paper— the introductory sections, Method, Results, and Discussion. These chapters emphasize aspects of reporting that are unique to qualitative research. They describe the general elements that should be reported in qualitative papers and can assist authors in devel-
Sections of a Research Report
An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that ...
PDF GUIDE TO WRITING RESEARCH REPORTS
The method section is not a single section by itself, instead it consists entirely of the five or so sub-sections described below. In the method section, you describe the essentials of how you gathered your data. This section must contain enough information for the reader to be able to repeat the study, but should exclude any irrelevant details.
PDF RESEARCH REPORT (PSYCHOLOGY)
previous research, and how it contributes to this growing body of knowledge. Content Writing a lab report is a process of deduction. Each section in a lab report has direct links to the other sections; all sections are logically related. As such, it is possible to predict what needs to be included in any section even if onlya few sections are ...
Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology
The standards are categorized into the sections of a research report used by APA journals. To illustrate how the tables would be used, note that the Method section in Table 1 is divided into subsections regarding participant characteristics, sampling procedures, sample size, measures and covariates, and an overall categorization of the research ...
How to Write an APA Methods Section
Research papers in the social and natural sciences often follow APA style. This article focuses on reporting quantitative research methods. In your APA methods section, you should report enough information to understand and replicate your study, including detailed information on the sample, measures, and procedures used.
Laboratory Report Writing in Psychology
This site has a structure that essentially follows that of a psychology laboratory report. There are six core modules - Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. These six modules cover the major sections of a psychology report. Two additional modules outline the preparation of tables and of figures in a psychology ...
How to Write a Psychology Lab Report
Title Page of a Psychology Lab Report. This will be the first page of your lab report. It should include important information such as the name of your paper, your name, and your academic affiliation. Your title should be relatively brief and provide a good idea about what your paper is about. Avoid titles that are too general and don't provide ...
How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper
To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded ...
APA Sample Paper: Experimental Psychology
Writing in Psychology: Experimental Report Writing; Rhetorical Considerations and Style in Psychology Writing; Writing the Experimental Report: Overview, Introductions, and Literature Reviews; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion; Tables, Appendices, Footnotes and Endnotes; References and Sources for More Information
11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association
At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles. Sections of a Research Report Title Page and Abstract. An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized.
Ten-year impact award for seminal paper that questioned psychology
A 2011 paper co-authored by Professor Leif Nelson, which helped trigger a movement that toppled famous psychology studies and fueled reforms to increase research transparency in the social sciences, has been recognized with a 10-Year Impact Award from academic publisher Sage Publishing.. The paper, " False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows ...
An FDA approved device offers a new treatment for ringing in the ears
Fligor was impressed by the results of a clinical trial that found 84% of participants who tried Lenire experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. He became one of the first providers in the ...
Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA
At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles. Sections of a Research Report Title Page and Abstract. An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized.
11.3: Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association
In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report, an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical … 11.3: Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style - Social Sci LibreTexts