I have noticed throughout the years of being in psychology that people tend to be wavering followers, or think of sports as fair weather fans, when it comes to research and science. When they hear of a research that supports their personal life experience, history and biases, then they will agree with it. Much of the time if they like research findings I will hear people literally say “oh well that makes sense.” Now in situations where they don’t like the research and/or they have a personal bias and don’t want to hear the research findings then they will disagree with it. Then they will say “oh that’s one researchers’ opinion.” What they don’t realize is good research eliminates bias on the part of the researcher.

I have tested this out on a personal level when speaking with people numerous times over the 25 years I have been in psychology. I will tell them some type of research findings that has been done and I will get this effect every time. If the findings agree with their life experience and or personal bias, hopes, expectations, etc. Then they say “oh that makes sense.” Otherwise they if they disagree they will try and come up with some argument against the research. This indicates they don’t understand research in general. If the research has been done appropriately then it’s not researchers’ “opinion.”

I remember years ago my best friend said it very eloquently and I will butcher it here. He said research is not ideology. If a study is done correctly, all researchers should come to the same conclusion when reading how the study was conducted, methodology, statistics and other details of the study.

As an example, I was speaking with someone that I had listened to a neuroscientist talk about effects of caffeine on sleep and specifically the neural effects it has. I forget the exact detrimental facts that having a cup of coffee at 2 PM in the afternoon has. The neuroscientist pointed out that the research indicates it does have a negative effect on your neural state during sleep. Ironically even though the next morning you may wake up feeling refreshed there is damage. It’s not great for the brain. I relayed the study to this person I know who I at the time he drinks coffee literally up until 6, 7, or 8 o’clock at night yet they were going to bed at 10 PM. This person I knew said “well what about people who have a tolerance to caffeine.” Clearly, they have bias towards the use of caffeine of which I knew. I remember when they said this, I didn’t want to get contentious with them. However, I was thinking in my own head this person does not know how research works. That is a very basic second year in college question or point to bring up as a contentious argument against the research or ideally clarifying question. This person had a clear bias of thinking it’s great to have caffeine up until literally a couple hours before bedtime since they wake up feeling fine.

This happens in numerous domains. There is a fantastic researcher John Gottman Ph.D. out of Seattle, Washington, who does relationship research and treatment of problems in relationships. His focus is on studying therapeutic techniques for couples who have relationship problems. Gottman has studied over 3,000 couples.

He will have a couple enter what the media refers to as the “love lab” which is an apartment for a weekend (last time I checked). They have cameras throughout the apartment. The research team monitors heart rate, facial expressions, blood pressure, skin conductivity and especially words used between the partners. The couple being studied will then be given the task of engaging in a controversial issue between the two. The whole time the researchers are monitoring the aforementioned bio measures and words. Within 5 minutes based on certain markers the research team can predict very high levels of accuracy if the couple will divorce. Estimates have been as high as 90% in the past. This lab is meant to help understand psychologically what makes relationships work or fail. Gottman of course now has many different antidotes for troubled relationships.

When I would explain Gottman’s research to people and if they thought the researched recommendations were accurate of their own relationship, they would agree with it. Yet if they didn’t like it, then they would disagree with the research and try and come up with arguments against it.

I remember thinking Gottman has been doing research, literally for over 40 years on couples. These people are disagreeing with research that has been replicated and validated for over 40 years. So am I to believe a given person’s personal experience (invalid by definition as stated in one of my initial blogs) or go with a psychologist who has studied over 3,000 couples?

Research is meant to have numerous studies with the same findings called replication. That’s why I always cringe/laugh when I hear on the news “a new study.” The reason I cringe/laugh at it is because that’s what we call a pilot study. It’s been found to show some promising result to a statistically significant degree that we should pay attention to for future research. But what you really want in good research is dozens if not ideally hundreds of studies showing the same result. All of these studies done by different researchers at different institutions. When you have numerous researchers from different institutions claiming the same findings you cannot claim researcher bias. The main point here is that people will hear a research finding and agree with it if it has gone along with their life experience, hopes, dreams, biases etc.

Again, the main point I am making is when you hear about research that’s been done, unless it’s a one-time study (pilot study) you should accept it tentatively and use it. It usually has a history behind it of the same findings. It has literally dozens if not hundreds of replication studies. Studies that show the exact same effect again and again and again.

I understand we all have different personal experiences and personal biases. The whole goal of numerous studies is to cut through the personal experiences and biases and get to the root of the subject being studied.