Variables That Effect Behavior

Experimental psychologists spend their time tracking the variables behind behavior, whether that behavior shows up in people, in animals, or in some cases plants. The trouble starts right away. Behavior has a huge number of possible causes acting at once, and good research demands that you pin down as many of those causes as you can, then isolate the one or two you actually care about so you can push on them under controlled conditions. There's a catch buried in that goal: the tighter your grip on the variables, the less your lab situation looks anything like ordinary life.

A capable researcher usually comes to the lab already having watched the behavior in its natural setting first. Observation itself is not neutral, though. Watching something changes it. Physicists ran into the same wall long ago, since you cannot take a measurement without disturbing whatever you are measuring. The plainest version of psychology is just paying attention to what passes between two people, or between animals, or between plants, and then between all of those living things as they bump into one another. So much can be happening in one of these exchanges that details slip by unnoticed, and some of those overlooked details turn out later to matter a great deal.

Where do the ideas about which variables drive behavior actually come from? Largely from other psychologists: their published studies, their observations, their theories about why humans and animals and plants do what they do. Leaning on earlier results is sensible, and it gives you a place to start when planning the next round of work. But whatever errors were baked into those older studies can carry forward, getting woven into the theories that grew out of them and repeated as if settled. Science keeps moving, our picture of the world shifts with it, and tools appear that let us measure and see things nobody had a way to reach before.

Bias has its own effect on the whole chain. The prejudices a researcher carries can shape which variables get examined, and an experiment can be built, knowingly or not, to confirm what the person already believed. There's research pointing right at this problem: when the person running a study knows the outcome they are hoping for, that outcome becomes more likely to show up than it would if they had stayed in the dark.

Related