120
Susan L. O’Donnell et al.
students to be able to identify strengths and weaknesses of information sources. This
objective is directly linked to issues addressed in discussions of the various research methods
employed by psychological researchers.
Taking Sides Issue #5 on ADHD addresses this objective, while giving students expo-
sure to the PsycINFO database and introducing the biological perspective on behavior. In
light of a growing number of children being diagnosed with ADHD, students find this
issue interesting. The two papers on this issue discuss the use of behavior genetics research
(twin and adoption studies) to determine genetic explanations for ADHD. In the process,
students tend to ask which method of research is “right.” These inquiries allow for a class
discussion on using different research techniques to triangulate toward “truth,” rather
than simply looking at an issue in black-and-white terms.
Issue #7 in Taking Sides, which focuses on the topic of maternal employment, also
provides a reference for discussing the sources of information. Noting that the authors of
the articles are from different disciplines (developmental psychology and sociology/
anthropology) provides for a discussion of the usefulness of cross-disciplinary study and
the value in terms of breadth of understanding.
Another approach to understanding the nature of specific facts allows students to exam-
ine research findings from a different perspective. Returning to the Taking Sides issue on
divorce (Issue #8), we assign students to look up information about the two different
research samples used by Wallerstein and Hetherington. The findings reported in the two
articles are quite different, which can be traced to the study populations—the sources of
their facts. Wallerstein’s study is based on a clinical sample, whereas Hetherington’s is a
normative sample. Both sets of findings are certainly “facts,” but are they both equally
helpful for understanding the impact of divorce on children? Rather than a simple “yes” or
“no” response, this discussion requires in-depth thinking about how each set of findings
illuminates different types of influences and how both conclusions can contribute to the
understanding of an issue. Such a discussion can be beneficial for introducing the notion
that even conclusions that appear to contradict each other can be valid in helping us to
understand human behavior from a psychological perspective, what Halonen et al. (2003)
referred to as interpretation within the descriptive skills domain.
Question #3: What Cause/Effect Relationships are Proposed?
In psychology, despite the reality that much of the research on interesting social conditions
tends to be limited by correlational data, findings are often condensed into sound bites
that make it seem as if the research is causal in nature. The objective of this step is not only
to remind students that “correlation does not equal causation,” but also to think critically
about assertions of causal relationships presented in various contexts. Lecture, discussion,
and textbook readings support this objective by delineating the characteristics of experi-
mental research compared with correlational designs. In class, we address causality using
multiple issues. First, we return to Issue #8 on divorce. We create a list of the negative
outcomes that Wallerstein and Lewis (2006) credit as effects of divorce, such as anger, or
fear of intimate relationships. Then we brainstorm as many other possible causes of those
outcomes as we can think of, such as poor parenting or peer relationships. This activity