psychology research paper length

Psychological Science Submission Guidelines

Updated 27 December 2023

Psychological Science welcomes the submission of papers presenting empirical research in the field of psychology. Preference is given to papers that make an important contribution to psychological science, broadly interpreted to include emerging as well as established areas of research, across specialties of psychology and related fields, and that are written to be relevant for and intelligible to a wide range of readers. Please see the most recent editorials ( Hardwicke & Vazire, 2023 and Vazire 2023 ) for more information about the latest developments at Psychological Science .

Submission of Manuscripts

Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the  Psychological Science  submission site,  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/psci . Before submitting your manuscript, please be sure to read the submission guidelines below. You may also want to consult the  Contributor FAQ.

Read the latest  editorial policies  from the APS Publications Committee.

Quick Links

Three-tier review.

• Criteria for Acceptance

Journals of the Association for Psychological Science (APS)

Article types, manuscript style, structure, and content, preregistration.

• Analysis Scripts

Computational Reproducibility

• Licensing Materials, Data, and Analysis Scripts
• Transparency Constraints and Responsible Sharing
• Funding Disclosures
• Conflict of Interest Disclosures
• Artificial Intelligence Disclosures

Author Contributions

Preparation of graphics, supplemental files, contributor faq, onlinefirst publication and twips, manuscript review process.

For an overview of the peer review process, see Questions 1 and 2 of the Contributor FAQ . For most submitted manuscripts, at least two members of the editorial team read the manuscript before an initial decision (to reject the submission without review, or to send it out for review) is made. In this initial review, manuscripts are anonymized as to authors and originating institutions. To facilitate this approach, authors will be asked to upload an anonymized version of the submission. If both readers decide the paper is unlikely to be competitive for publication, then the paper is rejected without review (“desk rejected’). Some common reasons for desk rejection include: narrow scope, poor writing, insufficient methodological rigor, insufficient transparency, overclaiming or exaggeration, mismatch between the research aims and the research design, mismatch between the empirical results and the conclusions, signs of flexibility in data collection or analysis, and high risk of statistical inference error (e.g., false positive or false negative, inflated effect size estimate).

If either reader evaluates the paper as having a reasonable likelihood of ultimately being accepted for publication in the journal, then it is sent to two or more external reviewers for extended review. An Associate Editor usually oversees this process and writes the subsequent decision letter (accept, reject, or revise and resubmit).

Once the initial review is completed, authors are notified by e-mail that their manuscript either (a) has been rejected on initial editorial review or (b) has been sent to outside experts for extended review (the second tier of review). Manuscripts rejected after either initial or extended review will not be reconsidered unless the responsible action editor has invited resubmission following revision (see Question 16 in the Contributor FAQ ).

Upon submission, authors will be asked to identify a relevant editor whom they recommend for handling of their submission. Note that only the Senior and Associate Editors (and the Editor in Chief) handle submissions, STAR Editors do not handle submissions. Authors also have the option to recommend one or more reviewers when submitting a manuscript. However, these recommendations should exclude all authors’ former mentors and mentees, current colleagues at the same university, current or recent (within the past four years) collaborators, and anyone else who would reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest with any of the authors. Please keep in mind that the editor will consider these recommendations but cannot guarantee that they will be honored.

After extended review, if the Action Editor deems the manuscript suitable for publication in Psychological Science , the authors will be notified that their manuscript has been conditionally accepted and the manuscript will enter the third tier of review, STAR transparency review. Statistics, Transparency, and Rigor (STAR) editors will perform routine transparency checks at this stage, in coordination with the Action Editor. The waiting time during this tier of review can be markedly reduced by authors following best practices for transparent reporting (see Research Transparency Statement )  below for more information, and go here for educational resources [link coming]). If capacity allows, STAR editors will also randomly select articles for computational reproducibility checks.

Back to Top

Criteria for Acceptance for Publication in Psychological Science

The main criteria for publication in Psychological Science are general theoretical and empirical significance and methodological/statistical rigor.

• “General” because to warrant publication in this journal a manuscript must be of general interest to psychological scientists. Research that is likely to be read and understood only by specialists in a subdomain is better suited for a more specialized journal.
• “Theoretical and empirical significance” because research published in Psychological Science should be strongly empirically grounded and should address an issue that makes a difference in the way psychologists and scholars in related disciplines think about important issues. Work that aims to only modestly extend knowledge can be valuable but is unlikely to meet criteria for acceptance in this highly selective journal. Note that the emphasis here is on the significance of the aims and design of the research, rather than on the significance of the results.
• “Methodological/statistical rigor” because the validity of methods and inferences are foundational values of science.  Science, like the rest of life, is full of trade-offs, and the editors at Psychological Science appreciate that it is more difficult to attain high levels of precision and validity in some important areas of psychology than others.  Nonetheless, to succeed, submissions must be as rigorous as is practically and ethically feasible, and must also be frank in addressing limits on their validity (including construct validity, internal validity, statistical validity, and external validity or generalizability). In addition, manuscripts must pass STAR review before being accepted for publication.

Replication studies, generalizability tests, and other verification work can meet these criteria. If a published study is of general interest, has theoretical and empirical significance, and there is appreciable uncertainty about the results, then a high quality study testing the replicability or generalizability of the effect may also meet the criteria for publication.

The journal aims to publish works that meet these three criteria in a wide range of substantive areas of psychological science.  Historically, experimental fields, and especially cognitive and social psychology, have been dominant in this journal, and research participants often are from a restricted range of the world’s population. Moreover, the majority of articles published in the journal are authored by scientists from the United States. The editors encourage submissions from a broader range of research designs, including observational, longitudinal, descriptive, and qualitative or mixed methods, and from a broader span of areas within psychological science, including, for example, biological psychology, cognitive and affective neuroscience, communication and language, comparative, cross-cultural, developmental, gender and sexuality, and health (and this is not intended as a comprehensive list).  The editors also encourage submissions of work with populations that are underrepresented in the psychology literature, as well as of submissions that take psychological science into “the wild”—the natural contexts in which we live—or whose designs give special attention to the realism and authenticity of the procedures, stimuli, measures, and materials. The editors are also eager to receive submissions of work conducted by psychological scientists from around the world.

Submissions centered on clinical science that meet the criteria outlined above will be considered, but many clinically oriented manuscripts are likely to be of primary interest to clinicians and hence are more appropriate for Clinical Psychological Science . Similarly, works with a primary focus on methods and research practices are generally better suited for Advances in Methods & Practices in Psychological Science , yet the editors are open to considering methodological manuscripts of extraordinary generality and importance.

Note that ‘important’ differs from ‘novel’, ‘statistically significant’, and ‘surprising’. The editors welcome submissions that are not novel (e.g., a direct or close replication), and/or not statistically significant (e.g., evidence of absence; or inconclusive results, when more evidence would be difficult to collect), provided the research is rigorous and a strong case is made for the importance of the work. Moreover, submissions that overclaim (e.g., draw conclusions that are not well-calibrated to the evidence or to the strengths and limitations of the research design) are more likely to be rejected. Authors are expected to make a compelling but well-calibrated case for the importance of the research, and the editors will be open to many different ways a contribution can be important (e.g., theoretical or applied value, methodological innovation, value of the data, etc.).

Psychological Science  does not compete with other journals of APS, including  Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science ,  Clinical Psychological Science ,  Current Directions in Psychological Science ,  Perspectives on Psychological Science , and  Psychological Science in the Public Interest . The journals vary in terms of domain and manuscript formats. Manuscripts rejected by another APS journal on the grounds of quality (e.g., flaws in methodology, data, or concept) are not eligible for consideration by  Psychological Science .

Preparing Your Manuscript

See also Table 1 below.

Research Article. Most of the articles published in Psychological Science are Research Articles. Research articles make empirical and theoretical contributions that propel psychological science in substantial and significant ways. Novel studies, replication studies, and extension studies are all welcome, so long as they meet the criteria outlined above. Meta-analyses and other forms of evidence synthesis are typically not considered. The description and word limits of the sections of Research Articles can be found below.

Abstract: All Research Articles must include a 150-word abstract that identifies the sample sizes and participant populations on which the research was conducted, and any important limitations of the research design. The abstract does not count toward the word limit.

Introduction, Discussion, Footnotes, Acknowledgments, and Appendices: These sections may contain no more than 2,000 words combined. Authors are encouraged to be concise and focused in the Introduction and Discussion sections to keep them as brief as possible while also establishing the significance of the work. This word limit does not include the Abstract, Method and Results sections (except footnotes), cover page, or reference list.

Method and Results: These sections of Research Articles do not count toward the total word limit. The aim of unrestricted length for Method and Results sections is to allow authors to provide clear, complete, self-contained descriptions of their studies. But as much as Psychological Science prizes narrative clarity and completeness, so too does it value concision. In almost all cases, an adequate account of method and results can be achieved in 2,500 or fewer words for Research Articles. Methodological minutiae and fine-grained details on the Results—the sorts of information that only “insiders” would relish —should be placed in Supplemental Files, not in the main text . However, a reader who reads only the main text should not come away with any misconceptions or major gaps in their understanding of the method and results. Moreover, all details of the method and analyses necessary for an independent researcher to replicate the study must be included in either the main text or the Supplemental Files.

Authors should include in their Method sections (a) description of the sample(s) selected for the study and an explanation of the basis(es) for the composition of their samples (whether the sample was selected for specific theoretical or conceptual reasons, is a sample of convenience, etc.); (b) the total number of excluded observations and the reasons for making the exclusions (if any); and (c) an explanation as to why the sample size is considered reasonable, supported by a formal power analysis, if appropriate. Authors also should include confirmation in their Method section that the research meets relevant ethical guidelines. Hybrid “Method & Results” sections are disallowed for any type of submission.

Discussion: In the Discussion (or General Discussion), authors should explicitly consider the limitations of their research design (including but not limited to explicit consideration of the limits on the generalizability of their findings) and the most important limitations should be reflected in authors’ conclusions and abstract.

Many Research Articles contain two or more studies. Such submissions may include “interim” introductions and discussions that bracket the studies, in addition to an opening “general” introduction and a closing “general” discussion. Authors who opt for this sort of organization should bear in mind that the aforementioned word limits on introductory and Discussion sections include both interim and general varieties. Any combined “Results and Discussion” sections will be counted toward the word limit.

Narrative material that belongs in the Introduction or Discussion section should not be placed in the Method or Results section, within reasonable limits. Thus, for example, authors may include a few sentences to place their findings in context when they are presented in the Results section. However, excessive packing of a Method or Results section with material appropriate to the Introduction or Discussion will trigger immediate revision or rejection of the manuscript.

References: Authors are encouraged to cite only the sources that bear on the point directly, and to refrain from extensive parenthetical lists of related materials, keeping in mind that citations are meant to be supportive and not exhaustive. As a general rule, 40 citations should be sufficient for most Research Articles. However this is not a hard-and-fast limit, and editors have the flexibility to allow more references if they are necessary to establish the scientific foundation for the work.

Short Report. As of May 15, 2020, Psychological Science is no longer considering Short Reports for publication. Manuscripts that previously would have been submitted in this category should now be submitted as Research Articles.

Preregistered Direct Replication. As of January 1, 2024, Psychological Science is no longer considering Preregistered Direct Replications (PDRs) for publication. Replication submissions can be submitted as Research Articles or as Registered Reports, and they will be evaluated by the same criteria (general interest, theoretical and empirical significance, methodological/statistical rigor) as other submissions. However, to preserve the self-corrective function of PDRs, high quality direct replications of studies previously published in Psychological Science that are submitted as Stage 1 Registered Reports by an author team that is independent of the original authors will be evaluated only on methodological and statistical rigor (i.e., their general interest value and theoretical and empirical significance will be taken as a given).

Registered Report

The cornerstone of the Registered Reports format is that a significant part of the manuscript will be assessed prior to data collection, with the highest quality submissions accepted in advance. Replication studies are welcome as well as novel studies. Note that guidelines for the Research Article article type also apply to the Registered Report article type, unless otherwise specified below.

Titles of manuscripts should begin with “Registered Report”. Initial submissions will include a   description   of   the   key   research   question   and   background   literature, hypotheses, experimental procedures,  analysis  pipeline,  a statistical  power analysis  (or Bayesian equivalent), and pilot data (where applicable). Initial submissions will be triaged by the editorial team for suitability. Those that pass triage will then be sent for in-depth peer review (Stage 1).

Stage 1 review

In considering papers at Stage 1, reviewers will be asked to assess:

• The importance of the research question(s).
• The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
• The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis where appropriate).
• Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to exactly replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis pipeline.
• Whether the authors have pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests for ensuring that the results obtained can test the stated hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks.

Following Stage 1 peer review, the article will then be either rejected or accepted in principle for publication. Following Stage 1 in principle acceptance, the authors agree to register  their  approved   protocol  on  the  Open  Science  Framework  (https://osf.io/)  or  other recognised repository, either publicly or under private embargo until submission of the Stage 2 manuscript. Accepted protocols can be quickly and easily registered using a tailored mechanism for Registered Reports on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/rr

Following in principle acceptance (IPA), the authors will then proceed to conduct the study, adhering exactly to the peer-reviewed procedures. When the study is complete, the authors will submit their finalized manuscript for re-review (Stage 2). Pending quality checks and a sensible interpretation of the findings, the manuscript will be published regardless of the results.

Stage 2 review

Authors are reminded that any deviation from the stated experimental procedures, regardless of how minor it may seem to the authors, could lead to rejection of the manuscript at Stage 2. In cases where the Stage 1 protocol is altered after IPA due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., change of equipment or unanticipated technical error), the authors must consult the Action Editor immediately for advice, and prior to the completion of data collection. Minor changes to the protocol may be permitted per editorial discretion. In such cases, IPA would be preserved and the deviation reported in the Stage 2 submission. If the authors wish to alter the experimental procedures more substantially following IPA but still wish to publish their article as a Registered Report then the manuscript must be withdrawn and resubmitted as a new Stage 1 submission. Note that registered analyses must be undertaken, but additional unregistered analyses can also be included in a final manuscript.

Apart from minor stylistic revisions, the Introduction cannot be altered from the  approved Stage 1 submission, and the stated hypotheses cannot be amended or appended. At Stage 2, any description of the rationale or proposed methodology that was written in future tense within the Stage 1 manuscript should be changed to past tense. Any textual changes to the Introduction or Methods (e.g. correction of typographic errors) must  be clearly marked in the Stage 2 submission. Any relevant literature that appeared following the date of IPA should be covered in the Discussion.

The outcome of all registered analyses must be reported in the manuscript, except in rare instances where a registered and approved analysis is subsequently shown to be logically flawed or unfounded. In such cases, the authors, reviewers, and editor must agree that a collective error of judgment was made and that the analysis is inappropriate. In such cases the analysis would still be mentioned in the Methods and the Results section would report the justification for omitting the analysis.

It is reasonable that authors may wish to include additional analyses that were not included in the registered submission. For instance, a new analytic approach might become available between IPA and Stage 2 review, or a particularly interesting and unexpected finding may emerge. Such analyses are admissible but must be clearly justified in the text, appropriately caveated, and reported in a separate section of the Results   titled   “Exploratory analyses”.   Authors   should   be   careful   not   to   base   their conclusions heavily on the outcome of statistically significant post hoc analyses.

In considering papers at Stage 2, reviewers will be asked to decide:

• Whether the data are able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)
• Whether the Introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses are the same as the approved Stage 1 submission (required)
• Whether the authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures
• Whether any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors are justified, methodologically sound, and informative
• Whether the authors’ conclusions are justified given the data.

 Reviewers are informed that editorial decisions will not be based on the perceived importance, novelty or conclusiveness of the results.

Word limits, Stage 1: Intro: 1,000 words; Method: no limit

Word limits, Stage 2: Intro: 1,000 words; Method: no limit; Results: no limit; Discussion: 1,000 words.

See guidelines above for Research Article article types for more details about what should be included in each section.

Registered Report with Existing Data

Authors wishing to submit a Registered Report using existing data can do so, provided that they have not yet had access to the data (i.e., they are not the owners of the data, have not been sent the dataset, and have not otherwise been given access to the data). This corresponds to Level 4 in the Peer Community in Registered Reports “ levels of bias control ”. The titles of these articles must start with “Registered Report with Existing Data”, and the level of bias control (4 or 5) should be reported in the Research Transparency Statement .

Peer review of Registered Reports with Existing Data will follow the same process as for Registered Reports, but of course the design and methods of the study cannot be altered, and so the rigor of the design and methods, and their match to the research questions and aims, will be a major factor in Stage 1 evaluation.

In exceptional cases, we may consider Registered Reports with Existing Data at levels 2 or 3 of bias control , when the quality and value of the research is exceptionally high, and risk of bias can be greatly reduced through other means. Authors interested in this option should complete a pre-submission inquiry using this form .

See guidelines above for Research Article and Registered Report article types for more details about what should be included in each section.

Commentary . Commentaries critique and/or supplement articles previously published in Psychological Science . The major criteria for a Commentary are that it provides a new perspective on the article it is commenting on, and that this new perspective makes an important difference to the interpretation of the target article. Commentaries can include new data and/or new analyses of existing data, but they need not. Authors are not permitted to write Commentaries on articles on which they are an author or coauthor. Commentaries are limited to 1,000 words (includes main text, notes, acknowledgments, and appendices; does not include 150-word abstract, Method and Results sections, or reference list), 20 references, and one figure (no more than two panels) or one table. The title of a Commentary must begin with the word “Commentary”.

References: Authors are encouraged to cite only the sources that bear on the point directly and to refrain from extensive parenthetical lists of related materials, keeping in mind that citations are meant to be supportive and not exhaustive. As a general rule, 20 citations should be sufficient for most Commentaries. However, this is not a hard-and-fast limit, and editors have the flexibility to allow more references if they are necessary to establish the scientific foundation for the work.

The Action Editor typically solicits a signed review of a submitted Commentary from the lead author of the target article that is interpreted by the editor in light of the lead author’s potential conflict of interest (positive or negative), in addition to reviews by two (or more) independent experts. On acceptance of a Commentary that is critical of the target article, the Action Editor typically will invite the lead author of the target article to submit a Reply to Commentary (see below).

Reply to Commentary . Replies to Commentaries allow authors of articles that are targets of commentaries an opportunity to formally respond. Replies to Commentaries are by invitation only, and like the commentaries that initiated them, they are subject to external review (including by the author of the Commentary) and their acceptance is not assured. The major criterion for a Reply to Commentary is that it makes a unique scientific contribution that makes an important difference to the interpretation of the Commentary.. Replies to Commentaries are limited to 1,000 words (includes main text, notes, acknowledgments, and appendices; does not include 150-word abstract, 150-word Statement of Relevance [see Research Article], cover page, Method and Results sections, or reference list), 20 references, and one figure (no more than two panels) or one table. The title of the Reply to Commentary must be “Reply to [title of Commentary]”.

References: Authors are encouraged to cite only the sources that bear on the point directly and to refrain from extensive parenthetical lists of related materials, keeping in mind that citations are meant to be supportive and not exhaustive. As a general rule, 20 citations should be sufficient for most Replies. However, this is not a hard-and-fast limit, and editors have the flexibility to allow more references if they are necessary to establish the scientific foundation for the work.

Table 1. Limits for Psychological Science Articles by Type

*These are not hard-and-fast limits and editors have the flexibility to allow more references if they are necessary to establish the scientific foundation for the work.

**For commentaries reporting new data, Method and Results sections are not included in the word count.

Manuscripts published in  Psychological Science  must follow the style of the  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition , with respect to handling of the order of manuscript sections, headings and subheadings, references, abbreviations, and symbols. Please embed tables and figures within the main text. For initial submissions, authors may deviate from some of the style requirements (e.g., heading and subheading style, reference format, location of tables and figures). However, invited revisions and final versions of manuscripts must follow APA style. For all article types, for initial review, manuscripts must be anonymized as to authors and originating institutions. To facilitate this approach, authors will be asked to upload a anonymized version of the submission.

Further guidance can be found on our  Manuscript Structure, Style, and Content Guidelines page .

You may upload your manuscript and ancillary files as Word .doc or .docx, as .rtf, as .pdf, or as .tex. If you submit a .tex file, please also submit a PDF file conversion, as the submission portal cannot render .tex files in the PDF proof.

For manuscripts submitted on or after January 1, 2024, badges will not be offered for open data, open materials, or preregistration. Instead, open data and materials will be required (with exemptions considered on a case-by-case basis, see next section), and preregistration will be a factor in editorial evaluations (see Preregistration section below). The availability of data, analysis scripts, materials, and preregistrations will be reported prominently at the top of each article, in a Research Transparency Statement that will be required upon submission for all empirical manuscripts (see next section) and that will be shared with editors and reviewers for evaluation during peer review.

Manuscripts submitted on or after January 1, 2024 can be considered for a new badge, the Computational Reproducibility Badge. See ‘Computational Reproducibility’ section below for more information.

Research Transparency Statement

Transparency enables the scientific community to thoroughly evaluate, efficiently re-use, and independently verify research. To support these goals, Psychological Science requires authors to make their research as open as possible and as closed as necessary. When full transparency is complicated by legal, ethical, or practical constraints, the journal will work with authors to resolve these constraints as far as possible (see “Transparency constraints and responsible sharing” below). Any unresolveable constraints on transparency must be stated and justified in the published manuscript.

Limits on transparency will be a factor in editorial decisions, with editors weighing the degree of transparency, reasons for non-transparency, and potential costs and benefits of allowing non-transparency. Non-transparency that is motivated by the best interest of science (e.g., to protect participant re-identifiability, data sovereignty for indigenous groups, endangered species, public welfare, etc.) will be evaluated more favorably than non-transparency motivated by the interests of the authors or the data owners.

To streamline transparent reporting, Psychological Science requires all empirical manuscripts (Research Articles, Registered Reports, Registered Reports with Existing Data, and any Commentaries or Replies to Commentaries that include new data or analyses) to include a single Research Transparency Statement including disclosures related to preregistration, availability of materials, data, and analysis scripts, selective reporting, use of artificial intelligence, conflicts of interest, and funding. Authors should build their Research Transparency Statement with our dedicated app (link to app coming) which will save time and ensure that all important information is reported. The app will produce a complete Research Transparency Statement which can be copied and pasted into authors’ manuscripts. The Research Transparency Statement should be a separate section of the manuscript, inserted between the Abstract and the Introduction section. It does not count towards word limits.

Until our app is available, please use the following template to construct your Research Transparency Statement.

General Disclosures

Study One Disclosures

Study Two Disclosures

Preregistration: The hypotheses and methods were preregistered ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ) on 2023-01-01, prior to data collection which began on 2023-01-02. The analysis plan was not preregistered. There were major and minor deviations from the preregistration (for details see Supplementary Table 1). Materials: All study materials are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ). Data: All primary data are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ). Analysis scripts: All analysis scripts are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ). 

Preregistration: No aspects of the study were preregistered. Materials: Some study materials are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ). The survey instrument cannot be shared because of copyright restrictions, but is available from Pam & Jim (2018).  Data: Some primary data are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/ ). The interview data cannot be shared because it contains identifying information which cannot be removed; however, it is available on request to the corresponding author. Analysis scripts: All analysis scripts are publicly available ( https://doi.org/10.1080/) .

We recognize that research transparency norms are evolving and we are always ready to listen to authors’ views. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the requirements outlined in this section, we encourage you to raise them with the STAR team ([email protected]).

Preregistration can reduce bias, increase transparency, and help readers calibrate their confidence in scientific claims ( Hardwicke & Wagenmakers, 2023 ). Preregistration involves declaring a research plan (for example, aims/hypotheses, methods, and analyses) in a public registry before research outcomes are known (usually before data collection begins). A preregistration is a plan, not a prison: the goal is to make clear what was planned and what was not ( DeHaven, 2017 ). Deviations from preregistrations may be necessary or desirable. When deviations occur (and they almost always do), authors should describe them explicitly, and we strongly recommend using the  Psychological Science  preregistration deviation disclosure table ( link here ; modified based on Willroth & Atherton, 2023) and including it in the first Supplemental File. Authors should consider taking additional measures to reduce the risk of bias incurred by deviations, such as robustness checks (see Box 2 in Hardwicke & Wagenmakers, 2023 ).

As part of the Research Transparency Statement, Psychological Science requires that all research articles state upon submission whether each reported study was preregistered or not, and which core aspects of the study (research questions/hypotheses, methods, analyses) were preregistered. Authors should state when and where preregistrations were archived and whether any relevant data existed and/or had been observed at these times. The Research Transparency Statement must contain a publicly accessible persistent identifier (e.g., DOI) to all relevant preregistrations. Authors should state if any deviations from the preregistration occurred (they may refer to them as ‘major’ or ‘minor’) and refer readers to a preregistration deviation disclosure table in the first Supplemental File for details. All major deviations should also be reported clearly in the main text, wherever relevant.

Authors can use any trusted online registry to preregister their research. For beginners, we recommend following the Open Science Framework’s step-by-step workflow ( osf.io/prereg ). Note that for manuscripts submitted on or after January 1, 2024, “preregistered” badges will no longer be offered, but preregistration status and quality will be one factor in editors’ decisions, when relevant.

Sharing study materials ensures that research can be thoroughly evaluated and enables independent re-use of research outputs, helping the research community efficiently build upon previous studies. Authors must share all materials necessary for an independent researcher to evaluate and replicate each reported study. This typically includes all stimuli, manipulations, measures, or instruments, as well as details of procedures (e.g., instructions to participants, instructions to experimenters and/or confederates, experimenter and/or confederate scripts, instructions to coders, recruitment materials, consent forms) and custom experimental software. Screen recordings or video protocols can also be helpful ways to communicate study methods.

Upon submission, Psychological Science requires authors to make all original study materials publicly available in a trusted online repository , unless there are reasonable constraints . When unresolvable constraints exist, they must be stated and justified in the Research Transparency Statement. Authors should share files in any original proprietary formats (e.g., Qualtrics or Google Forms) as well as open format equivalents (e.g., plain text, PDF) to maximize accessibility. Materials should be accompanied by an open license (see “Licensing materials, data, and analysis script” below). Materials should be clearly documented to explain what they are and how they can be reused. The Research Transparency Statement must contain a publicly accessible persistent identifier (e.g., DOI) to all shared materials. Note that for manuscripts submitted on or after January 1, 2024, “open materials” badges will no longer be offered.

Data are the evidence that underlies scientific claims: sharing data enables independent verification and reuse, facilitating error correction, evidence synthesis, and novel discovery. Raw data refers to the original quantitative or qualitative recordings, e.g., handwriting in a paper questionnaire, responses on a computer keyboard, or physiological readings. Primary data refers to the first digital (and if necessary, anonymized) version of the raw data, otherwise unaltered. This includes data that is later excluded from the analysis. Raw and primary data may be equivalent, as when online survey software records responses in a digital format or some minimal processing may be necessary to convert the raw data into primary data (e.g., converting handwritten survey responses to digital format, or stripping participant IP addresses from the raw data file). Processed data has been altered in some way beyond digitization and anonymization (e.g., renaming columns, removing variables).

Upon submission, Psychological Science requires authors to make all primary research data publicly available in a trusted online repository, unless there are reasonable constraints. When unresolvable constraints exist, they must be stated and justified in the Research Transparency Statement. Where possible, authors should share data in an open format (e.g., csv) to maximize accessibility. Authors are encouraged to share processed ‘ready-to-analyze’ data in addition to primary data, as it is often easier for other researchers to work with. Data should be accompanied by an open license (see “Licensing materials, data, and analysis script” below) and clearly documented with a data dictionary or codebook file that clearly explains the contents of the data file(s), when the data were collected, and who collected the data. Note that for manuscripts submitted on or after January 1, 2024, “open data” badges will no longer be offered.

Analysis scripts

An analysis script is ideally computational code (e.g., R or Python), or software syntax (SPSS), but can also be detailed step-by-step instructions for analyses performed in point-and-click software. Analysis scripts provide a record of exactly how the analyses reported in the manuscript were performed. This enables an independent researcher to thoroughly evaluate the analyses and verify that the results are computationally reproducible (i.e., repeating the original analyses with the original data yields the reported results). Analysis scripts completely document all of the steps performed to transform the raw data into the primary/processed data (if any), and then into the numerical values reported in the manuscript (including reorganizing, filtering, transforming, analyzing, and visualizing the data).

Upon submission, Psychological Science requires authors to make all original analysis scripts publicly available in a trusted online repository, unless there are reasonable constraints . When unresolvable constraints exist, they must be stated and justified in the Research Transparency Statement. Authors must document all analysis steps necessary for an independent researcher to reproduce all numerical values in the manuscript from the raw data. Authors should ideally share analysis scripts in an open format (e.g., R, Python), though proprietary formats are acceptable for commonly used software (e.g., Matlab, SPSS). Analysis scripts should be accompanied by an open license (see “Licensing materials, data, and analysis script” below) and clearly documented to explain what they do and how an independent researcher should re-use them to reproduce all numerical values reported in the manuscript. The Research Transparency statement must contain a publicly accessible persistent identifier (e.g., DOI) to the analysis script(s). We also encourage researchers to document and share the software environment in which the analyses were performed using tools such as Docker, Binder, or Code Ocean.

All manuscripts submitted to Psychological Science are expected to be computationally reproducible. That is, a reader should be able to run the authors’ code on the authors’ data and reproduce the results reported in the manuscript, tables, and figures. As part of the STAR review after conditional acceptance, we may conduct computational reproducibility checks on randomly selected manuscripts, and we strongly encourage all authors to perform a reproducibility check within their own team before submitting a manuscript.

Authors who are confident that their work is computationally reproducible are encouraged to apply for the Computational Reproducibility Badge. You should apply for this badge if you believe that a competent third-party (a STAR editor) can reproduce the reported results within a reasonable amount of time (approximately one hour, not counting any compute time). To reach this standard, your data files and analysis scripts must be well-organized, clearly documented, and accompanied by a README file that explains step-by-step how to reproduce the results reported in the manuscript. Detailed guidance is available on the STAR resources website.

Licensing materials, data, and analysis scripts

Authors are strongly encouraged to share their materials, data, and analysis scripts under a Creative Commons CC0 license, a universal public domain declaration that ensures maximal reuse. Alternative re-use licenses may be acceptable, at the discretion of the Editors. Note that CC0 does not obviate cultural expectations that scholarly credit is given through citation ( Hrynaszkiewicz & Cockerill, 2012 ).

Transparency constraints and responsible sharing

In some cases, legal, ethical, or practical factors can complicate the sharing of some or all materials/data/analysis scripts. Authors are responsible for ensuring that sharing is handled responsibly, while also maximizing transparency as a scientific priority ( Meyer, 2018 ). We recognize that the optimal balance between these responsibilities is not always clear, and we are always ready to discuss potential constraints on transparency with authors.

Authors are expected to take steps to resolve or minimize constraints where possible — for example seeking permission to share from third-party data/materials providers, anonymizing datasets to resolve confidentiality concerns, or sharing the data/materials in a third-party repository that manages restricted access. When transparency constraints cannot be fully resolved, they must be stated and justified in the Research Transparency Statement. Supporting documentation should be provided where possible (for example a data use agreement or letter from the local ethics board outlining why the data/materials cannot be shared publicly).

If authors are using data/materials/analysis scripts from a third party source, they should seek permission to re-share those files alongside the current manuscript. If re-sharing is not possible, authors should clearly state in the Research Transparency Statement how other researchers can obtain the resources. Authors should also use appropriate citation standards to refer to any third party source in the text and reference section. Citation to third party resources should be accompanied by a persistent identifier (e.g., DOI).

Funding disclosures

Any sources of funding related to the research or manuscript must be disclosed. If there are no funding sources, this must be stated explicitly.

Conflict of interest disclosures

All authors must declare any conflicts of interest related to the research or manuscript. If there are no conflicts of interest, this must be stated explicitly. Conflicts of interest include not just financial conflicts, but any author’s role, relationship, or commitment that presents an actual or perceived threat to the integrity or independence of the research or its publication.

Artificial intelligence disclosures

Authors must disclose in the Research Transparency Statement whether they used any artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large-language models (e.g., ChatGPT) during the research or production of the manuscript. Authors must adhere to the Sage policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence . The Editors and reviewers will judge whether the use of AI is appropriate.

Psychological Science encourages authors to consider the statistical approaches best suited to their aims. The editors recommend the use of a range of approaches, including hypothesis testing and estimation approaches. Among others,  frequentist (e.g., Null Hypothesis Significance Testing) or Bayesian approaches (e.g., Bayes factors) as well as machine learning can be appropriate when carried out with care and reported transparently.

When conducting multiple statistical tests on the same research question, authors should take into account the increased risk of false positive results, and correct for multiple comparisons where appropriate (see, e.g., Lakens, 2020 ).

For synthesizing evidence across multiple studies in the same manuscript, authors should be mindful of the increased risk of bias with common “internal meta-analysis” approaches ( Vosgerau et al. ).

Authors must include effect sizes (standardized or unstandardized) and a measure of uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals) for their major results. In addition, authors should report distributional information for their key variables, ideally in figures (e.g., box plots with individual data points added). Fine-grained graphical presentations that show how data are distributed are often the most transparent way of communicating results. Please report and plot confidence intervals instead of standard deviations or standard errors around means of dependent variables, because confidence intervals convey more useful information.

Authors should investigate the extent to which statistical and/or causal assumptions of the model are met, and discuss implications of unmet assumptions.

Any claim about the absence of, for example, differences or associations must be supported by appropriate inferential statistics. For example, frequentist equivalence testing or Bayes factors (with appropriate equivalence margins or prior distributions, respectively) are well-suited approaches. When no supporting inferential statistics are reported, care must be taken to clearly communicate the absence of evidence.

Reporting Style for Statistical Results

Please report test statistics with two decimal points (e.g., t(34) = 5.67) and probability values with three decimal points. In addition, exact p values should be reported for all results greater than .001; p values below .001 should be described as “ p < .001.” Authors should be particularly attentive to APA style when typing statistical details (e.g., N s for chi-square tests, formatting of df s), and if special mathematical expressions are required, they should not be graphic objects but rather inserted with Word’s Equation Editor or similar.

Guidelines for Reporting Neuroimaging Data

Studies involving neuroimaging methods typically entail much larger numbers of measurements than those found in behavioral research, and require specialized frameworks for preprocessing and statistical analysis. The Organization for Human Brain Mapping has developed a set of documents outlining best practices for the reporting of these data types, which we recommend that authors follow. We refer authors to Nichols et al., 2016 and Pernet et al., 2020 for useful discussions of best practices in reporting of MRI and EEG/MEG research respectively.  Checklists for methods reporting are available for MRI (Table 4) and EEG/MEG (Tables 1 and 2).  All items listed as mandatory in those checklists should be reported in the main text or Supplemental Files.

Pre-registration of neuroimaging studies can be challenging due to the complexity of the methodology and data analysis, but authors are encouraged to pre-register at least a minimum set of details including: planned sample size, inclusion/exclusion criteria, planned hypotheses, anatomical regions of interest, and methods to be used for multiple comparison correction.

All whole-brain neuroimaging analyses must employ principled methods for the correction for multiple comparisons.  For region of interest (ROI)-based analyses, the process of ROI selection should be clearly stated in the main text; in general, ROIs should be selected prior to any analyses of the data and preferably pre-registered. Reports of ROI analyses should include effect size estimates. Any ROI-based analyses should be accompanied by whole-brain analyses for the same effect. A complete table of activation coordinates, together with their associated statistics, should be provided for each hypothesis test; such tables should typically be put in SOM.

The strongest submissions will report results for appropriately large samples and/or report a pre-registered replication study. There is no general rule for sample sizes, as they depend on the nature of the hypothesis being tested. For instance, a study concerning correlations between brain structure/function and behavioral measures will generally require samples in the hundreds to thousands of individuals due to small effect sizes ( Marek et al, 2022 ) and low reliability ( Elliott et al., 2020 ), whereas smaller samples are likely suitable for studies of task-specific brain activation, depending upon the effect size of interest. Prospective power analyses for fMRI ( Mumford, 2012 ) require unbiased estimates of effect sizes which are difficult to obtain without large prior samples and independent regions of interest; when these are not available, the sample size should be justified and preregistered.

Psychological Science will place emphasis on those functional neuroimaging studies that make a clear and compelling contribution to understanding psychological mechanisms. Therefore, authors should describe a clear linking proposition between the neuroscientific measurements and psychological theory.

Candidate Gene Research

Because genetic associations identified using candidate gene approaches have historically been largely irreproducible ( Hewitt, 2012 ), Psychological Science will only entertain candidate gene studies that are sufficiently powered to identify associations of a realistic magnitude at a genome-wide level of significance.

Research Using Machine Learning Methods

Research using machine learning methods should adhere to the Reporting Standards for ML-based Science (REFORMS) reporting checklist ( Kapoor et al., 2023 ). Computer code must be shared for all analyses.

Research Using Computational Models

Research involving the development or use of computational models should follow best practices outlined by Wilson and Collins (2019) .  Computer code must be shared for any new models that are developed.

Authors who use null hypothesis significance testing should run their manuscript through StatCheck — a statistical “spellchecker” that can detect inconsistencies between different components of inferential statistics (e.g., t value, df, and p). StatCheck is available in a free online app at http://statcheck.io/ .

Authorship implies significant participation in the research reported or in writing the manuscript, including participation in the design and/or interpretation of reported experiments or results, participation in the acquisition and/or analysis of data, and participation in the drafting and/or revising of the manuscript. All authors must agree to the order in which the authors are listed and must have read the final manuscript and approved its submission. They must also agree to take responsibility for the work in the event that its integrity or veracity is questioned.

Furthermore, as part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent, and fair peer review and publication process, APS journals have adopted the use of  CRediT  (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). CRediT is a high-level taxonomy, including 14 roles that can be used to represent the roles typically played by contributors to scientific scholarly output.

These roles describe the possible contributions to the published work:

Conceptualization : Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims

Methodology; Development or design of methodology; creation of models

Software : Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components

Validation Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/ reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs

Formal Analysis Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal

techniques to analyze or synthesize study data

Investigation : Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection

Resources : Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools

Data Curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse

Writing – Original Draft : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)

Writing – Review & Editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision–including pre- or postpublication stages

Visualization : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation

Supervision : Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team

Project Administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution

Funding Acquisition : Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

The submitting author is responsible for listing the contributions of all authors at submission. All authors should agree to their individual contributions prior to submission.

In order to adhere to SAGE’s authorship criteria authors must have been responsible for  at least one  of the following  CRediT  roles:

• Conceptualization
• Methodology
• Formal Analysis
• Investigation

AND at least one of the following:

• Writing – Original Draft Preparation
• Writing – Review & Editing

Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect all contributions to the work. Any contributors with roles that do not constitute authorship (e.g., Supervision was the sole contribution) should be listed in the Acknowledgements.

SAGE is a supporting member of  ORCID , the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. We strongly encourage all authors and co-authors to use ORCID iDs during the peer-review process. If you already have an ORCID iD, please login to your account on SAGE Track and edit the account information to link to your ORCID iD. If you do not already have an ORCID iD, please login to your SAGE Track account to create your unique identifier and automatically add it to your profile. PLEASE NOTE: ORCID iDs must be linked to author accounts prior to manuscript acceptance or they will not be displayed upon publication. ORCID iDs cannot be linked during the copyediting phase.

The journal requires that for accepted manuscripts, figures be embedded within the main document near to where they are discussed in the text. A figure’s caption should be placed in the text just below the figure. For initial submissions, tables and figures may be placed at the end of the manuscript.

Authors who are submitting revisions should also upload separate figure files that adhere to the  APS Figure Format and Style Guidelines . Because the submission should be anonymized, files must not contain an author’s name. Submitting separate, production-quality files helps to facilitate timely publication should the manuscript ultimately be accepted.

Authors are free to submit certain types of Supplemental Files for online-only publication. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, such material will be published online on the publisher’s website via Figshare, linked to the article. Supplemental Files will not be copyedited or formatted; they will be posted online exactly as submitted.

The editorial team takes the adjective supplemental seriously. Supplemental Files should include the sort of material that enhances the reader’s understanding of an article but is not essential for understanding the article or evaluating the author’s claims. Supplemental Files should be uploaded during initial submission.

Contributors are encouraged to consult the  Contributor FAQ  before submitting manuscripts to  Psychological Science.

Accepted Manuscripts

All accepted manuscripts are published online (OnlineFirst) as soon as they reach their final copyedited, typeset, and corrected form, and each accepted article appears in a monthly print issue of  Psychological Science  as well as in the digital  This Week in Psychological Science  ( TWiPS ), which is distributed weekly to all APS members.

Privacy Overview

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.

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.

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  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.

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) [3] 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.

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

Tips for Writing Your Best Psychology Research Paper

A checklist of do's and don'ts for students to write papers people want to read..

Posted July 17, 2022 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

• What Is a Career
• Find a career counselor near me
• Scientific writing is non-intuitive in many ways.
• When it comes to writing psychology research reports, a primary goal should be clear communication.
• Here is a list of tips to help behavioral scientists, at all levels, to best communicate ideas regarding psychological research findings.

When it comes to reading academic research reports in the behavioral sciences, I'm no different than anyone else. I often find myself thinking "what is the point?" Reading academic papers is not always rainbows, balloons, and unicorns.

As a teacher and researcher, I regularly provide commentary on student research papers, with the primary goal of helping students best express complex ideas. Based on this experience, here is something of a checklist of issues to think about when writing a psychology research report.

Write as you speak.

So often, I read student papers that sound much more like someone trying to sound smart than like someone trying to communicate ideas. You made it into college—you're likely plenty smart. Don't worry about using big words.

The point of summarizing your research is to present it to others so that they understand what you are saying.

One way to achieve this outcome is simply to write as you speak. When you speak to others, you are trying to get them to understand something. This same goal is true when you are writing a scientific research report. Sure, avoid informalities, slang, and profanity in scientific writing—but beyond that, I suggest that you simply write how you speak.

Never copy and paste so much as a letter from another source.

In this day and age, it is common for students to copy and paste content from others' papers into their own. From there, students will often edit, modify, etc. Regarding this practice, I say this: Never do that! Not only does this practice have you dancing dangerously on the edge of plagiarism, but it is just a poor way to communicate.

When it comes to summarizing ideas from past researchers, your best bet is to read their work to the point that you really understand it and then to write your ideas out as if you are describing the ideas to a friend or family member. Doing so will ensure that your voice comes through.

Only summarize parts of past research that are relevant to your own research.

Sometimes, students feel that they have to summarize everything that they find in a relevant article connected with their research. Not so.

Imagine that you are writing a paper about how academic self-esteem (belief in oneself in academic contexts) relates to academic success (e.g., grade point average).

Now suppose that in your review of past work on this topic, you find a paper that summarizes five different studies that another researcher conducted on this topic. Imagine that one of the five studies examined the relationship between general self-esteem and academic self-esteem. Now imagine that this particular issue is unrelated to your own study. In this case, it would be a mistake to elaborate on this particular feature of this past work in detail.

Sometimes it feels like a student describing irrelevant details of others' work is intentionally trying to add length to their paper. Honestly, don't ever do that! Only include content that is relevant to your point. If there is a part of a prior paper that is not related to the point of your work, don't include it.

Avoid writing superfluous details about past studies (sample sizes, specific statistical findings, and ancillary findings) that do not relate to your own work.

Here's something that students often do not know. When very in-the-weeds details about a prior study make it into your paper, it comes across as a rookie mistake.

Such details often include the sample size from a prior study (e.g., "In Smith and Johnson's (2019) study, 632 young adult participants from a large, midwestern university were studied..."). Honestly, no one cares! In your own research report, describe your sample in detail—but not such details of past work.

Describing samples of other studies in detail in your own paper automatically puts the reader in zone-out mode.

This same rule applies to statistical findings from past studies. Suppose that Smith and Johnson found that high academic self-esteem corresponded to high GPAs in a sample of students from a community college. That's all you need to say! If you go on and describe the r-value and the p-value and the N of that prior research, you are once again inviting your reader to go into zone-out mode.

Include a brief summary at the end of your Introduction that includes clearly specified hypotheses.

The whole point of your Introduction is to get the reader to see the problem that you are studying and to see the value of studying that problem. A strong way to communicate all of this is to make sure to specify your hypotheses (or predictions) clearly in a section that completes your Introduction. Summarizing your specific predictions in detail in this section helps to provide a bridge between your Introduction and your Methods sections.

Make sure that each variable in your study is described in your Introduction so that the reader knows why it is included.

When a variable shows up in your Methods section that was not introduced in the Introduction, the reader will automatically be confused. The reader may think, "Wait, what? The intro didn't say anything about this variable. I have no idea what the relevance is here!" Each variable included in your Methods section should be described in some detail in your Introduction section—especially as it relates to the main predictions of your study.

Include sub-sections in your Introduction to help guide your reader to your broader points.

Reading scientific papers is not easy. One way to help make your presentation easier on your reader is by including sub-sections in your Introduction. APA style fully allows you to include as many sub-sections as you want in your Introduction.

You can create sections for each variable that you study in your project. You can create sections that describe past work related to the topic, etc. A sub-section will usually have between two and five paragraphs, just as a rule of thumb. Doing this will help in making your ideas clear to your reader.

Refer to hypotheses in words and not by some arbitrary numbers.

Near the end of the Introduction, as noted above, it is best practice to demarcate your specific hypotheses. Sometimes, a researcher will describe these in numbered form (e.g., Hypothesis 1: We predict that high levels of academic self-esteem will be positively related to cumulative grade point average . Hypothesis 2...).

In the hypothesis section of your Introduction, it is fine to number your hypotheses in this way. That said, later in your paper, it is not good practice to refer to your hypotheses by number. For instance, in your results section, you can imagine saying something like, "Hypothesis 1 was supported by a correlation."

By the time I get to the Results section, I usually don't recall which particular prediction comprised "Hypothesis 1." It's best practice to refer to your hypotheses in terms of the actual, relevant content. You could call it "the hypothesis suggesting that academic self-esteem is positively related to GPA." Such an approach will make it so that your reader is not flipping back to a prior section.

In your Methods section, describe each measuring instrument in detail and include academic citations that point to the full scale when appropriate.

In your Methods section, it is best practice to describe each measure in enough detail so that your audience has a solid idea as to how the measuring instrument works.

For instance, if you use a published scale of general self-esteem in your study, you should not only provide the full academic citation to this scale, but you should also give one example item (e.g., "Here is an example item: 'Generally speaking, I like myself.'") and you should describe the measuring system in sufficient detail (e.g., are the items on a 1-5 Likert scale, anchored with Strong Disagree and Strongly Agree? If so, say that.). This basic process should be used for each measuring instrument included in your study.

Never end your paper with a limitation of your work.

Life is hard enough and there are endless critics out there. It is appropriate to describe limitations to your work in your Discussion section, but it is not great practice to end your paper with limitations of your work. That could leave the reader with something we call the recency effect —where they primarily remember the final information that was presented. You don't want your reader to walk away thinking that the main point of your work is that you had a small sample size in your research, for instance. Your ending should bring the paper full circle and focus on the value of your work as well as potential implications.

Bottom Line

In my work as a psychology professor, I both produce psychological research reports and I read and comment on many student papers that summarize research. In my efforts to help students hone their skills in this realm, I recently published a book: Own Your Psychology Major (Geher, 2019) , which helps guide students on various facets of the field of psychology, including the presentation of research findings.

People often find the process of scientific writing a bit non-intuitive. Following the tips above can help behavioral scientists at all levels communicate their ideas clearly, with the goal of having their ideas heard. Ultimately, this is the goal of all writing, including scientific writing.

Geher, G. (2019). Own Your Psychology Major! A Guide to Student Success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glenn Geher, Ph.D. , is professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He is founding director of the campus’ Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) program.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

How Long Should a Research Paper Be? Data from 61,519 Examples

I analyzed a random sample of 61,519 full-text research papers, uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021, in order to answer the questions:

What is the typical overall length of a research paper? and how long should each section be?

I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Here’s a summary of the key findings

1- The median length of a research paper is 4,133 words (equivalent to 166 sentences or 34 paragraphs), excluding the abstract and references, with 90% of papers being between 2,023 and 8,284 words.

2- A typical article is divided in the following way:

• Introduction section: 14.6% of the total word count.
• Methods section: 29.7% of the total word count.
• Results section: 26.2% of the total word count.
• Discussion section: 29.4% of the total word count.

Notice that the Materials and methods is the longest section of a professionally written article. So always write this section in enough depth to provide the readers with the necessary details that allow them to replicate your study if they wanted to without requiring further information.

Overall length of a research paper

Let’s start by looking at the maximum word count allowed in some of the well-known journals. Note that the numbers reported in this table include the Abstract , Figure legends and References unless otherwise specified:

[1] excluding figure legends [2] excluding references

⚠ Note A review paper is either a systematic review or a meta-analysis, and an original research paper refers to either an observational or an experimental study conducted by the authors themselves.

Notice the large variability between these journals: The maximum number of words allowed ranges between 3,000 and 9,000 words.

Next, let’s look at our data.

Here’s a table that describes the length of a research paper in our sample:

90% of research papers have a word count between 2,023 and 8,284. So it will be a little weird to see a word count outside of this range.

Our data also agree that a typical review paper is a little bit longer than a typical original research paper but not by much (3,858 vs 3,708 words).

Length of each section in a research article

The median article with an IMRaD structure (i.e. contains the following sections: Introduction , Methods , Results and Discussion ) is in general characterized by a short 553 words introduction. And the methods, results and discussion sections are about twice the size of the introduction:

For more information, see:

• How Long Should a Research Title Be? Data from 104,161 Examples
• How Long Should the Abstract Be? Data 61,429 from Examples
• How Long Should the Introduction of a Research Paper Be? Data from 61,518 Examples
• How Long Should the Methods Section Be? Data from 61,514 Examples
• How Long Should the Results Section Be? Data from 61,458 Examples
• How Long Should the Discussion Section Be? Data from 61,517 Examples
• Length of a Conclusion Section: Analysis of 47,810 Examples
• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

• 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 an APA Results 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 / Nusha Ashjaee 

What to Include in an APA Results Section

• Justify Claims
• Summarize Results

Report All Relevant Results

• Report Statistical Findings

Include Tables and Figures

What not to include in an apa results section.

Psychology papers generally follow a specific structure. One important section of a paper is known as the results section. An APA results section of a psychology paper summarizes the data that was collected and the statistical analyses that were performed. The goal of this section is to report the results of your study or experiment without any type of subjective interpretation.

At a Glance

The results section is a vital part of an APA paper that summarizes a study's findings and statistical analysis. This section often includes descriptive text, tables, and figures to help summarize the findings. The focus is purely on summarizing and presenting the findings and should not include any interpretation, since you'll cover that in the subsequent discussion section.

This article covers how to write an APA results section, including what to include and what to avoid.

The results section is the third section of a psychology paper. It will appear after the introduction and methods sections and before the discussion section.

The results section should include:

• A summary of the research findings.
• Information about participant flow, recruitment, retention, and attrition. If some participants started the study and later left or failed to complete the study, then this should be described. 
• Information about any reasons why some data might have been excluded from the study. 
• Statistical information including samples sizes and statistical tests that were used. It should report standard deviations, p-values, and other measures of interest.

Results Should Justify Your Claims

Report data in order to sufficiently justify your conclusions. Since you'll be talking about your own interpretation of the results in the discussion section, you need to be sure that the information reported in the results section justifies your claims.

When you start writing your discussion section, you can then look back on your results to ensure that all the data you need are there to fully support your conclusions. Be sure not to make claims in your discussion section that are not supported by the findings described in your results section.

Summarize Your Results

Remember, you are summarizing the results of your psychological study, not reporting them in full detail. The results section should be a relatively brief overview of your findings, not a complete presentation of every single number and calculation.

If you choose, you can create a supplemental online archive where other researchers can access the raw data if they choose.

How long should a results section be?

The length of your results section will vary depending on the nature of your paper and the complexity of your research. In most cases, this will be the shortest section of your paper.

Just as the results section of your psychology paper should sufficiently justify your claims, it should also provide an accurate look at what you found in your study. Be sure to mention all relevant information.

Don't omit findings simply because they failed to support your predictions.

Your hypothesis may have expected more statistically significant results or your study didn't support your hypothesis , but that doesn't mean that the conclusions you reach are not useful. Provide data about what you found in your results section, then save your interpretation for what the results might mean in the discussion section.

While your study might not have supported your original predictions, your finding can provide important inspiration for future explorations into a topic.

How is the results section different from the discussion section?

The results section provides the results of your study or experiment. The goal of the section is to report what happened and the statistical analyses you performed. The discussion section is where you will examine what these results mean and whether they support or fail to support your hypothesis.

Report Your Statistical Findings

Always assume that your readers have a solid understanding of statistical concepts. There's no need to explain what a t-test is or how a one-way ANOVA works. Your responsibility is to report the results of your study, not to teach your readers how to analyze or interpret statistics.

Include Effect Sizes

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association recommends including effect sizes in your results section so that readers can appreciate the importance of your study's findings.

Your results section should include both text and illustrations. Presenting data in this way makes it easier for readers to quickly look at your results.

Structure your results section around tables or figures that summarize the results of your statistical analysis. In many cases, the easiest way to accomplish this is to first create your tables and figures and then organize them in a logical way. Next, write the summary text to support your illustrative materials.

Only include tables and figures if you are going to talk about them in the body text of your results section.

In addition to knowing what you should include in the results section of your psychology paper, it's also important to be aware of things that you should avoid putting in this section:

Cause-and-Effect Conclusions

Don't draw cause-effect conclusions. Avoid making any claims suggesting that your result "proves" that something is true. 

Interpretations

Present the data without editorializing it. Save your comments and interpretations for the discussion section of your paper. 

Statistics Without Context

Don't include statistics without narration. The results section should not be a numbers dump. Instead, you should sequentially narrate what these numbers mean.

Don't include the raw data in the results section. The results section should be a concise presentation of the results. If there is raw data that would be useful, include it in the appendix .

Don't only rely on descriptive text. Use tables and figures to present these findings when appropriate. This makes the results section easier to read and can convey a great deal of information quickly.

Repeated Data

Don't present the same data twice in your illustrative materials. If you have already presented some data in a table, don't present it again in a figure. If you have presented data in a figure, don't present it again in a table.

All of Your Findings

Don't feel like you have to include everything. If data is irrelevant to the research question, don't include it in the results section.

But Don't Skip Relevant Data

Don't leave out results because they don't support your claims. Even if your data does not support your hypothesis, including it in your findings is essential if it's relevant.

More Tips for Writing a Results Section

If you are struggling, there are a few things to remember that might help:

• Use the past tense . The results section should be written in the past tense.
• Be concise and objective . You will have the opportunity to give your own interpretations of the results in the discussion section.
• Use APA format . As you are writing your results section, keep a style guide on hand. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
• Visit your library . Read some journal articles that are on your topic. Pay attention to how the authors present the results of their research.
• Get a second opinion . If possible, take your paper to your school's writing lab for additional assistance.

What This Means For You

Remember, the results section of your paper is all about providing the data from your study. This section is often the shortest part of your paper, and in most cases, the most clinical.

Be sure not to include any subjective interpretation of the results. Simply relay the data in the most objective and straightforward way possible. You can then provide your own analysis of what these results mean in the discussion section of your paper.

Bavdekar SB, Chandak S. Results: Unraveling the findings . J Assoc Physicians India . 2015 Sep;63(9):44-6. PMID:27608866.

Snyder N, Foltz C, Lendner M, Vaccaro AR. How to write an effective results section .  Clin Spine Surg . 2019;32(7):295-296. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000845

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab. APA sample paper: Experimental psychology .

Berkeley University. Reviewing test results .

Tuncel A, Atan A. How to clearly articulate results and construct tables and figures in a scientific paper ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):16-19. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.048

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

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

13.1 Formatting a Research Paper

Learning objectives.

• Identify the major components of a research paper written using American Psychological Association (APA) style.
• Apply general APA style and formatting conventions in a research paper.

In this chapter, you will learn how to use APA style , the documentation and formatting style followed by the American Psychological Association, as well as MLA style , from the Modern Language Association. There are a few major formatting styles used in academic texts, including AMA, Chicago, and Turabian:

• AMA (American Medical Association) for medicine, health, and biological sciences
• APA (American Psychological Association) for education, psychology, and the social sciences
• Chicago—a common style used in everyday publications like magazines, newspapers, and books
• MLA (Modern Language Association) for English, literature, arts, and humanities
• Turabian—another common style designed for its universal application across all subjects and disciplines

While all the formatting and citation styles have their own use and applications, in this chapter we focus our attention on the two styles you are most likely to use in your academic studies: APA and MLA.

If you find that the rules of proper source documentation are difficult to keep straight, you are not alone. Writing a good research paper is, in and of itself, a major intellectual challenge. Having to follow detailed citation and formatting guidelines as well may seem like just one more task to add to an already-too-long list of requirements.

Following these guidelines, however, serves several important purposes. First, it signals to your readers that your paper should be taken seriously as a student’s contribution to a given academic or professional field; it is the literary equivalent of wearing a tailored suit to a job interview. Second, it shows that you respect other people’s work enough to give them proper credit for it. Finally, it helps your reader find additional materials if he or she wishes to learn more about your topic.

Furthermore, producing a letter-perfect APA-style paper need not be burdensome. Yes, it requires careful attention to detail. However, you can simplify the process if you keep these broad guidelines in mind:

• Work ahead whenever you can. Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” includes tips for keeping track of your sources early in the research process, which will save time later on.
• Get it right the first time. Apply APA guidelines as you write, so you will not have much to correct during the editing stage. Again, putting in a little extra time early on can save time later.
• Use the resources available to you. In addition to the guidelines provided in this chapter, you may wish to consult the APA website at http://www.apa.org or the Purdue University Online Writing lab at http://owl.english.purdue.edu , which regularly updates its online style guidelines.

General Formatting Guidelines

This chapter provides detailed guidelines for using the citation and formatting conventions developed by the American Psychological Association, or APA. Writers in disciplines as diverse as astrophysics, biology, psychology, and education follow APA style. The major components of a paper written in APA style are listed in the following box.

These are the major components of an APA-style paper:

Body, which includes the following:

• Headings and, if necessary, subheadings to organize the content
• In-text citations of research sources
• References page

All these components must be saved in one document, not as separate documents.

The title page of your paper includes the following information:

• Title of the paper
• Author’s name
• Name of the institution with which the author is affiliated
• Header at the top of the page with the paper title (in capital letters) and the page number (If the title is lengthy, you may use a shortened form of it in the header.)

List the first three elements in the order given in the previous list, centered about one third of the way down from the top of the page. Use the headers and footers tool of your word-processing program to add the header, with the title text at the left and the page number in the upper-right corner. Your title page should look like the following example.

The next page of your paper provides an abstract , or brief summary of your findings. An abstract does not need to be provided in every paper, but an abstract should be used in papers that include a hypothesis. A good abstract is concise—about one hundred fifty to two hundred fifty words—and is written in an objective, impersonal style. Your writing voice will not be as apparent here as in the body of your paper. When writing the abstract, take a just-the-facts approach, and summarize your research question and your findings in a few sentences.

In Chapter 12 “Writing a Research Paper” , you read a paper written by a student named Jorge, who researched the effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets. Read Jorge’s abstract. Note how it sums up the major ideas in his paper without going into excessive detail.

Write an abstract summarizing your paper. Briefly introduce the topic, state your findings, and sum up what conclusions you can draw from your research. Use the word count feature of your word-processing program to make sure your abstract does not exceed one hundred fifty words.

Depending on your field of study, you may sometimes write research papers that present extensive primary research, such as your own experiment or survey. In your abstract, summarize your research question and your findings, and briefly indicate how your study relates to prior research in the field.

Margins, Pagination, and Headings

APA style requirements also address specific formatting concerns, such as margins, pagination, and heading styles, within the body of the paper. Review the following APA guidelines.

Use these general guidelines to format the paper:

• Set the top, bottom, and side margins of your paper at 1 inch.
• Use double-spaced text throughout your paper.
• Use a standard font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, in a legible size (10- to 12-point).
• Use continuous pagination throughout the paper, including the title page and the references section. Page numbers appear flush right within your header.
• Section headings and subsection headings within the body of your paper use different types of formatting depending on the level of information you are presenting. Additional details from Jorge’s paper are provided.

Begin formatting the final draft of your paper according to APA guidelines. You may work with an existing document or set up a new document if you choose. Include the following:

• Your title page
• The abstract you created in Note 13.8 “Exercise 1”
• Correct headers and page numbers for your title page and abstract

APA style uses section headings to organize information, making it easy for the reader to follow the writer’s train of thought and to know immediately what major topics are covered. Depending on the length and complexity of the paper, its major sections may also be divided into subsections, sub-subsections, and so on. These smaller sections, in turn, use different heading styles to indicate different levels of information. In essence, you are using headings to create a hierarchy of information.

The following heading styles used in APA formatting are listed in order of greatest to least importance:

• Section headings use centered, boldface type. Headings use title case, with important words in the heading capitalized.
• Subsection headings use left-aligned, boldface type. Headings use title case.
• The third level uses left-aligned, indented, boldface type. Headings use a capital letter only for the first word, and they end in a period.
• The fourth level follows the same style used for the previous level, but the headings are boldfaced and italicized.
• The fifth level follows the same style used for the previous level, but the headings are italicized and not boldfaced.

Visually, the hierarchy of information is organized as indicated in Table 13.1 “Section Headings” .

Table 13.1 Section Headings

A college research paper may not use all the heading levels shown in Table 13.1 “Section Headings” , but you are likely to encounter them in academic journal articles that use APA style. For a brief paper, you may find that level 1 headings suffice. Longer or more complex papers may need level 2 headings or other lower-level headings to organize information clearly. Use your outline to craft your major section headings and determine whether any subtopics are substantial enough to require additional levels of headings.

Working with the document you developed in Note 13.11 “Exercise 2” , begin setting up the heading structure of the final draft of your research paper according to APA guidelines. Include your title and at least two to three major section headings, and follow the formatting guidelines provided above. If your major sections should be broken into subsections, add those headings as well. Use your outline to help you.

Because Jorge used only level 1 headings, his Exercise 3 would look like the following:

Citation Guidelines

In-text citations.

Throughout the body of your paper, include a citation whenever you quote or paraphrase material from your research sources. As you learned in Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” , the purpose of citations is twofold: to give credit to others for their ideas and to allow your reader to follow up and learn more about the topic if desired. Your in-text citations provide basic information about your source; each source you cite will have a longer entry in the references section that provides more detailed information.

In-text citations must provide the name of the author or authors and the year the source was published. (When a given source does not list an individual author, you may provide the source title or the name of the organization that published the material instead.) When directly quoting a source, it is also required that you include the page number where the quote appears in your citation.

This information may be included within the sentence or in a parenthetical reference at the end of the sentence, as in these examples.

Epstein (2010) points out that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (p. 137).

Here, the writer names the source author when introducing the quote and provides the publication date in parentheses after the author’s name. The page number appears in parentheses after the closing quotation marks and before the period that ends the sentence.

Addiction researchers caution that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (Epstein, 2010, p. 137).

Here, the writer provides a parenthetical citation at the end of the sentence that includes the author’s name, the year of publication, and the page number separated by commas. Again, the parenthetical citation is placed after the closing quotation marks and before the period at the end of the sentence.

As noted in the book Junk Food, Junk Science (Epstein, 2010, p. 137), “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive.”

Here, the writer chose to mention the source title in the sentence (an optional piece of information to include) and followed the title with a parenthetical citation. Note that the parenthetical citation is placed before the comma that signals the end of the introductory phrase.

David Epstein’s book Junk Food, Junk Science (2010) pointed out that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (p. 137).

Another variation is to introduce the author and the source title in your sentence and include the publication date and page number in parentheses within the sentence or at the end of the sentence. As long as you have included the essential information, you can choose the option that works best for that particular sentence and source.

Citing a book with a single author is usually a straightforward task. Of course, your research may require that you cite many other types of sources, such as books or articles with more than one author or sources with no individual author listed. You may also need to cite sources available in both print and online and nonprint sources, such as websites and personal interviews. Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” , Section 13.2 “Citing and Referencing Techniques” and Section 13.3 “Creating a References Section” provide extensive guidelines for citing a variety of source types.

Writing at Work

APA is just one of several different styles with its own guidelines for documentation, formatting, and language usage. Depending on your field of interest, you may be exposed to additional styles, such as the following:

• MLA style. Determined by the Modern Languages Association and used for papers in literature, languages, and other disciplines in the humanities.
• Chicago style. Outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style and sometimes used for papers in the humanities and the sciences; many professional organizations use this style for publications as well.
• Associated Press (AP) style. Used by professional journalists.

References List

The brief citations included in the body of your paper correspond to the more detailed citations provided at the end of the paper in the references section. In-text citations provide basic information—the author’s name, the publication date, and the page number if necessary—while the references section provides more extensive bibliographical information. Again, this information allows your reader to follow up on the sources you cited and do additional reading about the topic if desired.

The specific format of entries in the list of references varies slightly for different source types, but the entries generally include the following information:

• The name(s) of the author(s) or institution that wrote the source
• The year of publication and, where applicable, the exact date of publication
• The full title of the source
• For books, the city of publication
• For articles or essays, the name of the periodical or book in which the article or essay appears
• For magazine and journal articles, the volume number, issue number, and pages where the article appears
• For sources on the web, the URL where the source is located

The references page is double spaced and lists entries in alphabetical order by the author’s last name. If an entry continues for more than one line, the second line and each subsequent line are indented five spaces. Review the following example. ( Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” , Section 13.3 “Creating a References Section” provides extensive guidelines for formatting reference entries for different types of sources.)

In APA style, book and article titles are formatted in sentence case, not title case. Sentence case means that only the first word is capitalized, along with any proper nouns.

Key Takeaways

• Following proper citation and formatting guidelines helps writers ensure that their work will be taken seriously, give proper credit to other authors for their work, and provide valuable information to readers.
• Working ahead and taking care to cite sources correctly the first time are ways writers can save time during the editing stage of writing a research paper.
• APA papers usually include an abstract that concisely summarizes the paper.
• APA papers use a specific headings structure to provide a clear hierarchy of information.
• In APA papers, in-text citations usually include the name(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication.
• In-text citations correspond to entries in the references section, which provide detailed bibliographical information about a source.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

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

Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices

Johannes stricker.

Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information, Trier, Germany

Anita Chasiotis

Martin kerwer, armin günther, associated data.

Our data and scripts are available via the PsychArchives repository:, http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2768 , http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2723 . We deleted all scientific abstracts and PLS for Archives of Scientific Psychology from the data set prior to uploading. This was due to PsycINFO's copyright policy. The scientific abstracts and PLSs can be found via the DOIs we provided.

Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.

Introduction

Scientific journal articles in psychology are usually difficult to understand for non-experts. Yet, psychological findings influence decision-making processes in various domains, ranging from individual-level decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not) to legislation (e.g., whether to prohibit violent video games or not). Thus, there has been an increasing interest in “translating” psychological findings for non-expert audiences [ 1 ]. This endeavor has proven difficult, because, for example, media reporting frequently misrepresents scientific findings [ 2 – 4 ]. Hence, scientific results may be summarized incorrectly if this is done by someone other than the study authors. Moreover, scientific abstracts, written by the scientists themselves, have the disadvantage that they have become increasingly difficult to read for non-experts [ 5 ]. To bridge the communication gap between scientists and non-expert audiences, the concept of plain language summaries (PLS, also referred to as lay abstracts, non-technical summaries, impact statements or translational abstracts) has been introduced. PLS explain the rationale, methods, and findings of a scientific study using non-technical language to enable non-expert audiences to interpret scientific findings correctly. Scientific abstracts, in contrast, address an expert audience.

To date, research on PLS has largely focused on the biomedical literature [ 6 – 9 ]. However, psychology also constitutes a relevant field for decision-making processes, in which misconceptions are widespread [ 10 , 11 ] and resistant to revision [ 12 ]. Adverse effects of misunderstanding psychological findings may include, for example, ineffective teaching strategies, overreliance on witness statements in court proceedings, and misconceptions of psychological disorders [ 13 ]. Additionally, the comprehensibility of findings from social and political psychology may have consequences for socio-political processes (e.g., for predicting corrupt behavior [ 14 ]). Thus, in sum, there are many reasons why psychological researchers ought to communicate their findings in a way that is understandable for non-experts. Most psychological researchers, however, are not trained in writing for non-expert audiences. Thus, the question arises whether psychological researchers are able to simplify their writing for PLS, compared to regular scientific abstracts.

Whether psychological researchers comprehensibly summarize findings may depend on the psychological discipline. For example, a journal article in cognitive psychology may be more difficult to summarize understandably than a journal article from a more applied discipline (e.g., political psychology). Additionally, the instructions and guidance for writing PLS provided by journals may influence whether PLS are comprehensibly written or not.

As a proxy for text comprehensibility (i.e., how easily information recipients will be able to extract information from a text), readability indices (i.e., scores based on surface-level text characteristics) are frequently used. For example, the Cochrane Collaboration, an independent international organization that produces high-quality and accessible systematic reviews to inform evidence-based health decision making, recommends the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG [ 15 ]) to assess the comprehensibility of PLS [ 16 ]. The SMOG is a readability index which is based on the proportion of words with three or more syllables. Beyond the context of PLS, the SMOG has been used to assess the readability of health information materials [ 17 ], educational materials [ 18 ], and psychometric instruments [ 19 ]. Besides the SMOG, various other readability indices exist, which quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension. Among the most widely used readability indices are the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES [ 20 ]), the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score (FKRS [ 21 ]), and the New Dale–Chall Readability Formula (NCDRF [ 22 ]). Even though readability indices may only approximate text comprehensibility, there is considerably evidence for their validity [ 23 , 24 ], including positive correlations with text comprehension judgments in adult readers [ 25 ].

Previous research on differences in readability between PLS and scientific abstracts has focused on Cochrane systematic reviews and has produced mixed findings. Cochrane systematic reviews synthesize and appraise evidence to inform health decisions using systematic and reproducible methods. These reviews either focus on the harms and benefits of interventions in healthcare (intervention reviews) or on the accuracy of diagnostic tests for diagnosing a particular disease (diagnostic test accuracy reviews). A recent investigation found lower SMOG scores (indicating better reliability) for a sample of 156 PLS of Cochrane systematic reviews compared to the corresponding scientific abstracts [ 6 ]. However, in a different study, there was no statistically significant difference between PLS and scientific abstracts in SMOG scores in a sample of 84 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews (systematic reviews summarizing evidence about test accuracy) [ 7 ]. Regarding actual information extraction, one study found that university students more easily extract information from PLS compared to scientific abstracts of Cochrane systematic reviews, also reporting a better reading experience and higher user-friendliness [ 8 ]. Yet, a different study on university students’ information extraction from Cochrane systematic reviews found neither a statistically significant difference between PLS and scientific abstracts for Cochrane systematic reviews with clear findings, nor for Cochrane systematic reviews with unclear findings [ 9 ].

In psychology, PLS are supposed to enable non-experts to understand and draw conclusions from research findings. Thus, they should exhibit a higher readability than traditional scientific abstracts. The aim of the present study was to compare the readability of scientific abstracts and PLS in psychology based on reproducible readability indices.

Identification of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts

To identify psychological peer-reviewed journals that provide PLS, we conducted an explorative web-based search in June 2019 and contacted experts from different psychological disciplines. Various journals include a brief statement (i.e., one to three sentences) regarding the public significance of an article (e.g., Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Journal of Applied Sports Psychology). Other journals (e.g., Psychological Methods) provide non-technical summaries explicitly directed at other researchers rather than non-expert audiences. We have identified only two psychological peer-reviewed journals with PLS, whose length and content correspond to that of the corresponding scientific abstracts and which are aimed at non-experts: Archives of Scientific Psychology and the Journal of Social and Political Psychology. Archives of Scientific Psychology is the American Psychological Association’s (APA) open-access journal publishing articles from all psychological disciplines. The Journal of Social and Political Psychology is an online open-access journal (without author fees) publishing articles with different methodical and theoretical perspectives at the intersection of social and political psychology. The editors of Archives of Scientific Psychology ask authors to provide a PLS for the educated public describing the study and its relevance for societal or psychological problems. Additionally, the editors offer assistance in writing PLS, if necessary. For the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, a PLS is optional, but strongly encouraged. The editors of the Journal of Social and Political Psychology ask authors to provide a PLS for lay audiences to increase the visibility of their work beyond the respective discipline and beyond academia more generally. To structure PLS, the Journal of Social and Political Psychology provides mandatory sub-headings: 1. Background, 2. Why was this study done, 3. What did the researchers do and find, 4. What do these findings mean.

Retrieval of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts

Overall, we retrieved 103 PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in February 2020 (67 from Archives of Scientific Psychology, 36 from the Journal of Social and Political Psychology). To retrieve the scientific abstracts and PLS from Archives of Scientific Psychology, we used PsycINFO. We retrieved the scientific abstracts and PLS from the Journal of Social and Political Psychology from the journal’s database on the PsychOpen GOLD platform operated by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID). Prior to calculating readability indices, we removed the standardized sub-headings (i.e., 1. Background, 2. Why was this study done, 3. What did the researchers do and find, 4. What do these findings mean?) from the PLS of articles in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology as not discarding them would have biased resulting readability indices.

Readability indices

In accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendation [ 16 ], we used the SMOG to compare the readability of scientific abstracts and PLS. To test, whether obtained effect estimates depended on the selection of this specific readability index, we additionally repeated all analyses with three other frequently used readability indices: The FRES, the FKRS, and the NDCRF. The readability indices were calculated with the quanteda package [ 26 ] in the R statistical environment [ 27 ]. The SMOG is based on the number of words with three syllables or more relative to the number of sentences in a text. Lower SMOG scores indicate better readability. We calculated the SMOG with the following formula: SMOG = 1.043 x n wsy > = 3 x 30 n st + 3.1291 , where n wsy> = 3 is the number of words with three syllables or more and n st is the number of sentences. The FRES is based on average sentence length and the number of syllables per word. Higher FRES scores indicate better reliability. We calculated the FRES with the following formula: FRES = 206.835 − ( 1.015 × ASL ) − ( 84.6 × n s y n w ) where ASL is the average sentence length (number of words/number of sentences), n sy is the number of syllables, and n w is the number of words. The FKRS is also based on average sentence length and number of syllables per word. Lower FKRS scores indicate better readability. We calculated the FKRS as 0.39 × ASL + 11.8 × n s y n w − 15.59 . Finally, the NDCRF is based on the number "difficult" words not matching the Dale-Chall list of 3,000 "familiar" words relative to the overall number of words. The Dale-Chall list contains all words that 80% of fourth-grade students were familiar with in a validation study [ 22 ]. Higher NCDRF scores indicate better reliability. We calculated the NCDRF using the following formula: NDCRF = 64 − ( 0.95 × 100 × n w d n w ) − (0.69×ASL), where n wd is the number of "difficult" words not matching the Dale-Chall list of 3,000 "familiar" words [ 22 ].

Statistical analyses

We conducted a 2 (abstract type) × 2 (journal) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with abstract type (scientific abstract, PLS) as within-factor, journal (Archives of Scientific Psychology, Journal of Social and Political Psychology) as between-factor and the SMOG as dependent variable. A significant main effect of abstract type indicates that scientific abstracts and PLS differ in readability. A significant main effect of journal indicates that there is a difference between the two journals regarding the readability of PLS and scientific abstracts. A significant interaction of abstract type and journal indicates that differences in readability between the articles’ scientific abstracts and PLS are more accentuated in one journal compared to the other journal. As follow up analyses, we conducted one-way ANOVAs with abstract type (scientific abstract, PLS) as within-factor and the SMOG as dependent variable for each journal separately. To test the robustness of our analyses, we repeated all analyses with the FRES, the FKRS, and the NDCRF as dependent variables. Our data and scripts are available via the PsychArchives repository:, http://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2768 , http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2723 . We deleted all scientific abstracts and PLS for Archives of Scientific Psychology from the data set prior to uploading. This was due to PsycINFO's copyright policy. The scientific abstracts and PLSs can be found via the DOIs we provided.

Preliminary analyses

The average text length was 183.04 words ( SD = 44.00) for scientific abstracts and 277.96 words ( SD = 153.81) for PLS. Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for all readability indices by abstract type and journal. Table 2 displays the bivariate correlations among the four readability indices for scientific abstracts and PLS. There was a medium correlation between the SMOG of a scientific abstract and the SMOG of the corresponding PLS ( r = .33, p < .001). The four readability indices were highly correlated (| r | ≥ .68, p s < .001 for scientific abstracts and | r | ≥ .76, p s < .001 for PLS).

ASP = Archives of Scientific Psychology. JSPP = Journal of Social and Political Psychology. SMOG = Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. FRES = Flesch Reading Ease Score. FKRS = Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score. NDCRF = New Dale–Chall Readability Formula.

SMOG = Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. FRES = Flesch Reading Ease Score. FKRS = Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score. NDCRF = New Dale–Chall Readability Formula. PLS = Plain language summary.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Differences in readability

A 2 (abstract type) × 2 (journal) mixed ANOVA with abstract type (scientific abstract, PLS) as within-factor, journal (Archives of Scientific Psychology, Journal of Social and Political Psychology) as between-factor, and the SMOG as dependent variable revealed a significant main effect of abstract type, indicating that PLS are easier to read than scientific abstracts, F (1, 101) = 18.47, p < .001, η p 2 = .16. The main effect of journal did not reach statistical significance, indicating that there was no significant difference between the two journals in the readability of scientific abstracts and PLS, F (1, 101) = 0.88, p = .349, η p 2 = .01. Moreover, the interaction effect of abstract type and journal did not reach statistical significance, F (1, 101) = 1.26, p = .264, η p 2 = .01. This finding indicates that the difference in readability between an article’s scientific abstract and PLS did not differ significantly between the two journals. Follow-up one-way ANOVAs with abstract type (scientific abstract, PLS) as within-factor confirmed the significant effect of abstract type for each journal separately, F (1, 66) = 5.80, p = .019, η p 2 = .08 for Archives of Scientific Psychology and F (1, 35) = 20.86, p < .001, η p 2 = .37 for the Journal of Social and Political Psychology.

Robustness analyses

In a set of 2 (abstract type) × 2 (journal) mixed ANOVAs with abstract type as within-factor and journal as between factor, we found significant main effects of abstract type for the three additional readability indices, F (1, 101) = 44.30, p < .001, η p 2 = .31 for the FRES, F (1, 101) = 13.63, p < .001, η p 2 = .12 for the FKRS, and F (1, 101) = 55.58, p < .001, η p 2 = .36 for the NDCRF. For Archives of Scientific Psychology, follow-up one-way ANOVAs with abstract type as within-factor confirmed a better readability of PLS compared to scientific abstracts for the FRES ( F (1, 66) = 10.16, p = .002, η p 2 = .13) and the NDCRF ( F (1, 66) = 20.97, p < .001, η p 2 = .24), but not for the FKRS ( F (1, 66) = 3.13, p = .082, η p 2 = .05). For the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, follow-up one-way ANOVAs with abstract type as within-factor confirmed a better readability of PLS compared to scientific abstracts for the FRES ( F (1, 35) = 53.89, p < .001, η p 2 = .61, the FKRS ( F (1, 35) = 24.71, p < .001, η p 2 = .41), and the NDCRF ( F (1, 35) = 67.48, p < .001, η p 2 = .66 for the NDCRF) separately. In sum, these findings suggest that the readability of PLS is higher than the readability of scientific abstracts across all included readability indices and in in both included journals. The main effect of journal did not reach significance for any of the readability indices, F (1, 101) = 2.01, p = .159, η p 2 = .02 for the FRES, F (1, 101) = 0.39, p = .534, η p 2 = .00 for the FKRS, and F (1, 101) = 0.52, p = .474, η p 2 = .01 for the NCDRF. The interaction effect of abstract type and journal reached statistical significance for the FRES ( F (1, 101) = 6.28, p = .014, η p 2 = .06), but not for the FKRS ( F (1, 101) = 1.65, p = .202, η p 2 = .02) or the NCDRF ( F (1, 101) = 1.64, p = .203, η p 2 = .02). Thus, there is only little evidence that the magnitude of the difference in readability between an article’s scientific abstract and the corresponding PLS differs between the two journals.

The potential future role of PLS in psychological science communication

This study showed that PLS in two psychological peer-reviewed journals are easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect was evident for each of the two journals and replicated across all readability indices. Thus, psychological researchers seem to be able to communicate their findings in a language more accessible for non-experts compared to the language used in scientific abstracts. Against the background of the increasing relevance of science communication [ 28 ], this finding seems encouraging. One advantage of PLS over other types of science communication is that they are automatically linked to the relevant journal articles. Thus, PLS can prevent misinterpretations of research findings that can easily arise when non-experts interpret scientific journal articles. The relevance of PLS for science communication may further increase, because, in the context of open access publishing, a growing proportion of psychological articles are accessible free of charge to broad audiences online. In writing PLS, however, it may also be challenging for researchers not to over-simplify complex issues and to communicate scientific uncertainty accurately [ 29 – 31 ]. Scientific uncertainty may also discourage researchers from communicating their findings to the public [ 32 ]. In this regard, PLS are practicable in that information can be prepared for the public without a researcher having to communicate proactively via (social) media. Providing a PLS may also prevent misinterpretations of research findings in the media, a scenario often feared by researchers [ 33 ].

Although we could only include two psychological journals in this study, the finding that PLS are easier to read than scientific abstracts might generalize beyond these journals across different disciplines of psychology. This assumption is supported by the great variety in content and methods of articles published in both included journals. Thus, editors of journals from all psychological disciplines might consider encouraging authors to submit a PLS together with their journal articles.

Limitations and future research directions

This study has several limitations. First, we did not assess actual information extraction by non-experts. Thus, the text characteristics quantified in this study might be unrelated to non-experts’ comprehension of PLS and scientific abstracts. However, assessing the SMOG is consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendation [ 16 ] and quantified text characteristics are related to text comprehension in adult readers [ 25 ]. Future studies are needed to replicate our findings based on non-experts’ information extraction from scientific abstracts and PLS. Second, there is no threshold regarding absolute readability scores that could indicate acceptable readability for non-expert audiences. Thus, both scientific abstracts and PLS may be difficult to understand for non-experts. Initially, readability indices were developed to assess the number of years in formal education (grade level) required to comprehend a text. However, this interpretation of readability indices has been thoroughly criticized [ 34 ]. Particularly in brief texts, the assignment of a specific grade level is unreliable [ 35 ]. Future research is needed to establish thresholds indicating acceptable readability for non-expert audiences. There is some evidence that readers of scientific content designed for non-experts are generally highly educated [ 36 ]. Thus, it will be important to clarify who exactly is the target audience of PLS. Additionally, the SMOG scores of the psychological journal articles included in this study were higher than previously reported SMOG scores of Cochrane systematic reviews [ 6 , 7 ], indicating lower readability. Future research is needed to test whether the readability of PLS differs systematically between different scientific fields (e.g., medicine and psychology) or research methods (e.g., primary studies and systematic reviews). Third, there was only little evidence that the difference in readability between scientific abstracts and the corresponding PLS depended on the journal an article was published in. However, given the pattern of results obtained in our robustness analyses, we cannot rule out that this effect might have become (consistently) significant in a larger sample. Fourth, this study provided no information regarding the instructions that authors need to compose comprehensible PLS. To date, it is unclear whether differences in author instructions might influence the readability of PLS. This question could not be resolved in this study because the two included journals differed not only regarding author instructions, but also regarding their content area and authors. Additionally, it is unclear to which extent assistance by the journal editors was requested and how this assistance improved PLS readability. For the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, there might have been a selection effect: As a PLS was not strictly required in this journal, authors with difficulties in writing PLS might have omitted it. Future studies in which components of author instructions are experimentally manipulated might reveal which information is essential for researchers to write comprehensible PLS. These experimental studies could additionally test which elements of PLS (e.g., subheadings) increase text comprehension. Fifth, this study did not assess which author characteristics are related to improved readability of PLS compared to scientific abstracts. For example, it might be easier for researchers from applied research fields to write comprehensible PLS compared to researchers in basic research. Similarly, experiences in public engagement or specific writing training might increase the readability of PLS. Future research could develop and evaluate training programs on science communication (e.g., in undergraduate and graduate courses [ 37 ]) that increase the willingness and ability to write PLS.

Against the background of the increasing importance of science communication, this study showed that, in two psychological peer-reviewed journals, author-written PLS are easier to read than scientific abstracts. We hope that this finding aids in strengthening the role of study authors as “public communicators” [ 38 ] of their research.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

April 2, 2024

Eclipse Psychology: When the Sun and Moon Align, So Do We

How a total solar eclipse creates connection, unity and caring among the people watching

By Katie Weeman

Students observing a partial solar eclipse on June 21, 2020, in Lhokseumawe, Aceh Province, Indonesia.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

This article is part of a special report on the total solar eclipse that will be visible from parts of the U.S., Mexico and Canada on April 8, 2024.

It was 11:45 A.M. on August 21, 2017. I was in a grassy field in Glendo, Wyo., where I was surrounded by strangers turned friends, more than I could count—and far more people than had ever flocked to this town, population 210 or so. Golden sunlight blanketed thousands of cars parked in haphazard rows all over the rolling hills. The shadows were quickly growing longer, the air was still, and all of our faces pointed to the sky. As the moon progressively covered the sun, the light melted away, the sky blackened, and the temperature dropped. At the moment of totality, when the moon completely covered the sun , some people around me suddenly gasped. Some cheered; some cried; others laughed in disbelief.

Exactly 53 minutes later, in a downtown park in Greenville, S.C., the person who edited this story and the many individuals around him reacted in exactly the same ways.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

When a total solar eclipse descends—as one will across Mexico, the U.S. and Canada on April 8—everyone and everything in the path of totality are engulfed by deep shadow. Unlike the New Year’s Eve countdown that lurches across the globe one blocky time zone after another, the shadow of totality is a dark spot on Earth that measures about 100 miles wide and cruises steadily along a path, covering several thousand miles in four to five hours. The human experiences along that path are not isolated events any more than individual dominoes are isolated pillars in a formation. Once that first domino is tipped, we are all linked into something bigger—and unstoppable. We all experience the momentum and the awe together.

When this phenomenon progresses from Mexico through Texas, the Great Lakes and Canada on April 8, many observers will describe the event as life-changing, well beyond expectations. “You feel a sense of wrongness in those moments before totality , when your surroundings change so rapidly,” says Kate Russo, an author, psychologist and eclipse chaser. “Our initial response is to ask ourselves, ‘Is this an opportunity or a threat?’ When the light changes and the temperature drops, that triggers primal fear. When we have that threat response, our whole body is tuned in to taking in as much information as possible.”

Russo, who has witnessed 13 total eclipses and counting, has interviewed eclipse viewers from around the world. She continues to notice the same emotions felt by all. They begin with that sense of wrongness and primal fear as totality approaches. When totality starts, we feel powerful awe and connection to the world around us. A sense of euphoria develops as we continue watching, and when it’s over, we have a strong desire to seek out the next eclipse.

“The awe we feel during a total eclipse makes us think outside our sense of self. It makes you more attuned to things outside of you,” says Sean Goldy, a postdoctoral fellow at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University.

Goldy and his team analyzed Twitter data from nearly 2.9 million people during the 2017 total solar eclipse. They found that people within the path of totality were more likely to use not only language that expressed awe but also language that conveyed being unified and affiliated with others. That meant using more “we” words (“us” instead of “me”) and more humble words (“maybe” instead of “always”).

“During an eclipse, people have a broader, more collective focus,” Goldy says. “We also found that the more people expressed awe, the more likely they were to use those ‘we’ words, indicating that people who experience this emotion feel more connected with others.”

This connectivity ties into a sociological concept known as “collective effervescence,” Russo and Goldy say. When groups of humans come together over a shared experience, the energy is greater than the sum of its parts. If you’ve ever been to a large concert or sporting event, you’ve felt the electricity generated by a hive of humans. It magnifies our emotions.

I felt exactly that unified feeling in the open field in Glendo, as if thousands of us were breathing as one. But that’s not the only way people can experience a total eclipse.

During the 2008 total eclipse in Mongolia “I was up on a peak,” Russo recounts. “I was with only my husband and a close friend. We had left the rest of our 25-person tour group at the bottom of the hill. From that vantage point, when the shadow came sweeping in, there was not one man-made thing I could see: no power lines, no buildings or structures. Nothing tethered me to time: It could have been thousands of years ago or long into the future. In that moment, it was as if time didn’t exist.”

Giving us the ability to unhitch ourselves from time—to stop dwelling on time is a unique superpower of a total eclipse. In Russo’s work as a clinical psychologist, she notices patterns in our modern-day mentality. “People with anxiety tend to spend a lot of time in the future. And people with depression spend a lot of time in the past,” she says. An eclipse, time and time again, has the ability to snap us back into the present, at least for a few minutes. “And when you’re less anxious and worried, it opens you up to be more attuned to other people, feel more connected, care for others and be more compassionate,” Goldy says.

Russo, who founded Being in the Shadow , an organization that provides information about total solar eclipses and organizes eclipse events around the world, has experienced this firsthand. Venue managers regularly tell her that eclipse crowds are among the most polite and humble: they follow the rules; they pick up their garbage—they care.

Eclipses remind us that we are part of something bigger, that we are connected with something vast. In the hours before and after totality you have to wear protective glasses to look at the sun, to prevent damage to your eyes. But during the brief time when the moon blocks the last of the sun’s rays, you can finally lower your glasses and look directly at the eclipse. It’s like making eye contact with the universe.

“In my practice, usually if someone says, ‘I feel insignificant,’ that’s a negative thing. But the meaning shifts during an eclipse,” Russo says. To feel insignificant in the moon’s shadow instead means that your sense of self shrinks, that your ego shrinks, she says.

The scale of our “big picture” often changes after witnessing the awe of totality, too. “When you zoom out—really zoom out—it blows away our differences,” Goldy says. When you sit in the shadow of a celestial rock blocking the light of a star 400 times its size that burns at 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit on its surface, suddenly that argument with your partner, that bill sitting on your counter or even the differences among people’s beliefs, origins or politics feel insignificant. When we shift our perspective, connection becomes boundless.

You don’t need to wait for the next eclipse to feel this way. As we travel through life, we lose our relationship with everyday awe. Remember what that feels like? It’s the way a dog looks at a treat or the way my toddler points to the “blue sky!” outside his car window in the middle of rush hour traffic. To find awe, we have to surrender our full attention to the beauty around us. During an eclipse, that comes easily. In everyday life, we may need to be more intentional.

“Totality kick-starts our ability to experience wonder,” Russo says. And with that kick start, maybe we can all use our wonderment faculties more—whether that means pausing for a moment during a morning walk, a hug or a random sunset on a Tuesday. In the continental U.S., we won’t experience another total eclipse until 2044. Let’s not wait until then to seek awe and connection.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Write down your thoughts and shred them to relieve anger, researchers say

Writing negative reactions on paper and shredding it or scrunching and throwing in the bin eliminates angry feelings, study finds

Since time immemorial humans have tried to devise anger management techniques.

In ancient Rome, the Stoic philosopher Seneca believed “my anger is likely to do me more harm than your wrong” and offered avoidance tips in his AD45 work De Ira (On Anger).

More modern methods include a workout on the gym punchbag or exercise bike. But the humble paper shredder may be a more effective – and accessible – way to decompress, according to research.

A study in Japan has found that writing down your reaction to a negative incident on a piece of paper and then shredding it, or scrunching it into a ball and throwing it in the bin, gets rid of anger.

“We expected that our method would suppress anger to some extent,” said Nobuyuki Kawai, lead researcher of the study at Nagoya University. “However, we were amazed that anger was eliminated almost entirely.”

The study, published in Scientific Reports on Nature , builds on research on the association between the written word and anger reduction as well as studies showing how interactions with physical objects can control a person’s mood. For instance, those wanting revenge on an ex-partner may burn letters or destroy gifts.

Researchers believe the shredder results may be related to the phenomenon of “backward magical contagion”, which is the belief that actions taken on an object associated with a person can affect the individuals themselves. In this case, getting rid of the negative physical entity, the piece of paper, causes the original emotion to also disappear.

This is a reversal of “magical contagion” or “celebrity contagion” – the belief that the “essence” of an individual can be transferred through their physical possessions.

Fifty student participants were asked to write brief opinions about an important social problem, such as whether smoking in public should be outlawed. Evaluators then deliberately scored the papers low on intelligence, interest, friendliness, logic, and rationality. For good measure, evaluators added insulting comments such as: “I cannot believe an educated person would think like this. I hope this person learns something while at the university.”

The wound-up participants then wrote down their angry thoughts on the negative feedback on a piece of paper. One group was told to either roll up the paper and throw it in a bin or keep it in a file on their desk. A second group was told to shred the paper, or put it in a plastic box.

Anger levels of the individuals who discarded their paper in the bin or shredded it returned to their initial state, while those who retained a hard copy of the paper experienced only a small decrease in their overall anger.

Researchers concluded that “the meaning (interpretation) of disposal plays a critical role” in reducing anger.

“This technique could be applied in the moment by writing down the source of anger as if taking a memo and then throwing it away,” said Kawai.

Along with its practical benefits, this discovery may shed light on the origins of the Japanese cultural tradition known as hakidashisara ( hakidashi sara refers to a dish or plate) at the Hiyoshi shrine in Kiyosu, just outside Nagoya. Hakidashisara is an annual festival where people smash small discs representing things that make them angry. The study’s findings may explain the feeling of relief that participants report after leaving the festival, the paper concluded.

More on this story

Fridge magnets can be cool aid to holiday memory recall, study finds

Want to skip that Christmas party? The host probably won’t mind, study shows

‘Succession syndrome’ prevalent among wealthy households, psychiatrists warn

Drugs and alcohol do not make you more creative, research finds

Why being rude to the waiter (or other staff) is the worst strategy

Authors of original dating profiles rated more attractive, research finds

I fear my children are overexposed to technology. Experts say I’m right to worry

I used to be ashamed of being a fangirl. Now I see how joyous and creative it was

Autistic scholar Temple Grandin: ‘The education system is screening out visual thinkers’

Human neurons transplanted into rats to help study brain disorders

Most viewed.

A Solar Eclipse Means Big Science

By Katrina Miller April 1, 2024

• Share full article

On April 8, cameras all over North America will make a “megamovie” of the sun’s corona, like this one from the 2017 eclipse. The time lapse will help scientists track the behavior of jets and plumes on the sun’s surface.

There’s more science happening along the path of totality →

An app named SunSketcher will help the public take pictures of the eclipse with their phones.

Scientists will use these images to study deviations in the shape of the solar surface , which will help them understand the sun’s churning behavior below.

The sun right now is approaching peak activity. More than 40 telescope stations along the eclipse’s path will record totality.

By comparing these videos to what was captured in 2017 — when the sun was at a lull — researchers can learn how the sun’s magnetism drives the solar wind, or particles that stream through the solar system.

Students will launch giant balloons equipped with cameras and sensors along the eclipse’s path.

Their measurements may improve weather forecasting , and also produce a bird’s eye view of the moon’s shadow moving across the Earth.

Ham radio operators will send signals to each other across the path of totality to study how the density of electrons in Earth’s upper atmosphere changes .

This can help quantify how space weather produced by the sun disrupts radar communication systems.

(Animation by Dr. Joseph Huba, Syntek Technologies; HamSCI Project, Dr. Nathaniel Frissell, the University of Scranton, NSF and NASA.)

NASA is also studying Earth’s atmosphere, but far from the path of totality.

In Virginia, the agency will launch rockets during the eclipse to measure how local drops in sunlight cause ripple effects hundreds of miles away . The data will clarify how eclipses and other solar events affect satellite communications, including GPS.

Biologists in San Antonio plan to stash recording devices in beehives to study how bees orient themselves using sunlight , and how the insects respond to the sudden atmospheric changes during a total eclipse.

Two researchers in southern Illinois will analyze social media posts to understand tourism patterns in remote towns , including when visitors arrive, where they come from and what they do during their visits.

Results can help bolster infrastructure to support large events in rural areas.

Read more about the eclipse:

Advertisement

After being insulted, writing down your feelings on paper then getting rid of it reduces anger

A research group in Japan has discovered that writing down one's reaction to a negative incident on a piece of paper and then shredding it or throwing it away reduces feelings of anger.

"We expected that our method would suppress anger to some extent," lead researcher Nobuyuki Kawai said. "However, we were amazed that anger was eliminated almost entirely."

This research is important because controlling anger at home and in the workplace can reduce negative consequences in our jobs and personal lives. Unfortunately, many anger management techniques proposed by specialists lack empirical research support. They can also be difficult to recall when angry.

The results of this study, published in Scientific Reports , are the culmination of years of previous research on the association between the written word and anger reduction. It builds on work showing how interactions with physical objects can control a person's mood.

For their project, Kawai and his graduate student Yuta Kanaya, both at the Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, asked participants to write brief opinions about important social problems, such as whether smoking in public should be outlawed. They then told them that a doctoral student at Nagoya University would evaluate their writing.

However, the doctoral students doing the evaluation were plants. Regardless of what the participants wrote, the evaluators scored them low on intelligence, interest, friendliness, logic, and rationality. To really drive home the point, the doctoral students also wrote the same insulting comment: "I cannot believe an educated person would think like this. I hope this person learns something while at the university."

After handing out these negative comments, the researchers asked the participants to write their thoughts on the feedback, focusing on what triggered their emotions. Finally, one group of participants was told to either dispose of the paper they wrote in a trash can or keep it in a file on their desk. A second group was told to destroy the document in a shredder or put it in a plastic box.

The students were then asked to rate their anger after the insult and after either disposing of or keeping the paper. As expected, all participants reported a higher level of anger after receiving insulting comments. However, the anger levels of the individuals who discarded their paper in the trash can or shredded it returned to their initial state after disposing of the paper. Meanwhile, the participants who held on to a hard copy of the insult experienced only a small decrease in their overall anger.

Kawai imagines using his research to help businesspeople who find themselves in stressful situations. "This technique could be applied in the moment by writing down the source of anger as if taking a memo and then throwing it away when one feels angry in a business situation," he explained.

Along with its practical benefits, this discovery may shed light on the origins of the Japanese cultural tradition known as hakidashisara ( hakidashi refers to the purging or spitting out of something, and sara refers to a dish or plate) at the Hiyoshi shrine in Kiyosu, Aichi Prefecture, just outside of Nagoya. Hakidashisara is an annual festival where people smash small discs representing things that make them angry. Their findings may explain the feeling of relief that participants report after leaving the festival.

• Anger Management
• Social Psychology
• Disorders and Syndromes
• Educational Psychology
• Consumer Behavior
• Anger management
• Social psychology
• Cognitive dissonance
• Self-awareness
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Collaboration

Story Source:

Materials provided by Nagoya University . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Yuta Kanaya, Nobuyuki Kawai. Anger is eliminated with the disposal of a paper written because of provocation . Scientific Reports , 2024; 14 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-57916-z

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• 3D Mouth of an Ancient Jawless Fish
• Connecting Lab-Grown Brain Cells
• Device: Self-Healing Materials, Drug Delivery
• How We Perceive Bitter Taste
• Next-Generation Digital Displays
• Feeling Insulted? How to Rid Yourself of Anger
• Pregnancy Accelerates Biological Aging
• Tiny Plastic Particles Are Found Everywhere
• What's Quieter Than a Fish? A School of Them
• Do Odd Bones Belong to Gigantic Ichthyosaurs?

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.