You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Research only counts as science once it is communicated in a form that others can scrutinise, replicate and build upon. This final Component 01 lesson covers how psychologists write up a study — the standard sections of a practical report — how they cite their sources using Harvard referencing, how the wider community checks work through peer review, and the deeper question of what makes psychology a science at all: the principles of how science works. These ideas frame everything else in the course, and the "how science works" concepts are examined both in Component 01 and as the psychology as a science debate in Components 02 and 03.
You will learn the purpose and content of each report section (abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, references, appendices), the format of a Harvard reference (using the real Milgram 1963 paper as the worked example), the function of peer review, and the core scientific principles: cause-and-effect, falsification, replicability, objectivity, induction, deduction, hypothesis testing, manipulation of variables, control and standardisation, and quantifiable measurements. This is the lesson that pulls the whole component together.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 01 sub-area | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Report sections: abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, references, appendices | 1.4 Report writing | AO1; AO2 |
| Harvard referencing | 1.4 — referencing | AO1; AO2 |
| Peer review | 1.4 — peer review | AO1; AO3 |
| How science works: cause-and-effect, falsification, replicability, objectivity, induction, deduction, hypothesis testing, manipulation of variables, control & standardisation, quantifiable measurements | 1.6 How science works | AO1; AO3 |
Referenced descriptively; see the official OCR H567 specification document for exact wording. This lesson develops AO1 (report structure, referencing and scientific principles), AO2 (placing information in the correct report section; writing a reference) and AO3 (evaluating peer review and the claim that psychology is a science).
A psychological report follows a standard structure so that any reader can find, evaluate and replicate the work. The sections appear in a fixed order.
Abstract — a short summary (around 150–200 words) of the whole study: the aim, method, key results and conclusion. It lets a reader decide quickly whether the study is relevant. Written last, placed first. The abstract is disproportionately important in practice because it is the part most people actually read: researchers scanning the literature use abstracts to decide which full papers are worth their time, and databases index them for searching. A good abstract therefore compresses the entire study — why it was done, how, what was found, and what it means — into a few sentences that stand alone. The apparent paradox that it is written last but placed first simply reflects that you can only summarise a study once it is complete, but the reader needs the summary before anything else.
Introduction — reviews relevant background theory and research, narrowing from the general area to the specific study, and ends by stating the aim and hypotheses. It answers "why was this study done, and what did it predict?". A well-crafted introduction is often described as funnel-shaped: it opens with the broad area and relevant theory, reviews the specific prior studies that motivate the present work, identifies the gap or question those studies leave open, and narrows to the precise aim and operationalised hypotheses of this study. This structure shows the reader exactly how the study fits into and advances existing knowledge — the cumulative logic of science made explicit — and it is why the aim and hypotheses sit at the end of the introduction rather than the beginning.
Method — the "recipe", detailed enough for exact replication. It is conventionally divided into sub-sections:
The method is the most important section for replicability, which is why it is broken into these clear sub-sections and written in enough detail that another researcher could reproduce the study exactly. The design sub-section states the method and experimental design and identifies the IV and DV; the sample sub-section reports who took part and how they were selected, bearing directly on generalisability; the materials/apparatus sub-section lists everything used, so the same stimuli or tests can be obtained; and the procedure sub-section gives the ordered steps and standardised instructions, so the experience can be recreated identically. A vague or incomplete method defeats replication and therefore undermines the whole scientific value of the study — which is exactly why examiners test the ability to place the right information (design, sample, materials, procedure) in the right sub-section.
Results — the findings, presented through descriptive statistics (measures of central tendency and dispersion), appropriate graphs/tables, and the inferential statistics (the test used, the calculated and critical values, the significance level and whether the null was rejected). The results section is where the analytical skills of the whole component converge: the researcher chooses appropriate descriptive statistics for the level of data (Lesson 5), presents them in a correctly-chosen graph (Lesson 5), selects and reports the appropriate inferential test (Lessons 6–7), and states the outcome in the disciplined language of retaining or rejecting the null hypothesis (Lesson 6). Importantly, the results section reports the findings; it does not interpret them — that is the job of the discussion. Keeping the two apart (data here, meaning there) is a mark of a well-structured report and a favourite examiner discriminator.
Discussion — interprets the results in relation to the hypotheses and prior research, considers limitations and methodological issues, suggests improvements and implications, and proposes future research. This is the evaluative section, and it draws directly on the reliability, validity and methodological-issues vocabulary of Lesson 8 and the ethics of Lesson 9: a good discussion relates the findings back to the aim and to the studies reviewed in the introduction, honestly acknowledges the study's weaknesses (confounds, sampling limitations, threats to validity), proposes concrete improvements, considers the wider implications, and suggests where research should go next. A discussion that merely restates the results without evaluating them, or that ignores obvious limitations, is weak; the section exists precisely to demonstrate critical, reflective thinking about what the study did and did not establish.
References — a full list of every source cited, in a consistent format (Harvard).
Appendices — supplementary materials (raw data, the questionnaire used, standardised instructions, calculations) that would clutter the main report.
The logic of this structure is that a scientific report is not a story told for entertainment but a record designed for scrutiny and replication. Each section answers a distinct question, and the fixed order lets any reader navigate straight to the part they need. The abstract answers "should I read this?"; the introduction answers "why was this done and what was predicted?"; the method answers "exactly how, so that I could repeat it?"; the results answer "what was found?"; the discussion answers "what does it mean and what are the limitations?"; the references answer "on whose work does this build?"; and the appendices hold the raw materials for anyone who wants to check the details. This division of labour is why "which section does this information belong in?" is such a common exam question — placing a prediction in the results, or a finding in the method, signals a misunderstanding of what each section is for. The single most useful rule is to ask what question a piece of information answers: predictions and background belong in the introduction, procedural detail in the method, data and statistics in the results, and interpretation in the discussion.
graph TD
A["Abstract<br/>(summary — written last)"] --> B["Introduction<br/>(theory → aim & hypotheses)"]
B --> C["Method<br/>design · sample · materials · procedure"]
C --> D["Results<br/>descriptive + inferential statistics"]
D --> E["Discussion<br/>interpret · limitations · improvements"]
E --> F["References<br/>(Harvard)"]
F --> G["Appendices<br/>(raw data, materials)"]
style A fill:#16a085,color:#fff
style C fill:#2980b9,color:#fff
style D fill:#8e44ad,color:#fff
A common exam item gives a piece of information and asks which section it belongs in. The rule of thumb: predictions and background → Introduction; how it was done → Method; what was found → Results; what it means → Discussion.
Harvard referencing is an author–date system: sources are cited in the text by author surname and year — e.g. (Milgram, 1963) — and listed in full in the References section, alphabetically by author surname. A journal-article reference follows this order: author(s), (year), title of article, title of journal (italicised), volume(issue), page range.
Using the real study from the OCR referencing convention, Milgram's obedience paper is referenced as:
Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
Reading the parts: Milgram, S. (author, surname then initial) · (1963) (year of publication) · Behavioral study of obedience (article title) · Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (journal, italicised) · 67(4) (volume 67, issue 4) · 371–378 (page range). In the body of a report you would cite it as "Milgram (1963) found that…" or "(Milgram, 1963)". Note the two matching halves of the system: the brief in-text citation (author and year) points the reader to the full reference in the alphabetically-ordered reference list, where the complete details allow the source to be located. Every source cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and vice versa — the two are kept in exact correspondence.
Consistent referencing serves scientific ends: it credits original work (avoiding plagiarism), lets readers locate and check sources, and situates a study in its research context.
Referencing is more than an administrative chore — it is part of the integrity and cumulative nature of science. By crediting the sources a study builds on, referencing gives due acknowledgement to earlier researchers and avoids the serious academic offence of plagiarism (passing off others' work or ideas as one's own). By providing enough bibliographic detail for a reader to locate the exact source, it makes the study's claims checkable — a reader can go to the cited paper and verify that it says what the author claims. And by placing a study within a web of prior work, referencing makes visible how knowledge accumulates: each study stands on those before it. The Harvard system's author–date format is designed for readability within the text (a name and year are easy to place mentally) while the full reference list supplies the complete details. Getting the order and format of a reference right — author (surname, initial), year, article title, journal in italics, volume(issue), pages — is directly examinable, which is why practising with a real example such as Milgram (1963) is worthwhile.
Peer review is the process by which research is evaluated by other experts ("peers") in the same field before it is published. Reviewers independently assess the quality of the methodology, the validity of the conclusions, the appropriateness of the statistics, and the originality and significance of the work, and recommend acceptance, revision or rejection.
Peer review is central to the self-correcting nature of science:
Strengths. It acts as a quality-control filter, catching flawed methods, unsupported claims and errors before they enter the literature; it maintains standards and credibility; it helps allocate research funding to sound proposals.
Weaknesses / limitations. Reviewers may be biased (against novel or challenging findings, or in favour of established researchers); it can be slow, delaying publication; anonymity can be abused; and it may favour positive results over equally-valid null findings (publication bias). Reviewers are not infallible, and fraud can slip through.
Peer review is a strong AO3 topic because its strengths and weaknesses are genuinely balanced — it is essential but imperfect.
To evaluate peer review well, it helps to see it as one stage in the larger self-correcting machinery of science rather than as a guarantee of truth. Its great value is as a filter: before research enters the published record, independent experts check that the methods are sound, the statistics appropriate, the conclusions justified by the data, and the work original and significant. This catches many errors and unsupported claims, maintains the credibility of the literature, and helps direct scarce research funding toward sound proposals. But the process is human and flawed. Reviewers can be biased — consciously or not — against findings that challenge established theory or their own work, or in favour of prestigious names; this conservatism can delay or block valid but unorthodox research. The process is often slow, delaying the dissemination of important findings. It tends to favour positive results over null findings (publication bias), which distorts the overall picture of the evidence. And reviewers are fallible: flawed and even fraudulent studies have passed review and entered the literature. The mature conclusion is that peer review substantially improves the reliability of published science but cannot guarantee it, and that correctness ultimately depends on the cumulative process — replication and post-publication scrutiny — of which peer review is only the first checkpoint.
The spec asks you to understand the features that make an enquiry scientific. Psychology aspires to these, though how fully it achieves them is the substance of the psychology as a science debate. These are not abstract philosophical niceties but the working standards by which any empirical claim in psychology is judged: a finding earns its place in the discipline's body of knowledge only insofar as it rests on controlled, objective, replicable, falsifiable enquiry with quantifiable measurement. The table below sets out each feature with its meaning and a psychological example.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.