The Thinking Psychologically Toolkit

This toolkit is designed for students and other readers of Thinking Psychologically (McGhee, 2001. London: Palgrave). All Chapter, page and
table numbers are to that text.

This toolkit is designed to help you organise your critical thinking when reading psychology textbooks and journals by bringing together
the key questions from pages 112 - 115 of the book (Review of Part I).

Analytic (Evaluative) and Synthetic (Creative) thinking on both research and theories is supported through four grids which highlight a series
of questions which need to be considered when reading psychology material critically. Not all the questions will be relevant to all studies or
all theories, but the majority of questions will be at least indirectly relevant to most studies and theories.

Providing you own your own copy of the text you can photocopy these sheets as often as you like. However you can also access the
electronic version of these worksheets (which allow you to type in your answers to an MS Word document) which can be found at:
www.patrickmcghee.co.uk/support (along with much more supporting material for the book).

It almost goes without saying that these categories or not mutually exclusive. Analytic thinking leads to synthetic thinking and research
should be calculated to test theories. Nevertheless this arrangement of questions provides us with a useful approach to thinking about
traditional and contemporary psychology which is used throughout the text.

The Grids

Research / Studies Theory / Hypotheses

Analytical Thinking Grid 1 Grid 3
Synthetic Thinking Grid 2 Grid 4

1
Grid 1

THINKING ANALYTICALLY ABOUT RESEARCH

Thinking about a study in general...

Question to ask Relevant information Conclusion

Is the study quantitative or

qualitative and what is its
methodology? (Chapter 5
and 6)
What epistemology does
the methodology reflect?
(Chapter 2, Table 2.3)

Does the study as designed and executed actually test the hypothesis?...

Are the theoretical

constructs adequately
represented in the
conceptual definitions?

2
Is there any operational
slippage? (Chapter 5)

Do the concrete
operationalisations fall
within the definition of the
theoretical construct?
(Chapter 5)
Are the concrete
operationalisations a fair
example of the theoretical
constructs?
Have all potentially
confounding variables
been controlled for?
(Chapter 5, Table 5.1)
Is it possible in principle
for the theory to be
disconfirmed by the study?
(Popper, Chapter 2)
Generally, does the study
demonstrate internal
validity? (Chapter 5)
Generally, does the study
demonstrate external
validity? (Chapter 5)

3
What evaluation of the study is appropriate?

Does the outcome of the

study support the
hypothesis fully, partially
or not at all?
Is there a specific study
which could be done to
remedy some specific flaw
in the study?

Is the study acceptable in terms of ethics? (Chapter 5)

Is the principle of do no
harm adhered to?

Is the principle of
informed consent adhered
to?
Is the principle of freedom
to withdraw adhered to?

4
Is the principle of
confidentiality adhered
to?
Were any special ethical
aspects adequately
addressed (such as us of
children or the
psychologically
vulnerable)?

5
Grid 2

THINKING SYNTHETICALLY ABOUT RESEARCH

Question to ask Relevant information Conclusion

Creative thinking about research results (See McGuire, Chapter 3, Table 3.4)

How can the result be

applied to real world
problems?
Do anomalies in the results
suggest new way of
looking at the problem?
Do the results suggest
interesting links to other
studies?
Is there a trend in the data
which bears further
analysis?
Is there a pattern amongst
some but not all of the
subjects which suggests
individual differences at
work?

6
With respect to what
circumstances is the study
externally valid?
Does the claim cover all
exemplars of the popular
common-sense category?
What next steps does the
study suggest, or lend
itself to?

Imaginative thinking about ethics

Could the study have been

improved in terms of
ethics?

Could the experience of

the participants have been
made more positive?

Could participants have

been given more advance
information without
undermining the
experiment?
Could the participants
have been given more
confidence, support and
reassurance about their

7
right to withdraw and the
consequences of
withdrawal?

Could participants have

been given more
information of how the
results will be used?

Consider the study in other terms

What is the historical

context for the claim and
the evidence?
What is the cultural
context for the claim and
the evidence?
What is the argument not?
What is missing, ignored,
or excluded?
What does the study take
for granted? What are its
assumptions?

What philosophy of
science is most useful in
assessing the study? Is the

8
study an example of
normal science or
revolutionary science
(Kuhn, Chapter 2).

Can the study (especially

if a piece of applied
research) be treated as an
exercise in problem
solving?
How well does it fare in
terms of Sternbergs
seven steps in successful
problem solving?:
Problem Recognition,
Definition of Problem,
Strategy Construction,
Representation of
Information about the
problem, Resource
Allocation, Monitoring
and Evaluation (Chapter 2,
Table 2.1)

9
Grid 3

THINKING ANALYTICALLY ABOUT THEORIES, HYPOTHESES

AND CLAIMS

Question to ask Relevant information Conclusion

Are we looking at a theory

(a structured explanation)
a hypothesis (a prediction
deduced from a theory) or
an inductive claim (a
general summary
statement of previous
findings)?

If it is a theory how does it rate against criteria for assessing theories: (Chapter 3, Table 3.2)

comprehensiveness

parsimony

10
clarity of constructs

internal consistency

testability

empirical support

heuristic value

If it is a hypothesis is it
clearly and logically
derived from a theory?
(Chapter 4)

If it is a claim what
evidence is presented to
support it? Is the inductive
reasoning sound?
(Chapter 4, Table 4.1)

11
What level of explanation
is the theory, hypothesis or
claim pitched at (Chapter
3, Table 3.1)?

12
Grid 4

THINKING SYNTHETICALLY ABOUT THEORIES, HYPOTHESES

AND CLAIMS

Question to ask Relevant information Conclusion

Can the theory be improved against criteria for assessing theories (Chapter 3, Table 3.2) by increasing the degree of...

...comprehensiveness

...parsimony

...clarity of constructs

...internal consistency

...testability

...empirical support

13
...heuristic value

Can the theory be transformed by improving the quality of one of these features even at the expense of another feature?

...comprehensiveness

...parsimony

...clarity of constructs

...internal consistency

...testability

...empirical support

...heuristic value

14
What are the limitations of
any analogy being used
and is there a better one
with which to illuminate
the behaviour being
explained? (Chapter 2,
Table 2.4)
Can a new hypothesis be
derived from an existing
theory and results through
the application of on of
McGuires heuristics
(Chapter 3, Table 3.4)?
If it is a hypothesis can it
be improved by
broadening or narrowing
its scope? In other words
by revising the
conceptualisation?
(Chapter 5, Table 5.2)

15