Overview – Report writing

A psychology report is a formal piece of academic writing that describes a piece of psychological research. It explains what the researchers wanted to investigate, how they investigated it, what they found, and what the findings mean. Psychology reports typically follow a standard structure:

These reports are typically submitted to academic journals for peer review, where other researchers assess the quality and validity of the research. The authors may be asked to make changes before the paper is accepted for publication. If the paper is accepted, it is published in the journal and becomes part of the wider body of psychological research.

Sections of a psychology report

Published psychology research papers generally follow a standard structure – although the exact headings and organisation varies between studies. The sections below describe the main parts of a typical psychology research paper.

Title

The title should identify what the research is about without unnecessary detail. It should be short, clear, and informative. Where appropriate, it can identify the main variables being investigated and the population being studied.

For example:

The effect of sleep deprivation on memory performance in university students

Is more useful than a vague title such as ‘A study of memory’ because it tells the reader what was investigated and who took part.

Abstract

The abstract is a brief summary of the entire research report – from aim to method to results. It allows readers to quickly understand what the study investigated, how it was conducted, what was found, and what the researchers concluded.

A typical abstract includes:

  • The aim of the study
  • The hypothesis or research question
  • A brief description of the method (including participant details and study design)
  • The main results
  • The main conclusion.

The abstract should be concise and should not include information that isn’t included elsewhere in the report – it’s just a ‘summing up’ of the project.

Introduction

The introduction explains why the research was conducted.

It typically uses a funnel structure, beginning with a broad discussion of the topic before gradually becoming more specific. For example:

  • Introduce the general psychological topic
  • Explain relevant theories and concepts
  • Describe relevant previous research
  • Identify a gap, problem, or question that needs further investigation
  • Explain why the current study was conducted
  • State the aim of the study
  • State the hypothesis (where appropriate).

So the introduction typically moves from the general background detail to the specific research question being investigated.

For example, our study of sleep deprivation and memory might begin by discussing the importance of sleep for cognitive functioning before reviewing the current state of research and the need for this study. It would then state the hypothesis that participants who are sleep deprived will perform worse on a memory test than participants who are not sleep deprived.

Method

The method provides a detailed description of how the research was carried out.

It should contain enough information for another researcher to understand what was done and, where possible, replicate the study. The method is often divided into several sub-sections.

Study design

This explains how the study was designed. It might include:

For example, for this sleep-memory study example, we might conduct a laboratory experiment using a matched pairs design. Sleep deprivation would be the independent variable. Memory performance (operationalised as the number of words correctly recalled) would be the dependent variable.

Participants

This describes who took part in the study. It typically includes:

  • The target population
  • The sampling method used to recruit participants
  • The sample size
  • Relevant characteristics of the participants – such as age or gender.

Equipment and materials

This describes any important equipment, materials, or measures used in the study. For example, this might include:

  • Laboratory equipment
  • A questionnaire
  • A psychometric test
  • Photographs or other stimuli
  • Computer software.

Standardised procedure

This provides a step-by-step description of what happened during the study. Important details should be included, such as:

  • What participants were asked to do
  • The instructions they received
  • How the materials were presented
  • How long the study took
  • How the data were collected.

The report may also explain how the researchers controlled extraneous variables that could otherwise affect the results. For example, researchers might keep the testing environment, instructions, timing, or equipment the same for all participants.

A clear procedure allows other researchers to understand how the study was conducted and helps them replicate the research.

For example, in our sleep-memory study example, participants in the sleep-deprivation condition could be told to stay awake overnight whereas the control group gets a normal night’s sleep. The next day, all participants could be shown the same list of 50 words for the same amount of time before being given five minutes to recall as many words as possible.

Results

The results section presents the findings of the research. It should describe what the data showed without explaining why the results occurred or drawing wider conclusions. Those issues are normally dealt with in the discussion.

Results may include:

  • Descriptive statistics, such as means, medians, percentages, ranges, and standard deviations
  • Inferential statistics, where appropriate, such as significance tests and correlation coefficients
  • Tables
  • Charts and graphs
  • Other statistical analyses relevant to the research question.

The raw data itself is often too detailed to include in the main results section. Where appropriate, it can be provided in an appendix.

For example, in this sleep-memory study example, let’s say the sleep-deprived group remembered an average of 24.2 words whereas the control group remembered an average of 30.6 words.

Discussion

The discussion explains what the results mean. It goes beyond simply describing the data and considers what the findings tell us about the research question.

A discussion might:

  • Explain whether the findings support or contradict the hypothesis
  • Interpret the main findings
  • Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the research
  • Consider how the results fit with previous research or theories
  • Identify possible alternative explanations for the findings
  • Consider the implications or applications of the findings
  • Suggest directions for future research.

Conclusion

The discussion may also provide a conclusion – a short summary of the main findings of the study.

A conclusion should directly answer the research question or state what the research demonstrated. It should not introduce major new evidence or arguments that have not been discussed elsewhere in the report.

For example, the results of the sleep-memory study example would support the conclusion that sleep deprivation reduces memory performance.

References

The references section provides a complete list of the academic sources cited in the report. This normally includes sources such as books and published journal articles.

References should be presented using the referencing style required by the institution or journal. Different referencing systems have different rules about how information should be presented.

How to cite academic references

When citing an academic source, the essential information is usually:

  • Author: who wrote the source
  • Date: when it was published
  • Title: the title of the book or article
  • Publication: where it was published, such as the journal or publisher
  • Location details: such as volume, issue, and page numbers for a journal article, where required.

The exact information and formatting required depends on the referencing system being used. For example, the same journal article can be formatted differently depending on the referencing system:

Milgram (1963)
Harvard Milgram, S., 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), pp.371–378.
APA 7th Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
MLA 9th Milgram, Stanley. “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4, 1963, pp. 371–378.
Chicago (Author-Date) Milgram, Stanley. 1963. “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4): 371–378.
Vancouver Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67(4):371-8.
IEEE S. Milgram, “Behavioral study of obedience,” J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 371–378, 1963.
MHRA Milgram, Stanley, ‘Behavioral Study of Obedience’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67.4 (1963), 371–78

In addition to these references at the end of the report, authors will cite sources within the text as they go to indicate where an idea or finding came from. For example, you might write something like this in your report:

Previous research suggests that obedience is strongly influenced by situational factors (Milgram, 1963).

This ‘(Milgram, 1963)’ enables the reader to identify when a claim is based on another researcher’s work. They can then find the full reference in the reference list at the end of the report.

Appendices

Appendices contain supporting material that is too detailed or lengthy to include in the main report.

For example, an appendix might contain:

  • The raw data collected from a study
  • The complete list of questions in a questionnaire
  • Detailed instructions given to participants
  • Additional tables or calculations
  • Other supporting materials.

The appendix is basically a place to dump lengthy details that aren’t essential to understanding the report but that might otherwise be useful – e.g. details for researchers who might want to replicate the study or who want to double-check the conclusions.

Going back to the sleep-memory example, this could be where you put the list of 50 words the participants had to remember. Knowing this list of words isn’t necessary to understand the study, but it would be useful for researchers looking to replicate the study. 

Summary
Title A short description of what the research investigated.
Abstract A brief overview of the entire project – aim, method, results, and conclusion.
Introduction Explains the background to the research, why the study was conducted, and the study’s aim and hypothesis.
Method Describes how the research was carried out, including the design, participants, equipment and materials, procedure, and controls.
Results Presents what the data showed, using statistics, tables, graphs, or charts where appropriate, without interpreting the findings.
Discussion Explains what the results mean, considers the hypothesis, evaluates the research, and considers implications and future research. This is where the conclusion (if applicable) goes.
References Lists all academic sources cited in the report using the required referencing style.
Appendices Contains supporting material that is too detailed or lengthy for the main report, such as raw data, questionnaires, instructions, or additional calculations.

Peer review

Peer review is a quality-control process used to assess scientific research before it is published in an academic journal.

The peers are other researchers who have expertise in the same or a closely related area. They assess the research because they have the knowledge needed to judge whether the study is scientifically sound. The aim of peer review is to ensure that research has been carried out appropriately, uses suitable methods, and provides a credible contribution to scientific knowledge.

The process typically works as follows:

  • Researchers submit their paper to an academic journal.
  • The journal editor decides whether the paper is suitable to be considered for publication and sends it to one or more expert reviewers.
  • The reviewers evaluate the research, considering issues such as the research question, methodology, analysis, interpretation of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.
  • The reviewers make a recommendation to the editor. The paper may be:
    • Accepted
    • Accepted subject to changes
    • Returned to the authors for revision and resubmission
    • Rejected.
  • If the paper is accepted, it can be published in the journal.

There are several different types of peer review:

  • Open review: The identities of both the researchers and reviewers are known to each other.
  • Single-blind review: The reviewers know who wrote the paper, but the researchers do not know who reviewed it. This can reduce the possibility of researchers influencing the reviewers.
  • Double-blind review: Neither the researchers nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. This is intended to reduce the influence of personal opinions or reputations on the review.

Peer review is most commonly associated with research that has already been conducted, but research proposals can also be reviewed before a study takes place. For example, a funding organisation may ask experts to assess whether a proposed study is scientifically worthwhile before providing funding.

Evaluation

Strengths of peer review

  • Quality control: Peer review provides an additional check on research before it becomes part of the published scientific literature. Reviewers can identify problems with the research design, analysis, or interpretation that the researchers may have overlooked.
  • Expert assessment: Reviewers are usually researchers with expertise in the relevant area. This means that research is assessed by people who understand the theories, methods, and existing evidence in that field.
  • Improves research: Reviewers can suggest changes that improve the clarity, methodology, analysis, or interpretation of a paper before it is published.

Weaknesses of peer review

  • Reviewer bias: Reviewers are human and may have personal or professional biases. For example, they may be more critical of research that challenges their own theories or previous findings. Academic fields can also be relatively small, meaning reviewers may know the researchers whose work they are assessing.
  • Does not guarantee accurate research: Peer review cannot guarantee that published research is correct. Reviewers may fail to identify methodological problems, statistical errors, or even fraudulent data. There are many examples of research that later turned out to be seriously flawed or outright fraudulent that passed peer review.
  • May discourage new ideas: Reviewers are familiar with existing theories and approaches, so genuinely new or controversial ideas may sometimes be rejected because they challenge established thinking. However, this does not mean that all research challenging existing theories will be rejected.
  • Slow process: Peer review can take months or longer, particularly if reviewers request substantial changes or several rounds of revision. This can delay the publication of research.
  • Conflicts of interest: Reviewers or researchers may have financial, professional, or personal interests that could influence publication decisions. Journals therefore need procedures for identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest.

Overall, peer review is an important part of the scientific process because it is a way to provide independent scrutiny before research is published. However, it is far from a guarantee that published research is correct or free from bias. As such, peer review is better understood as a quality-control process that reduces the likelihood of poor-quality research being published, rather than a perfect system that can eliminate all errors, bias, or fraud.