Reporting psychological investigations | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 55 minutes

Psychologists use scientific reports to communicate why an investigation was conducted, how evidence was collected, what was found and what the findings may mean. This Reporting psychological investigations A-Level Psychology revision page explains the abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion sections, together with the purpose of referencing. Understanding this structure will help you interpret published research and organise your own practical investigations clearly, logically and scientifically. The AQA specification requires knowledge of all six elements of a psychological report.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Describe the purpose and content of an abstract.

• Describe the purpose of the introduction and method sections.

• Explain how findings are presented in the results section.

• Explain how findings are interpreted in the discussion section.

• Explain why researchers use referencing.

• Apply the structure of a scientific report to an unfamiliar investigation.

Revision Notes 📚

What is a scientific report?

A scientific report is a structured account of a psychological investigation.

It allows researchers and readers to understand:

• Why the research was conducted.

• What the researchers predicted.

• How the investigation was carried out.

• What evidence was collected.

• How the evidence was analysed.

• What conclusions were drawn.

• Which existing sources informed the research.

The sections required for AQA A-Level Psychology are:

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Method

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Referencing

Each section has a distinct purpose. Together, they create a logical account of the research process.

Why is a structured report important?

A standard report structure helps psychological research remain clear and open to scrutiny.

A reader should be able to:

• Locate important information quickly.

• Judge whether the method was appropriate.

• Examine whether the evidence supports the conclusion.

• Identify possible limitations.

• Repeat the procedure where sufficient detail is provided.

• Locate the sources used by the researchers.

Reporting therefore supports the wider scientific principles of objectivity, empirical evidence and replicability.

Overview of the report sections

Report section	Main purpose
Abstract	Summarises the whole investigation
Introduction	Explains the background, rationale, aim and prediction
Method	Describes exactly how the investigation was carried out
Results	Presents the analysed findings
Discussion	Interprets the findings and considers their meaning
Referencing	Identifies the sources used in the report

A strong report keeps information in the correct section. For example, detailed interpretation belongs in the discussion rather than the results.

The abstract

What is an abstract?

An abstract is a brief summary of the complete investigation.

It appears at the beginning of the scientific report, although it is usually easiest to write after the other sections have been completed.

The abstract allows a reader to understand the main features of the research without reading the full report.

The purpose of an abstract

The abstract helps readers decide:

• Whether the investigation is relevant to their interests.

• What research question was investigated.

• Which method was used.

• What the main result was.

• What conclusion the researcher reached.

It should provide an accurate overview without including every procedural detail.

What should an abstract include?

A useful abstract normally summarises:

• The aim of the investigation.

• The basic method or research design.

• The participants or type of sample.

• The main result.

• The overall conclusion.

The abstract should reflect the report accurately. It should not introduce new information that is absent from the main investigation.

Example structure for an abstract

Consider a hypothetical investigation into background noise and concentration.

An abstract might briefly state:

• The study investigated whether background noise affected concentration.

• Participants completed a concentration task in either silence or background noise.

• Concentration was measured using the number of correct responses.

• The silent condition produced a higher average score.

• The findings were interpreted as suggesting that background noise may reduce performance on this task.

The abstract would not normally contain a full list of instructions, raw scores or an extended evaluation.

Features of an effective abstract

An effective abstract should be:

• Concise.

• Accurate.

• Clear.

• Written after the main findings are known.

• Consistent with the rest of the report.

• Focused on the investigation rather than general background information.

Common abstract errors

An abstract becomes less useful if it:

• Includes only the aim.

• Describes the method but omits the findings.

• Makes claims not supported by the results.

• Contains excessive procedural detail.

• Introduces theories or evidence not discussed elsewhere.

• Gives a conclusion that differs from the discussion.

The introduction

What is the purpose of the introduction?

The introduction explains the scientific background and reasoning behind the investigation.

It moves from the broader psychological topic towards the specific aim and hypothesis being tested.

The introduction should help the reader understand:

• What area of psychology is being investigated.

• What existing ideas or findings are relevant.

• Why the new investigation is being conducted.

• What the researcher aims to discover.

• What outcome is predicted.

Background research

The introduction places the new investigation within existing psychological knowledge.

It may describe:

• Relevant psychological concepts.

• Existing theories.

• Previous research findings.

• Unanswered questions.

• Limitations or gaps that the new investigation will address.

Researchers should not simply list previous studies. They should explain how the earlier evidence leads logically to the present investigation.

The rationale

The rationale is the reason for conducting the investigation.

A rationale may be based on:

• Testing a prediction from a theory.

• Replicating an earlier investigation.

• Investigating whether a finding occurs with a different sample.

• Using a different operational definition.

• Addressing a limitation in previous research.

• Examining whether a relationship or difference exists.

The rationale connects previous knowledge to the new study.

The aim

The introduction should state the aim of the investigation.

The aim identifies the purpose of the research without necessarily predicting the result.

For example:

To investigate whether completing a concentration task in silence or with background noise affects the number of correct responses.

The aim should identify the variables or behaviour being investigated clearly.

This builds directly on constructing a focused research purpose.

The hypothesis

The introduction normally ends with a testable hypothesis.

A hypothesis should identify the expected difference or relationship using clearly defined variables.

For example:

Participants completing the task in silence will produce more correct responses than participants completing the task while background noise is played.

Depending on the investigation, the hypothesis may be:

• Directional.

• Non-directional.

• An experimental hypothesis.

• A correlational hypothesis.

The hypothesis must match the actual method and variables used in the investigation.

The logical structure of an introduction

A well-organised introduction may follow this sequence:

1. Introduce the broad psychological topic.

2. Explain relevant theories or findings.

3. Identify the question or issue being investigated.

4. Explain the rationale for the new research.

5. State the aim.

6. State the hypothesis.

This structure moves from general knowledge towards the exact prediction being tested.

Referencing within the introduction

Claims about theories and previous studies should be referenced.

Referencing shows:

• Which ideas came from other researchers.

• Which evidence supports the rationale.

• Where the reader can find the original source.

The full source details should be provided through the report’s referencing system.

Introduction and method must agree

The introduction and method should describe the same investigation.

For example, if the introduction states that the study investigates concentration under quiet and noisy conditions, the method should contain:

• A clearly operationalised noise variable.

• A suitable measure of concentration.

• Procedures that allow those conditions to be compared.

A mismatch between the prediction and the procedure makes the investigation difficult to interpret.

The method section

What is the purpose of the method section?

The method section describes how the investigation was carried out.

Its purpose is to give the reader enough information to:

• Understand exactly what the researchers did.

• Judge whether the procedure was appropriate.

• Identify possible controls and limitations.

• Replicate the investigation.

The method should describe the procedure clearly rather than explaining what the researcher hoped would happen.

The importance of replicability

A study cannot be replicated accurately if essential details are missing.

The method should therefore provide sufficient information about:

• The participants.

• The research method.

• The experimental design where relevant.

• The materials.

• The variables.

• The instructions.

• The procedure.

• The recording and scoring of data.

• Ethical safeguards.

This links scientific reporting to replicability and the empirical method.

Participants

The method should explain who took part in the research.

Relevant details may include:

• The number of participants.

• Relevant characteristics of the sample.

• The target population.

• The sampling method.

• How participants were recruited.

• How participants were allocated to conditions, where relevant.

The report should include enough information to judge whether the sample was suitable without revealing confidential identities.

For example:

Thirty students were recruited using an opportunity sample. They were randomly allocated to either the silent or background-noise condition.

The report should not include participant names where this would breach confidentiality.

The research method

The method should identify the type of investigation used.

This may include:

• Laboratory experiment.

• Field experiment.

• Natural experiment.

• Quasi-experiment.

• Observation.

• Questionnaire.

• Interview.

• Correlation.

• Content analysis.

• Case study.

The chosen method should be appropriate for the aim.

Experimental design

Where an experiment is conducted, the report should state the design:

• Repeated measures.

• Independent groups.

• Matched pairs.

The method should also explain how participants completed or were assigned to conditions.

For example:

An independent groups design was used. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the two conditions.

The strengths and possible weaknesses of these arrangements are examined in organising participants across experimental conditions.

Variables

The method should operationalise the variables clearly.

For an experiment, this normally involves identifying:

• The independent variable.

• The conditions of the independent variable.

• The dependent variable.

• How the dependent variable was measured.

For example:

• Independent variable: completing the task in silence or while a recording of background noise was played.

• Dependent variable: the number of correct responses on a 30-item concentration task completed in five minutes.

A reader should not have to guess what terms such as “noise”, “memory” or “performance” mean within the investigation.

Materials and apparatus

The method should describe the materials or equipment required to conduct the investigation.

These might include:

• Questionnaires.

• Word lists.

• Images.

• Recording sheets.

• Timing equipment.

• Computer-based tasks.

• Standardised instructions.

• Observation schedules.

• Interview schedules.

Relevant details should be included where they affect replication.

For example, a memory investigation should state:

• How many words were used.

• How long they were displayed.

• How recall was recorded.

• How correct responses were scored.

The procedure

The procedure explains what happened during the investigation in a clear sequence.

It should describe:

1. How participants were approached.

2. What information they received.

3. How consent was addressed.

4. How participants were allocated or organised.

5. What instructions were given.

6. What task or activity took place.

7. How long each stage lasted.

8. How responses were recorded.

9. How participants were debriefed.

The procedure should be written clearly enough for another researcher to follow.

Standardised instructions

If standardised instructions were used, the report should explain what participants were told.

Exact wording may be important when:

• Instructions could affect performance.

• The task is complex.

• Researchers must avoid giving different information.

• Ethical information is provided.

• Demand characteristics are being controlled.

Standardisation reduces unintended differences between participants and supports consistent control of the research procedure.

Ethical procedures

The method should explain how participants were treated ethically.

Relevant procedures may include:

• Obtaining appropriate consent.

• Explaining the right to withdraw.

• Protecting participants from harm.

• Maintaining privacy and confidentiality.

• Using participant codes.

• Providing a debrief.

• Explaining any deception afterwards.

The report should state what was actually done rather than merely claiming that the study was ethical.

These issues are developed in protecting people who take part in research.

Recording and scoring

The method should explain how the evidence was recorded.

For example:

• How questionnaire responses were scored.

• Which behavioural categories were used.

• How interview responses were recorded.

• What counted as a correct answer.

• How response time was measured.

• How ambiguous responses were treated.

Clear recording and scoring rules improve objectivity and reliability.

Writing the method in sufficient detail

A weak method might say:

Participants completed a concentration test in two conditions.

This does not explain:

• Who the participants were.

• What the conditions involved.

• How concentration was measured.

• How long the task lasted.

• What instructions were given.

• How the scores were calculated.

A stronger description would identify each of these features.

Method and evaluation

The method should describe what happened without turning into an extended evaluation.

For example:

• The method states that an opportunity sample was used.

• The discussion may later explain how this could limit generalisation.

Keeping description and evaluation in the appropriate sections improves clarity.

The results section

What is the purpose of the results section?

The results section presents the findings of the investigation.

It should show what the data revealed without providing a lengthy explanation of why the result occurred.

The results may include:

• Summarised numerical data.

• Tables.

• Graphs.

• Descriptive statistics.

• Outcomes of inferential statistical tests.

• Clearly organised qualitative findings.

• Coding categories or themes where appropriate.

The aim is to present the evidence accurately and clearly.

Raw data and summarised data

Raw data are the original scores or responses collected from participants.

Researchers may summarise these data using:

• Means.

• Medians.

• Modes.

• Ranges.

• Standard deviations.

• Percentages.

• Frequencies.

• Correlation coefficients.

The results section should present enough information for the reader to understand the pattern in the findings.

Large amounts of raw data should not replace an organised summary of the results.

Tables

A table should display data clearly.

A well-constructed table should have:

• An informative title.

• Clearly labelled rows and columns.

• Units where relevant.

• Consistent decimal places.

• Data arranged in a logical order.

For example:

Condition	Mean number of correct responses	Range
Silence	24.6	9
Background noise	19.8	11

This table allows the reader to compare performance across the two conditions.

Graphs

A graph can make patterns in data easier to see.

The appropriate graph depends on the data being presented.

The AQA specification includes:

• Bar charts.

• Histograms.

• Scattergrams.

Graphs should have:

• A descriptive title.

• Clearly labelled axes.

• Appropriate scales.

• Units where relevant.

• Accurately plotted values.

These skills are developed in presenting numerical findings accurately.

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics summarise the collected data.

The results section may report:

• A measure of central tendency.

• A measure of dispersion.

• A percentage.

• A correlation coefficient.

For example:

The mean number of correct responses was 24.6 in the silent condition and 19.8 in the background-noise condition.

This describes the pattern but does not yet explain what caused it.

Inferential statistics

An inferential statistical test helps researchers judge whether an observed result is statistically significant.

The results section may report:

• The statistical test used.

• The observed value.

• The critical value or probability level where relevant.

• Whether the result was statistically significant.

• Whether the null hypothesis was rejected or retained.

The test selected should be appropriate for:

• The research design.

• The level of measurement.

• Whether the researcher is testing a difference, association or correlation.

This is explored further in understanding the purpose of statistical testing.

Quantitative results

Quantitative data are numerical.

Examples include:

• Test scores.

• Frequencies.

• Response times.

• Ratings.

• Numbers of words recalled.

• Questionnaire totals.

These data may be presented through statistics, tables and graphs.

Qualitative results

Qualitative data are non-numerical and usually expressed in words.

Examples include:

• Interview responses.

• Written questionnaire answers.

• Descriptions of behaviour.

• Case-study information.

Researchers may organise qualitative findings into categories or themes.

However, detailed interpretation of what those themes mean belongs mainly in the discussion.

The distinction is studied in different forms of psychological data.

Results should remain objective

The results section should avoid:

• Personal opinions.

• Unsupported explanations.

• Emotional descriptions of the findings.

• Claims that go beyond the evidence.

• Selective reporting of only preferred results.

The researcher should present findings accurately, including results that do not support the original hypothesis.

Describing patterns accurately

A researcher should distinguish between:

• A numerical difference.

• A relationship.

• A statistically significant finding.

• A causal conclusion.

For example:

The silent condition had a higher mean score.

This is a descriptive statement.

Background noise caused every participant to lose concentration.

This is a much stronger causal claim and is not justified by the mean scores alone.

Results and the hypothesis

The results may state whether the statistical outcome supports rejection or retention of the null hypothesis.

However, the fuller interpretation of what this means for the original prediction belongs in the discussion.

The discussion section

What is the purpose of the discussion?

The discussion explains and interprets the findings.

It should answer questions such as:

• What was found?

• Did the result support the hypothesis?

• How does the result relate to previous research?

• What explanations may account for the findings?

• What limitations affected the investigation?

• How might the research be improved?

• What conclusions can reasonably be drawn?

The discussion turns the results into a psychological interpretation.

Summarising the main finding

The discussion should begin by identifying the important result.

For example:

Participants in the silent condition produced a higher mean number of correct responses than participants in the background-noise condition.

The researcher should then explain whether this pattern supports the original prediction.

Relating findings to the hypothesis

The discussion should state whether the findings:

• Support the hypothesis.

• Do not support the hypothesis.

• Provide a mixed or uncertain outcome.

Researchers should avoid claiming that a hypothesis has been permanently proved.

Scientific conclusions remain open to:

• Replication.

• Further testing.

• Alternative explanations.

• New evidence.

More cautious language includes:

• “The findings support the prediction.”

• “The findings do not support the prediction.”

• “The results suggest that…”

• “The evidence is consistent with…”

Relating findings to previous research

The researcher may compare the result with theories or previous evidence introduced earlier in the report.

The discussion may explain:

• Whether the findings are similar to earlier findings.

• Whether they challenge an existing explanation.

• Whether a difference could be caused by the sample, setting or measurement.

• Whether the study extends earlier research.

Sources discussed here should be referenced.

Explaining findings

The discussion may offer psychological explanations for the pattern in the data.

However, explanations should remain connected to the evidence.

The researcher should distinguish between:

• What was measured directly.

• What is a reasonable interpretation.

• What remains uncertain.

For example, lower scores in a noisy condition may suggest reduced task performance, but the researcher should not assume that every participant experienced the same mental process unless it was measured.

Evaluating the method

The discussion should identify strengths and limitations of the investigation.

Possible issues include:

• Sampling bias.

• Participant variables.

• Order effects.

• Extraneous variables.

• Demand characteristics.

• Investigator effects.

• Reliability.

• Validity.

• Ethical constraints.

• Artificial tasks or settings.

• Incomplete operationalisation.

Each limitation should be explained rather than merely named.

Example of a developed limitation

Weak evaluation:

The study had low validity.

Stronger evaluation:

The concentration task consisted of identifying symbols on a computer screen, which may not represent how participants concentrate during everyday work. This may limit the ecological validity of the findings.

The stronger version identifies the exact feature and explains its consequence.

Suggesting improvements

Where a limitation is identified, the discussion may suggest a practical improvement.

For example:

Participants in the silent condition were tested in the morning, while participants in the noise condition were tested in the afternoon. Time of day may therefore have affected concentration. Both conditions should be tested at comparable times.

The improvement should address the problem directly.

Alternative explanations

A discussion should consider whether factors other than the independent variable could explain the result.

For example:

• One group may have contained more experienced participants.

• One task may have been easier.

• One researcher may have given more encouragement.

• Participants may have guessed the research aim.

• A measurement may not have assessed the intended concept.

Considering alternatives prevents the researcher from making an unjustified causal claim.

Reliability in the discussion

Researchers may discuss whether the procedure or measurement was consistent.

For example:

• Did different observers agree?

• Were questionnaire scores stable?

• Were instructions standardised?

• Were scoring criteria objective?

• Could another researcher repeat the procedure?

Any weakness should be linked to how it could affect confidence in the findings.

Validity in the discussion

Researchers may discuss:

• Whether the dependent variable measured the intended concept.

• Whether alternative variables affected the outcome.

• Whether the findings apply to everyday behaviour.

• Whether the result may remain applicable over time.

A discussion should distinguish consistency from accuracy rather than treating reliability and validity as identical.

Ethical considerations in the discussion

If ethical procedures influenced the method, the discussion may consider their effect.

For example:

• Fully explaining the aim may have increased demand characteristics.

• Avoiding a distressing manipulation may have reduced realism.

• Protecting anonymity may have limited follow-up data collection.

Researchers must not treat scientific value as more important than participants’ rights and wellbeing.

Conclusions

The discussion should end with a clear conclusion.

A conclusion should:

• Answer the research aim.

• Reflect the actual findings.

• Avoid claims beyond the evidence.

• Recognise important limitations.

• Avoid applying the result to populations or situations that were not studied without justification.

For example:

The findings suggest that background noise may reduce performance on the concentration task used in this investigation. However, the small opportunity sample limits the extent to which the result can be generalised.

Implications and future research

The discussion may identify possible implications of the findings.

It may also suggest further research, such as:

• Repeating the study with a larger sample.

• Using another population.

• Using a more realistic task.

• Testing another level of the independent variable.

• Improving the measurement.

• Controlling a variable identified as a limitation.

• Replicating the investigation in a different setting.

Future-research suggestions should follow logically from the investigation.

Referencing

What is referencing?

Referencing means identifying the sources of ideas, theories, findings and information used in a scientific report.

References allow the reader to distinguish:

• The current researcher’s work.

• Information obtained from another source.

• Previous evidence supporting the investigation.

Referencing normally includes brief source information within the report and fuller publication information so that the original material can be located.

Why do psychologists use referencing?

Referencing serves several purposes.

It credits the original source

Researchers should acknowledge the psychologists whose ideas or findings they use.

Presenting another person’s work as though it were your own is inappropriate.

It allows sources to be checked

A reader can locate the original research and examine:

• The method.

• The findings.

• The sample.

• The conclusions.

• The limitations.

This allows claims to be scrutinised rather than accepted without evidence.

It supports the rationale

References show which theories and findings led to the new investigation.

For example, a researcher may cite previous evidence before explaining why a replication or extension is needed.

It shows how research connects

Psychological knowledge develops through related investigations.

Referencing shows how the current report:

• Builds on earlier evidence.

• Challenges a previous conclusion.

• Uses an established measure.

• Replicates an earlier method.

• Addresses a limitation.

It supports peer review

Peer reviewers can use references to examine whether:

• Earlier research has been represented accurately.

• Important evidence has been considered.

• Claims are supported.

• The rationale is convincing.

This connects referencing with the expert evaluation of research quality.

Where are references used?

References are especially important in:

• The introduction.

• The discussion.

• Any section containing ideas or findings from another source.

The method may also reference an existing task, questionnaire or procedure if it was developed elsewhere.

In-text references

An in-text reference identifies the source at the point where its idea or finding is discussed.

It should make clear which claim is connected to which source.

For example, when a report summarises an earlier finding, the source should be identified within the same sentence or paragraph.

Full reference information

The report should provide enough information for the source to be located.

This may include:

• The author or authors.

• The year.

• The title.

• The publication or source.

• Other details needed to identify the work.

The exact presentation may depend on the referencing system being used. The AQA specification requires understanding of referencing but does not name one compulsory format for every report.

Consistency in referencing

A report should use its chosen referencing format consistently.

Problems arise when:

• Some sources are fully identified and others are not.

• Names or dates differ between the text and reference details.

• A source appears in the report but cannot be found in the references.

• A listed source is never used in the report.

• Details are too incomplete for the source to be located.

Consistency makes scientific communication clearer.

Referencing and scientific quality

Referencing does not prove that a claim is correct.

A referenced source may still contain:

• Methodological weaknesses.

• A small or biased sample.

• An unreliable measure.

• A conclusion that goes beyond the evidence.

Referencing allows the evidence to be traced and evaluated. It should not replace critical analysis.

How the report sections connect

Each section should build logically on the previous one.

Section	Connection to the next stage
Abstract	Summarises the completed report
Introduction	Produces the aim and hypothesis
Method	Explains how the hypothesis was tested
Results	Shows what evidence the method produced
Discussion	Interprets what the results mean
Referencing	Connects claims to their original sources

A weak connection between sections may reveal a problem.

For example:

• The introduction predicts memory performance.

• The method measures concentration.

• The results report response time.

• The discussion draws conclusions about motivation.

The variables and conclusions are inconsistent, so the report does not answer one clear research question.

Worked example: organising a scientific report

A psychologist investigates whether the wording of instructions affects performance on a puzzle.

Participants receive either:

• Encouraging instructions.

• Neutral instructions.

Performance is measured using the number of puzzle sections completed in ten minutes.

Abstract

The abstract would summarise:

• The aim.

• The two instruction conditions.

• The performance measure.

• The main finding.

• The conclusion.

Introduction

The introduction would:

• Explain the psychological background.

• Describe relevant previous research or ideas.

• Give a reason for comparing encouraging and neutral instructions.

• State the aim.

• State the hypothesis.

Method

The method would describe:

• The sample.

• The sampling procedure.

• The experimental design.

• The two sets of instructions.

• The puzzle materials.

• The ten-minute time limit.

• The scoring method.

• The control procedures.

• The ethical procedures.

Results

The results would present:

• Scores from the two conditions.

• Suitable descriptive statistics.

• A table or graph.

• The outcome of any inferential test.

Discussion

The discussion would:

• State whether the prediction was supported.

• Explain the findings.

• Compare them with previous evidence.

• Identify limitations.

• Suggest improvements.

• Draw a cautious conclusion.

Referencing

The report would identify the sources used to explain the background and interpret the findings.

Description and interpretation compared

Students commonly confuse description with interpretation.

Description	Interpretation
States what happened	Explains what the finding may mean
Belongs mainly in the method or results	Belongs mainly in the discussion
“The noise group had a mean score of 18.”	“The lower score may suggest that noise reduced task performance.”
“Participants completed a five-minute task.”	“The short task may have limited ecological validity.”

Keeping these functions separate makes the report easier to follow.

Reporting quantitative investigations

A report using quantitative data should make clear:

• What numerical measure was collected.

• How scores were calculated.

• Which descriptive statistics were used.

• How results were presented.

• Whether inferential testing was used.

• What conclusion the statistical outcome supports.

The results should not present unexplained numbers. Each table, graph and statistic should have a clear purpose.

Reporting qualitative investigations

A report using qualitative data should explain:

• How verbal or written information was collected.

• How responses were recorded.

• How material was organised or coded.

• Which categories or themes were identified.

• How interpretations were reached.

Researchers should avoid selecting only comments that support their expectations.

The method should explain how the analysis was conducted, while the discussion should explain what the patterns may mean.

Reporting correlational investigations

A report of a correlation should identify:

• The two co-variables.

• How each co-variable was measured.

• The sample.

• The procedure.

• The correlation coefficient.

• The strength and direction of the relationship.

• Limitations of drawing causal conclusions.

The discussion should not claim that one co-variable caused the other.

For example:

A positive relationship between revision time and test scores does not prove that additional revision caused the higher scores.

Reporting observational investigations

A report of an observation should describe:

• The form of observation.

• The setting.

• The participants.

• The behavioural categories.

• Whether event or time sampling was used.

• The observation schedule.

• How reliability was assessed.

• Ethical procedures.

The results may present frequencies or categories. The discussion should consider whether the observed behaviours represented the intended concept and whether awareness of observation affected behaviour.

Reporting psychological investigations A-Level Psychology revision: exam application

An examination question may ask you to:

• Identify the correct report section.

• Describe what belongs in a section.

• Explain why information is included.

• Place details into the correct section.

• Write part of a scientific report.

• Identify information missing from a report.

• Explain the purpose of referencing.

Identifying the abstract

Look for:

• A brief overview.

• The aim.

• A summary of the method.

• The main finding.

• The conclusion.

Identifying the introduction

Look for:

• Theoretical background.

• Previous research.

• The rationale.

• The aim.

• The hypothesis.

Identifying the method

Look for:

• Participants.

• Design.

• Materials.

• Variables.

• Instructions.

• Procedure.

• Ethical arrangements.

Identifying the results

Look for:

• Data.

• Statistics.

• Tables.

• Graphs.

• Statistical significance.

• Findings without extended interpretation.

Identifying the discussion

Look for:

• Interpretation.

• Links to previous research.

• Evaluation.

• Limitations.

• Improvements.

• Conclusions.

• Future research.

Identifying referencing

Look for:

• Credit given to original researchers.

• Source details.

• Links between claims and existing research.

• Information that allows the source to be located.

Writing a strong report

When analysing and communicating a completed investigation, check that:

1. The abstract summarises every major section.

2. The introduction leads logically to the aim and hypothesis.

3. The method contains enough detail for replication.

4. Variables are operationalised consistently.

5. Ethical procedures are described.

6. Results are accurate and clearly presented.

7. Results are not mixed with unsupported interpretation.

8. The discussion answers the aim.

9. Limitations are explained and linked to the investigation.

10. Conclusions do not go beyond the evidence.

11. Sources are referenced clearly and consistently.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Scientific report	A structured account of why an investigation was conducted, how it was carried out, what was found and what the findings mean.	Identify the purpose of report sections or organise research information.
Abstract	A concise summary of the complete investigation.	Explain how the aim, method, result and conclusion are summarised.
Introduction	The section explaining the background, rationale, aim and hypothesis.	Identify where theories and previous research should be discussed.
Rationale	The reason why the investigation is being conducted.	Explain how previous evidence leads to the research aim.
Method	The section describing how the investigation was carried out.	Explain what information is required for replication.
Participants	The people whose behaviour or responses were investigated.	Describe the sample within the method.
Procedure	The sequence of actions followed during an investigation.	Explain exactly what participants and researchers did.
Results	The section presenting the analysed findings.	Identify where tables, graphs and statistics should appear.
Discussion	The section interpreting findings, evaluating the investigation and drawing conclusions.	Explain whether results support the hypothesis and consider limitations.
Referencing	Identifying sources used within a scientific report.	Explain how researchers credit and allow readers to locate earlier work.
In-text reference	Source information given at the point where another researcher’s work is discussed.	Show which source supports a particular claim.
Replication	Repeating an investigation using the same or a comparable procedure.	Explain why the method must contain sufficient detail.
Descriptive statistics	Numerical techniques used to summarise data.	Explain what may be presented in the results section.
Inferential statistics	Statistical techniques used to assess whether findings are significant.	Identify another form of analysis reported in the results.
Conclusion	A final judgement about what the findings suggest in relation to the aim.	Explain what should appear towards the end of the discussion.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake: Treating the abstract as an extended introduction.

Why this is incorrect:The abstract summarises the complete investigation, including the method, main finding and conclusion.

How to improve:Include a concise overview of all major stages rather than only the background and aim.

Mistake: Including the results in the introduction.

Why this is incorrect:The introduction explains the background and prediction before the investigation’s findings are presented.

How to improve:Place the analysed findings in the results section.

Mistake: Describing the aim without explaining the rationale.

Why this is incorrect:The reader needs to understand how previous ideas or evidence led to the new investigation.

How to improve:Link the psychological background logically to the aim and hypothesis.

Mistake: Giving too little detail in the method.

Why this is incorrect:Another researcher may be unable to understand or replicate the procedure.

How to improve:Describe the sample, design, materials, variables, instructions, procedure, recording and ethical safeguards.

Mistake: Evaluating the investigation in the method section.

Why this is incorrect:The method explains what was done. Evaluation belongs mainly in the discussion.

How to improve:Describe the sampling method in the method, then discuss its possible limitations later.

Mistake: Presenting only raw scores in the results.

Why this is incorrect:A large set of unorganised scores may make the overall pattern difficult to understand.

How to improve:Use appropriate summary statistics, tables or graphs.

Mistake: Explaining why the result occurred in the results section.

Why this is incorrect:The results section presents findings. Interpretation belongs in the discussion.

How to improve:State the numerical pattern first, then explain its possible meaning later.

Mistake: Claiming that the findings prove the hypothesis.

Why this is incorrect:Scientific explanations remain open to further testing and replication.

How to improve:State that the findings support or do not support the hypothesis.

Mistake: Naming a limitation without explaining its effect.

Why this is incorrect:A term such as “low validity” does not show how the investigation was affected.

How to improve:Identify the specific feature and explain its effect on measurement, conclusions or generalisation.

Mistake: Providing references without linking them to claims.

Why this is incorrect:The reader cannot tell which source supports each idea or finding.

How to improve:Use references at the point where the source is discussed and provide enough information for it to be located.

Mistake: Assuming that referencing proves a claim is correct.

Why this is incorrect:A referenced study may still contain weaknesses.

How to improve:Use referencing to identify the evidence, then evaluate the evidence itself.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Name the section of a scientific report that provides a brief summary of the complete investigation. (1 mark)

Question 2

State two pieces of information that should be included in an abstract. (2 marks)

Question 3

Explain the purpose of the introduction section of a psychological report. (3 marks)

Question 4

A psychologist reports that an independent groups design was used, 40 participants took part and participants were randomly allocated to two conditions.

Identify the section of the scientific report in which this information should appear. Explain your answer. (2 marks)

Question 5

Explain why the method section should contain sufficient procedural detail. (3 marks)

Question 6

A researcher writes the following in the results section:

“Participants in the background-noise condition obtained a mean score of 16.2, while participants in the silent condition obtained a mean score of 21.7. This proves that noise damages concentration because participants found the sound annoying.”

Explain one problem with the way the researcher has reported the results. (3 marks)

Question 7

A psychologist completes an observational investigation but does not report the behavioural categories, sampling method or recording procedure.

Explain why these omissions reduce the quality of the scientific report. (4 marks)

Question 8

A report includes the following information:

1. A bar chart comparing the mean scores of two conditions.

2. A description of previous psychological research.

3. An explanation of why the sample may have been biased.

4. The standardised instructions read to participants.

5. A concise summary of the aim, method, result and conclusion.

For each item, identify the most appropriate report section. (5 marks)

Question 9

Explain three purposes of referencing in a psychological report. (6 marks)

Question 10

A psychologist investigates whether studying in silence or while listening to music affects the number of words recalled.

Describe how the psychologist should organise the investigation into the following sections of a scientific report:

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Method

• Results

• Discussion

• Referencing

(8 marks)