research topics in psychology literature

61 intriguing psychology research topics to explore

Last updated

11 January 2024

Reviewed by

Brittany Ferri, PhD, OTR/L

Psychology is an incredibly diverse, critical, and ever-changing area of study in the medical and health industries. Because of this, it’s a common area of study for students and healthcare professionals.

We’re walking you through picking the perfect topic for your upcoming paper or study. Keep reading for plenty of example topics to pique your interest and curiosity.

• How to choose a psychology research topic

Exploring a psychology-based topic for your research project? You need to pick a specific area of interest to collect compelling data. 

Use these tips to help you narrow down which psychology topics to research:

Focus on a particular area of psychology

The most effective psychological research focuses on a smaller, niche concept or disorder within the scope of a study. 

Psychology is a broad and fascinating area of science, including everything from diagnosed mental health disorders to sports performance mindset assessments. 

This gives you plenty of different avenues to explore. Having a hard time choosing? Check out our list of 61 ideas further down in this article to get started.

Read the latest clinical studies

Once you’ve picked a more niche topic to explore, you need to do your due diligence and explore other research projects on the same topic. 

This practice will help you learn more about your chosen topic, ask more specific questions, and avoid covering existing projects. 

For the best results, we recommend creating a research folder of associated published papers to reference throughout your project. This makes it much easier to cite direct references and find inspiration down the line.

Find a topic you enjoy and ask questions

Once you’ve spent time researching and collecting references for your study, you finally get to explore. 

Whether this research project is for work, school, or just for fun, having a passion for your research will make the project much more enjoyable. (Trust us, there will be times when that is the only thing that keeps you going.) 

Now you’ve decided on the topic, ask more nuanced questions you might want to explore. 

If you can, pick the direction that interests you the most to make the research process much more enjoyable.

• 61 psychology topics to research in 2024

Need some extra help starting your psychology research project on the right foot? Explore our list of 61 cutting-edge, in-demand psychology research topics to use as a starting point for your research journey.

• Psychology research topics for university students

As a university student, it can be hard to pick a research topic that fits the scope of your classes and is still compelling and unique. 

Here are a few exciting topics we recommend exploring for your next assigned research project:

Mental health in post-secondary students

Seeking post-secondary education is a stressful and overwhelming experience for most students, making this topic a great choice to explore for your in-class research paper. 

Examples of post-secondary mental health research topics include:

Student mental health status during exam season

Mental health disorder prevalence based on study major

The impact of chronic school stress on overall quality of life

The impacts of cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can occur at all ages, starting as early as elementary school and carrying through into professional workplaces. 

Examples of cyberbullying-based research topics you can study include:

The impact of cyberbullying on self-esteem

Common reasons people engage in cyberbullying 

Cyberbullying themes and commonly used terms

Cyberbullying habits in children vs. adults

The long-term effects of cyberbullying

• Clinical psychology research topics

If you’re looking to take a more clinical approach to your next project, here are a few topics that involve direct patient assessment for you to consider:

Chronic pain and mental health

Living with chronic pain dramatically impacts every aspect of a person’s life, including their mental and emotional health. 

Here are a few examples of in-demand pain-related psychology research topics:

The connection between diabetic neuropathy and depression

Neurological pain and its connection to mental health disorders

Efficacy of meditation and mindfulness for pain management

The long-term effects of insomnia

Insomnia is where you have difficulty falling or staying asleep. It’s a common health concern that impacts millions of people worldwide. 

This is an excellent topic because insomnia can have a variety of causes, offering many research possibilities. 

Here are a few compelling psychology research topics about insomnia you could investigate:

The prevalence of insomnia based on age, gender, and ethnicity

Insomnia and its impact on workplace productivity

The connection between insomnia and mental health disorders

Efficacy and use of melatonin supplements for insomnia

The risks and benefits of prescription insomnia medications

Lifestyle options for managing insomnia symptoms

The efficacy of mental health treatment options

Management and treatment of mental health conditions is an ever-changing area of study. If you can witness or participate in mental health therapies, this can make a great research project. 

Examples of mental health treatment-related psychology research topics include:

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients with severe anxiety

The benefits and drawbacks of group vs. individual therapy sessions

Music therapy for mental health disorders

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for patients with depression 

• Controversial psychology research paper topics

If you are looking to explore a more cutting-edge or modern psychology topic, you can delve into a variety of controversial and topical options:

The impact of social media and digital platforms

Ever since access to internet forums and video games became more commonplace, there’s been growing concern about the impact these digital platforms have on mental health. 

Examples of social media and video game-related psychology research topics include:

The effect of edited images on self-confidence

How social media platforms impact social behavior

Video games and their impact on teenage anger and violence

Digital communication and the rapid spread of misinformation

The development of digital friendships

Psychotropic medications for mental health

In recent years, the interest in using psychoactive medications to treat and manage health conditions has increased despite their inherently controversial nature. 

Examples of psychotropic medication-related research topics include:

The risks and benefits of using psilocybin mushrooms for managing anxiety

The impact of marijuana on early-onset psychosis

Childhood marijuana use and related prevalence of mental health conditions

Ketamine and its use for complex PTSD (C-PTSD) symptom management

The effect of long-term psychedelic use and mental health conditions

• Mental health disorder research topics

As one of the most popular subsections of psychology, studying mental health disorders and how they impact quality of life is an essential and impactful area of research. 

While studies in these areas are common, there’s always room for additional exploration, including the following hot-button topics:

Anxiety and depression disorders

Anxiety and depression are well-known and heavily researched mental health disorders. 

Despite this, we still don’t know many things about these conditions, making them great candidates for psychology research projects:

Social anxiety and its connection to chronic loneliness

C-PTSD symptoms and causes

The development of phobias

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) behaviors and symptoms

Depression triggers and causes

Self-care tools and resources for depression

The prevalence of anxiety and depression in particular age groups or geographic areas

Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder is a complex and multi-faceted area of psychology research. 

Use your research skills to learn more about this condition and its impact by choosing any of the following topics:

Early signs of bipolar disorder

The incidence of bipolar disorder in young adults

The efficacy of existing bipolar treatment options

Bipolar medication side effects

Cognitive behavioral therapy for people with bipolar 

Schizoaffective disorder

Schizoaffective disorder is often stigmatized, and less common mental health disorders are a hotbed for new and exciting research. 

Here are a few examples of interesting research topics related to this mental health disorder:

The prevalence of schizoaffective disorder by certain age groups or geographic locations

Risk factors for developing schizoaffective disorder

The prevalence and content of auditory and visual hallucinations

Alternative therapies for schizoaffective disorder

• Societal and systematic psychology research topics

Modern society’s impact is deeply enmeshed in our mental and emotional health on a personal and community level. 

Here are a few examples of societal and systemic psychology research topics to explore in more detail:

Access to mental health services

While mental health awareness has risen over the past few decades, access to quality mental health treatment and resources is still not equitable. 

This can significantly impact the severity of a person’s mental health symptoms, which can result in worse health outcomes if left untreated. 

Explore this crucial issue and provide information about the need for improved mental health resource access by studying any of the following topics:

Rural vs. urban access to mental health resources

Access to crisis lines by location

Wait times for emergency mental health services

Inequities in mental health access based on income and location

Insurance coverage for mental health services

Systemic racism and mental health

Societal systems and the prevalence of systemic racism heavily impact every aspect of a person’s overall health.

Researching these topics draws attention to existing problems and contributes valuable insights into ways to improve access to care moving forward.

Examples of systemic racism-related psychology research topics include: 

Access to mental health resources based on race

The prevalence of BIPOC mental health therapists in a chosen area

The impact of systemic racism on mental health and self-worth

Racism training for mental health workers

The prevalence of mental health disorders in discriminated groups

LGBTQIA+ mental health concerns

Research about LGBTQIA+ people and their mental health needs is a unique area of study to explore for your next research project. It’s a commonly overlooked and underserved community.

Examples of LGBTQIA+ psychology research topics to consider include:

Mental health supports for queer teens and children

The impact of queer safe spaces on mental health

The prevalence of mental health disorders in the LGBTQIA+ community

The benefits of queer mentorship and found family

Substance misuse in LQBTQIA+ youth and adults

• Collect data and identify trends with Dovetail

Psychology research is an exciting and competitive study area, making it the perfect choice for projects or papers.

Take the headache out of analyzing your data and instantly access the insights you need to complete your next psychology research project by teaming up with Dovetail today.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Research Topics & Ideas: Psychology

100+ Psychology Topic Ideas To Fast-Track Your Research

If you’re starting out on the dissertation or thesis journey for your psychology degree, the very first challenge you’ll face is finding a solid research topic . In this post, we’ll help get the topic ideation process started by providing a meaty list of research ideas, spanning a range of psychology sub-disciplines. We’ll also look at some examples from actual theses and dissertations to give you an idea of what these look like in the real world.

NB – This is just the start…

The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps (which we’ll explain a little later). Therefore, it’s important to recognise that this post is only the first step in finding a high-quality psychology-centred research topic. To develop a research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , and a viable plan of action to fill that gap.

If this all sounds a bit intimidating, be sure to check out our free dissertation mini-course , which covers the process of writing a dissertation or thesis from A-Z. You can also sign up for our free webinar that explores how to find a high-quality research topic. Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help, have a look at our 1-on-1 coaching service .

Overview: Psychology-Related Topics

• How to find a research topic (video)
• Behavioural psychology
• Clinical psychology
• Cognitive psychology
• Developmental psychology
• Educational psychology
• Forensic psychology
• Social psychology
• Sports psychology
• Examples of actual dissertation topics
• Free Webinar : Topic Ideation 101
• Where to get extra help

How To Find A Research Topic

In the video below, we explain how to find suitable research ideas (in psychology or any field), and how to then refine those into well-articulated potential topics for your dissertation or thesis. We also discuss a few important evaluation criteria to help you make the right choice for your project.

Below you’ll find a list of research ideas to get your thinking started. Please note that these research topic ideas are intentionally broad and generic, so you will need to refine them a fair deal using the techniques we discussed in the video above.

We’ve grouped the topic ideas based on a few popular areas of psychology to make it a little easier for you to find something in your particular field of interest. That said, there is naturally some overlap between topics, so keep this in mind.

Research Ideas: Behavioural Psychology

• Cultural variation in behaviour and mental health of adolescents during a disaster: a case study
• The impact of parental drug use and risky behaviour on early child development
• The effects of video game violence on aggressive behaviour among teenage boys in school
• The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and adult risk-seeking behaviour
• The impact of physical exercise on anxiety and health-harming behaviour
• The relationship between personality traits and addiction behaviour
• The effects of reinforcement schedules on decision-making and associative learning
• The effects of daily mindfulness practice on stress and anxiety in middle-aged women
• The use of behavioural interventions in the treatment of eating disorders in poorer communities
• Understanding implicit cognitive processes involved in the over-consumption of fast food
• The use of cognitive behavioural therapy for alcohol addiction treatment
• The impact of extensive technology use in children on long-term attention and focus
• The impact of social media on self-destructive behaviour and poor mental health outcomes
• Exploring the role of sleep and sleep deprivation on healthy behaviours

Research Ideas: Clinical Psychology

• The use of mindfulness-based approaches in the treatment of anxiety disorders among college students
• The use of technology in the delivery of psychological services in war-torn countries
• The effectiveness of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder
• The use of virtual reality technology in the treatment of phobias and PTSD among war veterans
• The role of childhood adversity on adult mental health in immigrant populations in the USA
• The role of genetics and epigenetics in the development of bipolar disorder in Pakistani women: an integrative review
• The effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of social anxiety among hikikomori in Japan
• The perception of healthcare workers and patients on the use of teletherapy for the delivery of psychological services
• The impact of social support on mental health outcomes among single parents.
• The effectiveness of integrative therapeutic approaches in the treatment of schizophrenia
• The effectiveness of trauma-focused therapies on post-traumatic growth in domestic abuse survivors
• The role and use of cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression among first-generation students
• The effectiveness of family therapy in addressing childhood trauma and depression
• The impact of cultural mistrust on the diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues in culturally-diverse populations
• The effectiveness of group therapy on post-traumatic stress symptoms among survivors of sexual assault

Research Ideas: Cognitive Psychology

• The impact of lifelong aerobic exercise on cognitive function in old age
• The effects of evening screen use on cognitive development in preschool children
• The impact of sleep deprivation on decision-making among graduate students
• The use of neuroimaging to understand the neural basis of memory retrieval
• The effect of conservative religious homes on social functioning in LGBT+ adolescents
• The role of positive emotions in working memory among high school learners
• The neural basis of decision-making and problem-solving during undergraduate statistic assessments
• The neural basis of language processing among adults learning English as a second language
• The role of technological tools in improving working memory in older adults
• The role of attention in emotional face processing among adult males
• The impact of depression on cognitive function during ageing The impact of daily meditation and mindfulness practice on cognitive function
• The relationship between increased protein intake and improved cognitive function
• The effects of stress on cognitive function among final-year learners

Research Ideas: Developmental Psychology

• The impact of maternal affection on cognitive, social, and emotional development
• The effects of parenting styles on children’s executive function
• The impact of late-night screen use on child development
• The role of digital play on child development outcomes
• Exploring the impact of poverty on early child development in Brazil
• The trauma-informed care as moderating the impact of trauma on child development
• Evaluating the relationship between peer relationship quality and child social development
• The impact of child-targeted media and advertising on child behavioural development
• The role of parental attachment in child resilience
• The moderating impact of culture on bullying and child social development
• The impact of single-parenting on child development in India
• The impact of early educational interventions on child socio-emotional development
• The impact of digital technology use on adolescent development and mental health
• The impact of socioeconomic status on child executive function
• The role of genetics and epigenetics on child neurodevelopmental outcomes linked to depression

Need a helping hand?

Research Ideas: Educational Psychology

• The relationship between self-regulated learning and academic performance in asynchronous versus synchronous learning environments
• Exploring effective parental involvement strategies and their impact on student achievement
• The role of intrinsic motivation in formative assessment in the classroom
• The impact of classroom management and practice on student learning and behaviour
• University students’ preference regarding online learning environments
• The effects of gentrification on student achievement in traditionally poor neighbourhoods
• The impact of teacher expectations and academic self-concept on K12 student mathematics performance
• The use and effectiveness of game-based learning in a high school biology classroom
• The impact of prejudice on the relationship between student motivation and academic performance among Black university students
• The impact of culture on second language English student learning preferences
• The effects of student self-efficacy and engagement on academic performance in secondary school mathematics
• The role of metacognition in learning musicality in hip hop
• The role of small group instruction on teacher efficacy and stress in early childhood education
• The perception and use of multimedia among high school biology teachers in France
• The use of augmented reality applications and its impact on student learning, motivation and attitude

Research Ideas: Forensic Psychology

• The impact of trauma on the psychological functioning of police officers and first responders
• Understanding cultural considerations during forensic psychological assessment and treatment of trauma
• Ethical considerations of the use of AI in forensic psychology in the legal system
• The psychological factors related to recidivism among white collar female offenders in the USA
• The psychological factors related to false confessions among juveniles
• Understanding the use of psychological assessment in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in criminal courts in England
• The impact of trauma on the reflective functioning of adult female sexual assault victims
• The use and effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing recidivism among non-violent criminals
• The impact of domestic violence on the mental health and forensic evaluation of men
• Exploring the ethical considerations and use of behavioural analysis in the study of criminal behaviour
• The use and limitations of neuropsychological assessment in forensic evaluations
• The use of social media forensics in evaluating criminal behaviour in violent crimes
• The racialised use of psychological assessment in the evaluation of competency to stand trial in Canada
• Exploring the use and availability of virtual reality technologies in forensic psychology in Spain
• The impact of motivational interviewing-based interventions among criminalized drug users

Research Ideas: Social Psychology

• The impact of prejudice and discrimination on social behaviour among African immigrants in South Africa
• The impact of social networks on behaviour and well-being among young adult females
• The effects of social identity on non-conformity in University students
• The effects of group dynamics on risk-seeking behaviour in adult men
• The impact of social media on the quality of interpersonal relationships among high school learners
• The impact of parental emotional intelligence on pro-social behaviour in children and adolescents
• The effects of conformity and deviance on social attitudes and behaviour during a global recession
• The effects of Tik Tok on social comparison and self-esteem among teenage girls
• Understanding gendered differences in social influence and algorithms on impulsive decision-making
• The effects of social support on mental health among healthcare workers in the UK
• The effects of gender roles on social behaviour among trans teens
• The impact of perceived power and social status on the behaviour of social media influencers
• The impact of social norms on prosocial behaviour among women
• The effects of community participation on aggression and violence in middle-aged men
• The impact of culture and gender on social behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic

Research Ideas: Sports Psychology

• The moderating role of cultural factors on the relationship between mental health and sports performance in team sports
• The role of mindfulness practice in addressing stress and anxiety in young national athletes
• The relationship between team cohesion and performance in cricket teams
• The effect of transformational leadership on female sports teams in Canada
• The effect of positive self-talk on athletic performance and motivation among Olympic athletes
• The use and perception of hypnosis in New Zealand team sports Understanding stress and burnout in University team athletes
• The efficacy of personalised nutrition and diet on athletic performance among sprinters
• Exploring mental preparation techniques and their effect on athletic motivation and resilience among team-sport athletes
• Exploring the perception and understanding of goal-setting characteristics on athletic performance among team coaches
• The effects of motivational feedback on the performance of female gymnasts
• The perception and use of visualization and imagery among coaches as a means to enhance sport performance
• The impact of sports injuries on mental health and recovery in high school athletes
• The moderating role of sleep on mental toughness and sports performance in Olympic athletes
• The use and perception of technology in sports training and performance in little league softball

Psychology-Related Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic in psychology, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses to see how this all comes together in practice.

Below, we’ve included a selection of research projects from various psychology degree programs to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

• Effects of a Patient Question Prompt List on Outpatient Palliative Care Appointments (McDarby, 2022)
• The role of affect and exercise goals in physical activity engagement in younger and older adults (Stojanovic, 2022)
• Lay Theories about Whether Emotion Helps or Hinders Reasoning and Well-being (Karnaze, 2022)
• The effects of blast-induced traumatic brain injury on two transgenic models of Alzheimer’s Disease (Gann, 2020)
• Understanding the parental mind: Examining the stability of parental reflective functioning across the birth of a child and associations with maternal mind-mindedness (Pitzen, 2021)
• An investigation of ineffective ally behaviours (Collier, 2019)
• Response Inhibition-Related Beta Power: Distinguishing Cognitively Intact Elders by Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease (Evans, 2021)
• Recognition Memory of Extremely High-Frequency Words (Miller, 2019)
• The Relationship between Dementia Caregiver Burden and Caregiver Communications in a Memory Clinic Setting (Martin, 2021)
• Examination of Maternal Versus Paternal Ratings of Child Pre-Injury Functioning in Predicting Child Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (Sayer, 2021)
• Electromyography As A Means of Predicting The Rubber Hand Illusion (Teaford, 2021)
• Linking Diversity Climate and Feedback Seeking Through Interpersonal Processes and Race Effects (Flores, 2021)

Looking at these titles, you can probably pick up that the research topics here are far more specific and narrowly-focused , compared to the generic ones presented earlier. This is an important thing to keep in mind as you develop your own research topic. That is to say, to create a top-notch research topic, you must be precise and target a specific context with specific variables of interest . In other words, you need to identify a clear, well-justified research gap.

Fast-Track Your Topic Ideation

Still unsure about how to find the right topic for your research project? Check out our private coaching services , where we work with psychology students on a 1:1 basis to help them find the perfect topic.

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

Great insight

A very interesting site that offers a variety of options regarding research topics.

You’re most welcome

A good platform to get information

Amazing and interesting options 👌

Very useful but had not any field of research in health psychology

I feel honored going through this lovely stuff put together. Thank you so much

I need counseling psychology research topics

very empowering and insightful presentations. Can I be assisted in crafting a school psychology-related research topic about African context

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• 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
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Social Psychology Research Topics

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.

Choosing topics for social psychology research papers or projects for class can be challenging. It is a broad and fascinating field, which can make it challenging to figure out what you want to investigate in your research.

Social psychology explores how individual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by social influences. It explores how each person's behavior is affected by their social environment.

This article explores a few different social psychology topics and research questions you might want to study in greater depth. It covers how to start your search for a topic as well as specific ideas you might choose to explore.

How to Find a Social Psychology Research Topic

As you begin your search, think about the questions that you have. What topics interest you? Following your own interests and curiosities can often inspire great research questions.

Choose a Sub-Topic

Social psychologists are interested in all aspects of social behavior. Some of the main areas of interest within the field include social cognition, social influence, and social relationships investigating subtopics such as conformity, groupthink, attitude formation, obedience, prejudice, and so on.

• Social cognition : How do we process and use information about social experiences? What kinds of biases influence how we engage with other people?
• Social influence: What are the key social factors that influence our attitudes and behavior? What are group dynamics and how do we understand patterns of behavior in groups?
• Social relationships : What are the different types of social relationships? How do they develop and change over time?

To help ensure that you select a topic that is specific enough, it can be helpful to start by confining your search to one of these main areas.

Browse Through Past Research

After narrowing down your choices, consider what questions you might have. Are there questions that haven't been fully answered by previous studies? At this point, it can be helpful to spend some time browsing through journal articles or books to see some examples of past findings and identify gaps in the literature.

You can also find inspiration and learn more about a topic by searching for keywords related to your topic in psychological databases such as PsycINFO or browsing through some professional psychology journals.

Narrow Down Your Specific Topic

Once you have a general topic, you'll need to narrow down your research. The goal is to choose a research question that is specific, measurable, and testable. Let's say you want to study conformity; An example of a good research question might be, “Are people more likely to conform when they are in a small group or a large group?” In this case, the specific topic of your paper would be how group size influences social conformity .

Review the Literature on Your Chosen Topic

After choosing a specific social psychology topic to research, the next step is to do a literature review. A literature review involves reading through the existing research findings related to a specific topic.

You are likely to encounter a great deal of information on your topic, which can seem overwhelming at times. You may find it helpful to start by reading review articles or meta-analysis studies. These are summaries of previous research on your topic or studies that incorporate a large pool of past research on the topic.

Talk to Your Instructor

Even if you are really excited to dive right in and start working on your project, there are some important preliminary steps you need to take.

Before you decide to tackle a project for your social psychology class, you should always clear your idea with your instructor. This initial step can save you a lot of time and hassle later on.

Your instructor can offer clear feedback on things you should and should not do while conducting your research and might be able to offer some helpful tips. Also, if you plan to implement your own social experiment, your school might require you to present to and gain permission from an institutional review board.

Thinking about the questions you have about social psychology can be a great way to discover topics for your own research. Once you have a general idea, explore the literature and refine your research question to make sure it is specific enough.

Examples of Social Psychology Research Topics

The following are some specific examples of different subjects you might want to investigate further as part of a social psychology research paper, experiment, or project:

Implicit Attitudes

How do implicit attitudes influence how people respond to others? This can involve exploring how people's attitudes towards different groups of people (e.g., men, women, ethnic minorities) influence their interactions with those groups. For example, one study found that 75% of people perceive men to be more intelligent than women .

In your own project, you might explore how implicit attitudes impact perceptions of qualities such as kindness, intelligence, leadership skills, or attractiveness.

Prosocial Behavior

You might also choose to focus on prosocial behavior in your research. This can involve investigating the reasons why people help others. Some questions you could explore further include:

• What motivates people to help others?
• When are people most likely to help others?
• How does helping others cause people to feel?
• What are the benefits of helping other people?

How do people change their attitudes in response to persuasion? What are the different techniques that can be used to persuade someone? What factors make some people more susceptible to persuasion than others?

One way to investigate this could be through collecting a wide variety of print advertisements and analyzing how​ persuasion is used. What types of cognitive and affective techniques are utilized? Do certain types of advertisements tend to use specific kinds of persuasive techniques ?

Another area of social psychology that you might research is aggression and violence. This can involve exploring the factors that lead to aggression and violence and the consequences of these behaviors. Some questions you might explore further include:

• When is violence most likely to occur?
• What factors influence violent behavior?
• Do traumatic experiences in childhood lead to more aggressive behavior in adulthood?
• Does viewing violent media content contribute to increased aggressive behavior in real life?

Prejudice and discrimination are areas that present a range of research opportunities. This can involve studying the different forms that prejudice takes (e.g., sexism, racism, ageism ), as well as the psychological effects of prejudice and discrimination. You might also want to investigate topics related to how prejudices form or strategies that can be used to reduce such discrimination.

Nonverbal Behavior

How do people respond when nonverbal communication does not match up to verbal behavior (for example, saying you feel great when your facial expressions and tone of voice indicate otherwise). Which signal do people respond to most strongly?

How good are people at detecting lies ? Have participants tell a group of people about themselves, but make sure some of the things are true while others are not. Ask members of the group which statements they thought were true and which they thought were false.

Social Norms

How do people react when social norms are violated? This might involve acting in a way that is outside the norm in a particular situation or enlisting friends to act out the behaviors while you observe.

Some examples that you might try include wearing unusual clothing, applauding inappropriately at the end of a class lecture, cutting in line in front of other people, or some other mildly inappropriate behavior. Keep track of your own thoughts as you perform the experiment and observe how people around you respond.

Online Social Behavior

Does online social networking make people more or less likely to interact with people in face-to-face or other offline settings? To investigate this further, you could create a questionnaire to assess how often people participate in social networking versus how much time they spend interacting with their friends in real-world settings.

Social Perception

How does our appearance impact how people respond to us? Ask some friends to help you by having two people dress up in dramatically different ways, one in a professional manner and one in a less conventional manner. Have each person engage in a particular action, then observe how they are treated and how other people's responses differ.

Social psychologists have found that attractiveness can produce what is known as a halo effect . Essentially, we tend to assume that people who are physically attractive are also friendly, intelligent, pleasant, and likable.

To investigate this topic, you could set up an experiment where you have participants look at photographs of people of varying degrees of physical attractiveness, and then ask them to rate each person based on a variety of traits, including social competence, kindness, intellect, and overall likability.

Think about how this might affect a variety of social situations, including how employees are selected or how jurors in a criminal case might respond.

Social psychology is a broad field, so there are many different subtopics you might choose to explore in your research. Implicit attitudes, prosocial behavior, aggression, prejudice, and social perception are just a few areas you might want to consider.

A Word From Verywell

Social psychology topics can provide a great deal of inspiration for further research, whether you are writing a research paper or conducting your own experiment. In addition to some of the social psychology topics above, you can also draw inspiration from your own curiosity about social behavior or examine social issues that you see taking place in the world around you. 

American Psychological Association.  Frequently asked questions about institutional review boards .

Storage D, Charlesworth TES, Banaji M, Cimpian A.  Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women .  J Exp Soc Psychol . 2012;90:104020. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020

Talamas SN, Mavor KI, Perrett DI. Blinded by beauty: Attractiveness bias and accurate perceptions of academic performance . PLoS ONE . 2016;11(2):e0148284. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148284

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.

Overview of the Scientific Method

8 Finding a Research Topic

Learning objectives.

• Learn some common sources of research ideas.
• Define the research literature in psychology and give examples of sources that are part of the research literature and sources that are not.
• Describe and use several methods for finding previous research on a particular research idea or question.

Good research must begin with a good research question. Yet coming up with good research questions is something that novice researchers often find difficult and stressful. One reason is that this is a creative process that can appear mysterious—even magical—with experienced researchers seeming to pull interesting research questions out of thin air. However, psychological research on creativity has shown that it is neither as mysterious nor as magical as it appears. It is largely the product of ordinary thinking strategies and persistence (Weisberg, 1993) [1] . This section covers some fairly simple strategies for finding general research ideas, turning those ideas into empirically testable research questions, and finally evaluating those questions in terms of how interesting they are and how feasible they would be to answer.

Finding Inspiration

Research questions often begin as more general research ideas—usually focusing on some behavior or psychological characteristic: talkativeness, learning, depression, bungee jumping, and so on. Before looking at how to turn such ideas into empirically testable research questions, it is worth looking at where such ideas come from in the first place. Three of the most common sources of inspiration are informal observations, practical problems, and previous research.

Informal observations include direct observations of our own and others’ behavior as well as secondhand observations from non-scientific sources such as newspapers, books, blogs, and so on. For example, you might notice that you always seem to be in the slowest moving line at the grocery store. Could it be that most people think the same thing? Or you might read in a local newspaper about people donating money and food to a local family whose house has burned down and begin to wonder about who makes such donations and why. Some of the most famous research in psychology has been inspired by informal observations. Stanley Milgram’s famous research on obedience to authority, for example, was inspired in part by journalistic reports of the trials of accused Nazi war criminals—many of whom claimed that they were only obeying orders. This led him to wonder about the extent to which ordinary people will commit immoral acts simply because they are ordered to do so by an authority figure (Milgram, 1963) [2] .

Practical problems can also inspire research ideas, leading directly to applied research in such domains as law, health, education, and sports. Does taking lecture notes by hand improve students’ exam performance? How effective is psychotherapy for depression compared to drug therapy? To what extent do cell phones impair people’s driving ability? How can we teach children to read more efficiently? What is the best mental preparation for running a marathon?

Probably the most common inspiration for new research ideas, however, is previous research. Recall that science is a kind of large-scale collaboration in which many different researchers read and evaluate each other’s work and conduct new studies to build on it. Of course, experienced researchers are familiar with previous research in their area of expertise and probably have a long list of ideas. This suggests that novice researchers can find inspiration by consulting with a more experienced researcher (e.g., students can consult a faculty member). But they can also find inspiration by picking up a copy of almost any professional journal and reading the titles and abstracts. In one typical issue of  Psychological Science , for example, you can find articles on the perception of shapes, anti-Semitism, police lineups, the meaning of death, second-language learning, people who seek negative emotional experiences, and many other topics. If you can narrow your interests down to a particular topic (e.g., memory) or domain (e.g., health care), you can also look through more specific journals, such as  Memory & Cognition  or  Health Psychology .

Reviewing the Research Literature

Once again, one of the most common sources of inspiration is previous research. Therefore, it is important to review the literature early in the research process. The  research literature  in any field is all the published research in that field. Reviewing the research literature means finding, reading, and summarizing the published research relevant to your topic of interest. In addition to helping you discover new research questions, reviewing the literature early in the research process can help you in several other ways.

• It can tell you if a research question has already been answered.
• It can help you evaluate the interestingness of a research question.
• It can give you ideas for how to conduct your own study.
• It can tell you how your study fits into the research literature.

The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, websites, and similar sources that are intended mainly for the general public. These are considered unreliable because they are not reviewed by other researchers and are often based on little more than common sense or personal experience. Wikipedia contains much valuable information, but because its authors are anonymous and may not have any formal training or expertise in that subject area, and its content continually changes it is unsuitable as a basis of sound scientific research. For our purposes, it helps to define the research literature as consisting almost entirely of two types of sources: articles in professional journals, and scholarly books in psychology and related fields.

Professional Journals

Professional journals  are periodicals that publish original research articles. There are thousands of professional journals that publish research in psychology and related fields. They are usually published monthly or quarterly in individual issues, each of which contains several articles. The issues are organized into volumes, which usually consist of all the issues for a calendar year. Some journals are published in hard copy only, others in both hard copy and electronic form, and still others in electronic form only.

Most articles in professional journals are one of two basic types: empirical research reports and review articles.  Empirical research reports  describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors. They introduce a research question, explain why it is interesting, review previous research, describe their method and results, and draw their conclusions. Review articles  summarize previously published research on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results. When a review article is devoted primarily to presenting a new theory, it is often referred to as a theoretical article . When a review article provides a statistical summary of all of the previous results it is referred to as a  meta-analysis .

Most professional journals in psychology undergo a process of  double-blind peer review . Researchers who want to publish their work in the journal submit a manuscript to the editor—who is generally an established researcher too—who in turn sends it to two or three experts on the topic. Each reviewer reads the manuscript, writes a critical but constructive review, and sends the review back to the editor along with recommendations about whether the manuscript should be published or not. The editor then decides whether to accept the article for publication, ask the authors to make changes and resubmit it for further consideration, or reject it outright. In any case, the editor forwards the reviewers’ written comments to the researchers so that they can revise their manuscript accordingly. This entire process is double-blind, as the reviewers do not know the identity of the researcher(s) and vice versa. Double-blind peer review is helpful because it ensures that the work meets basic standards of the field before it can enter the research literature. However, in order to increase transparency and accountability, some newer open access journals (e.g., Frontiers in Psychology ) utilize an open peer review process wherein the identities of the reviewers (which remain concealed during the peer review process) are published alongside the journal article.

Scholarly Books

Scholarly books  are books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and practitioners. A  monograph  is written by a single author or a small group of authors and usually, gives a coherent presentation of a topic much like an extended review article.  Edited volumes have an editor or a small group of editors who recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic. Although edited volumes can also give a coherent presentation of the topic, it is not unusual for each chapter to take a different perspective or even for the authors of different chapters to openly disagree with each other. In general, scholarly books undergo a peer review process similar to that used by professional journals.

Literature Search Strategies

Using psycinfo and other databases.

The primary method used to search the research literature involves using one or more electronic databases. These include Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ProQuest for all academic disciplines, ERIC for education, and PubMed for medicine and related fields. The most important for our purposes, however, is PsycINFO, which is produced by the American Psychological Association (APA). PsycINFO is so comprehensive—covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100 years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology. Like most such databases, PsycINFO is usually available through your university library.

PsycINFO consists of individual records for each article, book chapter, or book in the database. Each record includes basic publication information, an abstract or summary of the work (like the one presented at the start of this chapter), and a list of other works cited by that work. A computer interface allows entering one or more search terms and returns any records that contain those search terms. (These interfaces are provided by different vendors and therefore can look somewhat different depending on the library you use.) Each record also contains lists of keywords that describe the content of the work and also a list of index terms. The index terms are especially helpful because they are standardized. Research on differences between females and males, for example, is always indexed under “Human Sex Differences.” Research on note-taking is always indexed under the term “Learning Strategies.” If you do not know the appropriate index terms, PsycINFO includes a thesaurus that can help you find them.

Given that there are nearly four million records in PsycINFO, you may have to try a variety of search terms in different combinations and at different levels of specificity before you find what you are looking for. Imagine, for example, that you are interested in the question of whether males and females differ in terms of their ability to recall experiences from when they were very young. If you were to enter the search term “memory,” it would return far too many records to look through individually. This is where the thesaurus helps. Entering “memory” into the thesaurus provides several more specific index terms—one of which is “early memories.” While searching for “early memories” among the index terms still returns too many to look through individually—combining it with “human sex differences” as a second search term returns fewer articles, many of which are highly relevant to the topic.

Depending on the vendor that provides the interface to PsycINFO, you may be able to save, print, or e-mail the relevant PsycINFO records. The records might even contain links to full-text copies of the works themselves. (PsycARTICLES is a database that provides full-text access to articles in all journals published by the APA.) If not, and you want a copy of the work, you will have to find out if your library carries the journal or has the book and the hard copy on the library shelves. Be sure to ask a librarian if you need help.

Using Other Search Techniques

In addition to entering search terms into PsycINFO and other databases, there are several other techniques you can use to search the research literature. First, if you have one good article or book chapter on your topic—a recent review article is best—you can look through the reference list of that article for other relevant articles, books, and book chapters. In fact, you should do this with any relevant article or book chapter you find. You can also start with a classic article or book chapter on your topic, find its record in PsycINFO (by entering the author’s name or article’s title as a search term), and link from there to a list of other works in PsycINFO that cite that classic article. This works because other researchers working on your topic are likely to be aware of the classic article and cite it in their own work. You can also do a general Internet search using search terms related to your topic or the name of a researcher who conducts research on your topic. This might lead you directly to works that are part of the research literature (e.g., articles in open-access journals or posted on researchers’ own websites). The search engine Google Scholar is especially useful for this purpose. A general Internet search might also lead you to websites that are not part of the research literature but might provide references to works that are. Finally, you can talk to people (e.g., your instructor or other faculty members in psychology) who know something about your topic and can suggest relevant articles and book chapters.

What to Search For

When you do a literature review, you need to be selective. Not every article, book chapter, and book that relates to your research idea or question will be worth obtaining, reading, and integrating into your review. Instead, you want to focus on sources that help you do four basic things: (a) refine your research question, (b) identify appropriate research methods, (c) place your research in the context of previous research, and (d) write an effective research report. Several basic principles can help you find the most useful sources.

First, it is best to focus on recent research, keeping in mind that what counts as recent depends on the topic. For newer topics that are actively being studied, “recent” might mean published in the past year or two. For older topics that are receiving less attention right now, “recent” might mean within the past 10 years. You will get a feel for what counts as recent for your topic when you start your literature search. A good general rule, however, is to start with sources published in the past five years. The main exception to this rule would be classic articles that turn up in the reference list of nearly every other source. If other researchers think that this work is important, even though it is old, then, by all means, you should include it in your review.

Second, you should look for review articles on your topic because they will provide a useful overview of it—often discussing important definitions, results, theories, trends, and controversies—giving you a good sense of where your own research fits into the literature. You should also look for empirical research reports addressing your question or similar questions, which can give you ideas about how to measure your variables and collect your data. As a general rule, it is good to use methods that others have already used successfully unless you have good reasons not to. Finally, you should look for sources that provide information that can help you argue for the interestingness of your research question. For a study on the effects of cell phone use on driving ability, for example, you might look for information about how widespread cell phone use is, how frequent and costly motor vehicle crashes are, and so on.

How many sources are enough for your literature review? This is a difficult question because it depends on how extensively your topic has been studied and also on your own goals. One study found that across a variety of professional journals in psychology, the average number of sources cited per article was about 50 (Adair & Vohra, 2003) [3] . This gives a rough idea of what professional researchers consider to be adequate. As a student, you might be assigned a much lower minimum number of references to include, but the principles for selecting the most useful ones remain the same.

Video Attributions

• “ How to Develop a Good Research Topic ” by  KStateLibraries .  CC BY (Attribution)
• “ Sample PsycINFO Search on EBSCOhost ” by  APA Publishing Training . Standard YouTube Licence.
• “ Using Google Scholar (CLIP) ” by  clipinfolit .  CC BY (Attribution)
• Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius . New York, NY: Freeman. ↵
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 , 371–378. ↵
• Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58 , 15–23. ↵

All the published research in that field.

Are periodicals that publish original research articles.

Research reports that describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

Articles that summarize previously published research on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results.

A review article that is devoted primarily to presenting a new theory.

A review article that provides a statistical summary of all of the previous results.

A process in which the reviewers of a research article do not know the identity of the researcher(s) and vice versa.

Books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and practitioners.

A coherent written presentation of a topic much like an extended review article written by a single author or a small group of authors.

Books that are collections of chapters written by different authors on different aspects of the same topic, and overseen by one or more editors.

A comprehensive electronic database covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100 years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2.2 Finding a Research Topic

Learning objectives.

• Learn some common sources of research ideas.
• Define the research literature in psychology and give examples of sources that are part of the research literature and sources that are not.
• Describe and use several methods for finding previous research on a particular research idea or question.

Good research must begin with a good research question. Yet coming up with good research questions is something that novice researchers often find difficult and stressful. One reason is that this is a creative process that can appear mysterious—even magical—with experienced researchers seeming to pull interesting research questions out of thin air. However, psychological research on creativity has shown that it is neither as mysterious nor as magical as it appears. It is largely the product of ordinary thinking strategies and persistence (Weisberg, 1993) [1] . This section covers some fairly simple strategies for finding general research ideas, turning those ideas into empirically testable research questions, and finally evaluating those questions in terms of how interesting they are and how feasible they would be to answer.

Finding Inspiration

Research questions often begin as more general research ideas—usually focusing on some behavior or psychological characteristic: talkativeness, learning, depression, bungee jumping, and so on. Before looking at how to turn such ideas into empirically testable research questions, it is worth looking at where such ideas come from in the first place. Three of the most common sources of inspiration are informal observations, practical problems, and previous research.

Informal observations include direct observations of our own and others’ behavior as well as secondhand observations from non-scientific sources such as newspapers, books, blogs, and so on. For example, you might notice that you always seem to be in the slowest moving line at the grocery store. Could it be that most people think the same thing? Or you might read in a local newspaper about people donating money and food to a local family whose house has burned down and begin to wonder about who makes such donations and why. Some of the most famous research in psychology has been inspired by informal observations. Stanley Milgram’s famous research on obedience to authority, for example, was inspired in part by journalistic reports of the trials of accused Nazi war criminals—many of whom claimed that they were only obeying orders. This led him to wonder about the extent to which ordinary people will commit immoral acts simply because they are ordered to do so by an authority figure (Milgram, 1963) [2] .

Practical problems can also inspire research ideas, leading directly to applied research in such domains as law, health, education, and sports. Does taking lecture notes by hand improve students’ exam performance? How effective is psychotherapy for depression compared to drug therapy? To what extent do cell phones impair people’s driving ability? How can we teach children to read more efficiently? What is the best mental preparation for running a marathon?

Reading in print? Scan this QR code to view the video on your mobile device. Or go to https://youtu.be/nXNztCLYgxc

Probably the most common inspiration for new research ideas, however, is previous research. Recall that science is a kind of large-scale collaboration in which many different researchers read and evaluate each other’s work and conduct new studies to build on it. Of course, experienced researchers are familiar with previous research in their area of expertise and probably have a long list of ideas. This suggests that novice researchers can find inspiration by consulting with a more experienced researcher (e.g., students can consult a faculty member). But they can also find inspiration by picking up a copy of almost any professional journal and reading the titles and abstracts. In one typical issue of  Psychological Science , for example, you can find articles on the perception of shapes, anti-Semitism, police lineups, the meaning of death, second-language learning, people who seek negative emotional experiences, and many other topics. If you can narrow your interests down to a particular topic (e.g., memory) or domain (e.g., health care), you can also look through more specific journals, such as  Memory & Cognition  or  Health Psychology .

Reviewing the Research Literature

Once again, one of the most common sources of inspiration is previous research. Therefore, it is important to review the literature early in the research process. Reviewing the research literature means finding, reading, and summarizing the published research relevant to your topic of interest. In addition to helping you discover new research questions, reviewing the literature early in the research process can help you in several other ways.

• It can tell you if a research question has already been answered.
• It can help you evaluate the interestingness of a research question.
• It can give you ideas for how to conduct your own study.
• It can tell you how your study fits into the research literature.

The  research literature  in any field is all the published research in that field. The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, websites, and similar sources that are intended mainly for the general public. These are considered unreliable because they are not reviewed by other researchers and are often based on little more than common sense or personal experience. Wikipedia contains much valuable information, but the fact that its authors are anonymous and may not have any formal training or expertise in that subject area, and its content continually changes makes it unsuitable as a basis of sound scientific research. For our purposes, it helps to define the research literature as consisting almost entirely of two types of sources: articles in professional journals, and scholarly books in psychology and related fields.

Professional Journals

Professional journals  are periodicals that publish original research articles. There are thousands of professional journals that publish research in psychology and related fields. They are usually published monthly or quarterly in individual issues, each of which contains several articles. The issues are organized into volumes, which usually consist of all the issues for a calendar year. Some journals are published in hard copy only, others in both hard copy and electronic form, and still others in electronic form only.

Most articles in professional journals are one of two basic types: empirical research reports and review articles.  Empirical research reports  describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors. They introduce a research question, explain why it is interesting, review previous research, describe their method and results, and draw their conclusions. Review articles  summarize previously published research on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results. When a review article is devoted primarily to presenting a new theory, it is often referred to as a theoretical article .

Figure 2.2 Small Sample of the Thousands of Professional Journals That Publish Research in Psychology and Related Fields

Most professional journals in psychology undergo a process of  double-blind peer review . Researchers who want to publish their work in the journal submit a manuscript to the editor—who is generally an established researcher too—who in turn sends it to two or three experts on the topic. Each reviewer reads the manuscript, writes a critical but constructive review, and sends the review back to the editor along with his or her recommendations. The editor then decides whether to accept the article for publication, ask the authors to make changes and resubmit it for further consideration, or reject it outright. In any case, the editor forwards the reviewers’ written comments to the researchers so that they can revise their manuscript accordingly. This entire process is double-blind, as the reviewers do not know the identity of the researcher(s) and vice versa. Double-blind peer review is helpful because it ensures that the work meets basic standards of the field before it can enter the research literature. However, in order to increase transparency and accountability, some newer open access journals (e.g., Frontiers in Psychology) utilize an open peer review process wherein the identities of the reviewers (which remain concealed during the peer review process) are published alongside the journal article.

Scholarly Books

Scholarly books  are books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and practitioners. A  monograph  is written by a single author or a small group of authors and usually, gives a coherent presentation of a topic much like an extended review article.  Edited volumes have an editor or a small group of editors who recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic. Although edited volumes can also give a coherent presentation of the topic, it is not unusual for each chapter to take a different perspective or even for the authors of different chapters to openly disagree with each other. In general, scholarly books undergo a peer review process similar to that used by professional journals.

Literature Search Strategies

Using psycinfo and other databases.

The primary method used to search the research literature involves using one or more electronic databases. These include Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ProQuest for all academic disciplines, ERIC for education, and PubMed for medicine and related fields. The most important for our purposes, however, is PsycINFO, which is produced by the American Psychological Association (APA). PsycINFO is so comprehensive—covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100 years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology. Like most such databases, PsycINFO is usually available through your university library.

PsycINFO consists of individual records for each article, book chapter, or book in the database. Each record includes basic publication information, an abstract or summary of the work (like the one presented at the start of this chapter), and a list of other works cited by that work. A computer interface allows entering one or more search terms and returns any records that contain those search terms. (These interfaces are provided by different vendors and therefore can look somewhat different depending on the library you use.) Each record also contains lists of keywords that describe the content of the work and also a list of index terms. The index terms are especially helpful because they are standardized. Research on differences between women and men, for example, is always indexed under “Human Sex Differences.” Research on note-taking is always indexed under the term “Learning Strategies.” If you do not know the appropriate index terms, PsycINFO includes a thesaurus that can help you find them.

Given that there are nearly four million records in PsycINFO, you may have to try a variety of search terms in different combinations and at different levels of specificity before you find what you are looking for. Imagine, for example, that you are interested in the question of whether women and men differ in terms of their ability to recall experiences from when they were very young. If you were to enter “memory for early experiences” as your search term, PsycINFO would return only six records, most of which are not particularly relevant to your question. However, if you were to enter the search term “memory,” it would return 149,777 records—far too many to look through individually. This is where the thesaurus helps. Entering “memory” into the thesaurus provides several more specific index terms—one of which is “early memories.” While searching for “early memories” among the index terms returns 1,446 records—still too many to look through individually—combining it with “human sex differences” as a second search term returns 37 articles, many of which are highly relevant to the topic.

Reading in print? Scan this QR code to view the video on your mobile device. Or go to https://youtu.be/fhhctbaVXvk

Depending on the vendor that provides the interface to PsycINFO, you may be able to save, print, or e-mail the relevant PsycINFO records. The records might even contain links to full-text copies of the works themselves. (PsycARTICLES is a database that provides full-text access to articles in all journals published by the APA.) If not, and you want a copy of the work, you will have to find out if your library carries the journal or has the book and the hard copy on the library shelves. Be sure to ask a librarian if you need help.

Using Other Search Techniques

Reading in print? Scan this QR code to view the video on your mobile device. Or go to https://youtu.be/t1ZwgDeX2eQ

In addition to entering search terms into PsycINFO and other databases, there are several other techniques you can use to search the research literature. First, if you have one good article or book chapter on your topic—a recent review article is best—you can look through the reference list of that article for other relevant articles, books, and book chapters. In fact, you should do this with any relevant article or book chapter you find. You can also start with a classic article or book chapter on your topic, find its record in PsycINFO (by entering the author’s name or article’s title as a search term), and link from there to a list of other works in PsycINFO that cite that classic article. This works because other researchers working on your topic are likely to be aware of the classic article and cite it in their own work. You can also do a general Internet search using search terms related to your topic or the name of a researcher who conducts research on your topic. This might lead you directly to works that are part of the research literature (e.g., articles in open-access journals or posted on researchers’ own websites). The search engine Google Scholar is especially useful for this purpose. A general Internet search might also lead you to websites that are not part of the research literature but might provide references to works that are. Finally, you can talk to people (e.g., your instructor or other faculty members in psychology) who know something about your topic and can suggest relevant articles and book chapters.

What to Search For

When you do a literature review, you need to be selective. Not every article, book chapter, and book that relates to your research idea or question will be worth obtaining, reading, and integrating into your review. Instead, you want to focus on sources that help you do four basic things: (a) refine your research question, (b) identify appropriate research methods, (c) place your research in the context of previous research, and (d) write an effective research report. Several basic principles can help you find the most useful sources.

First, it is best to focus on recent research, keeping in mind that what counts as recent depends on the topic. For newer topics that are actively being studied, “recent” might mean published in the past year or two. For older topics that are receiving less attention right now, “recent” might mean within the past 10 years. You will get a feel for what counts as recent for your topic when you start your literature search. A good general rule, however, is to start with sources published in the past five years. The main exception to this rule would be classic articles that turn up in the reference list of nearly every other source. If other researchers think that this work is important, even though it is old, then, by all means, you should include it in your review.

Second, you should look for review articles on your topic because they will provide a useful overview of it—often discussing important definitions, results, theories, trends, and controversies—giving you a good sense of where your own research fits into the literature. You should also look for empirical research reports addressing your question or similar questions, which can give you ideas about how to operationally define your variables and collect your data. As a general rule, it is good to use methods that others have already used successfully unless you have good reasons not to. Finally, you should look for sources that provide information that can help you argue for the interestingness of your research question. For a study on the effects of cell phone use on driving ability, for example, you might look for information about how widespread cell phone use is, how frequent and costly motor vehicle crashes are, and so on.

How many sources are enough for your literature review? This is a difficult question because it depends on how extensively your topic has been studied and also on your own goals. One study found that across a variety of professional journals in psychology, the average number of sources cited per article was about 50 (Adair & Vohra, 2003) [3] . This gives a rough idea of what professional researchers consider to be adequate. As a student, you might be assigned a much lower minimum number of references to include, but the principles for selecting the most useful ones remain the same.

Key Takeaways

• The research literature in psychology is all the published research in psychology, consisting primarily of articles in professional journals and scholarly books.
• Early in the research process, it is important to conduct a review of the research literature on your topic to refine your research question, identify appropriate research methods, place your question in the context of other research, and prepare to write an effective research report.
• There are several strategies for finding previous research on your topic. Among the best is using PsycINFO, a computer database that catalogs millions of articles, books, and book chapters in psychology and related fields.
• Practice: Use the techniques discussed in this section to find 10 journal articles and book chapters on one of the following research ideas: memory for smells, aggressive driving, the causes of narcissistic personality disorder, the functions of the intraparietal sulcus, or prejudice against the physically handicapped.
• Watch the following video clip produced by UBCiSchool about how to read an academic paper (without losing your mind):

Reading in print? Scan this QR code to view the video on your mobile device. Or go to https://youtu.be/SKxm2HF_-k0

• Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius . New York, NY: Freeman. ↵
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 , 371–378. ↵
• Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58 , 15–23. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015

• Open access
• Published: 23 June 2021
• Volume 126 , pages 9699–9731, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Oliver Wieczorek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6504-0965 1 , 2 ,
• Saïd Unger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1266-2055 3 ,
• Jan Riebling 4 ,
• Lukas Erhard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4977-2947 4 ,
• Christian Koß 3 &
• Raphael Heiberger 3  

9193 Accesses

11 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We map the topic structure of psychology utilizing a sample of over 500,000 abstracts of research articles and conference proceedings spanning two decades (1995–2015). To do so, we apply structural topic models to examine three research questions: (i) What are the discipline’s most prevalent research topics? (ii) How did the scientific discourse in psychology change over the last decades, especially since the advent of neurosciences? (iii) And was this change carried by high impact (HI) or less prestigious journals? Our results reveal that topics related to natural sciences are trending, while their ’counterparts’ leaning to humanities are declining in popularity. Those trends are even more pronounced in the leading outlets of the field. Furthermore, our findings indicate a continued interest in methodological topics accompanied by the ascent of neurosciences and related methods and technologies (e.g. fMRI’s). At the same time, other established approaches (e.g. psychoanalysis) become less popular and indicate a relative decline of topics related to the social sciences and the humanities.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Historically, psychology has been a discipline characterized by a high degree of internal differentiation between basic, applied, and clinical branches (Brennan and Houde 2017 ) which still exists today (Gaj 2016 ). This internal differentiation is driven by exchanges between the different branches of psychology with the natural sciences (e.g. evolutionary biology), or social sciences such as economics, political science, and sociology (Marshall 2009 ; Morf 2018 ; Schwartz et al. 2016 ). More recently, psychology witnessed the advent of neurosciences and the advance of technological devices such as the fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) (Marshall 2009 ; Yeung et al. 2017b ). Consequently, the fMRI has led to new ways how to study the linkage between the mind and the brain, and is now widely applied in clinical branches of psychology (Berman et al. 2006 ; Fairburn and Patel 2017 ; Schwartz et al. 2016 ; Brennan and Houde 2017 ; Toomela 2019 ).

Despite the well-documented changes, it is not well understood how topics become established in the psychological discourse and whether this change is carried by high impact journals or less prestigious journals. While some studies with a focus on different disciplines stress the importance of the former (Kwiek 2020 ; Yeung et al. 2017a ), others emphasize the role of mainstream and low-impact journals (Münch 2014 ; Yeung 2018 ), and interdisciplinarity for changes in the scientific discourse (Leahey and Moody 2014 ). Our goal is to contribute to the literature by providing an overview of the diverse landscape of psychology and mapping changes in its discourse. In order to do so, we ask:

What are the discipline’s most prevalent research topics?

How did the scientific discourse in psychology change over the last decades, especially since the advent of neurosciences?

And was this change carried by high impact (HI) or less prestigious journals?

These questions cannot be answered by individual accounts, since scientists’ views tend to be shaped by their own disciplinary experience and academic environment. The psychological discourse is simply too broad to comprehend for individual scholars, “that an entire team of researchers working for several years could only map a fraction of all the texts, transcripts, or archives that define them” (Bail 2014 , 469). Fortunately, computational linguistics provides the means to reconstruct the history of a field (Anderson et al. 2012 ; Munoz-Najar Galvez et al. 2020 ), explain scientists’ choice of research strategy (Foster et al. 2015 ), and model scientific discovery (Shi et al. 2015 ). A central feature of computational linguistics is the development of impersonal and automatic procedures that offer a more objective and top-down view compared with earlier attempts to map academic fields by insiders (Buurma 2015 , 3).

We apply structural topic models (STMs) (Roberts et al. 2014 ) to a dataset consisting of 528, 488 abstracts of published journal articles and conference proceedings to provide answers for the three questions raised and to approximate psychology as a field. STMs allow us to reduce the high-dimensional space of research themes in a reproducible way and, hence, to extract the meaning inherent in a large corpus of psychological research.

In order to map the topic structure of psychology and its flux over time, our paper is structured as follows: We discuss the rich literature on how psychology is organized as a scientific discipline in sect.  2 . We proceed with the introduction of our dataset, cleaning procedures of the textual data, and our methodological approach in sect.  3 . The results on the changing landscape of research topics are presented in sect.  4 . We close with discussing the limitations and future direction of research in sect.  5 .

Literature review

Current debates regarding the state of psychology revolve mostly around questions of its multidisciplinarity and potential common ground in psychology and its subfields (Brennan and Houde 2017 ; Gentner 2010 ; Henriques 2017 ; Jackson 2017 ; Joseph 2017 ; Kaplan 2015 ; Marshall 2009 ; Melchert 2016 ; Miller 2010 ; Tryon 2017 ; Toomela 2019 ; Zagaria et al. 2020 ). Specifically, Melchert ( 2016 ) criticizes that the internal differentiation of psychology hinders the accumulation of reliable knowledge on the human psyche. Instead, he envisions psychology as a “unified clinical science” under the lead of cognitive sciences, neurosciences, and evolutionary biology. At the same time, other psychologists emphasize that it is precisely this diversity that contributes to advances in knowledge about the many facets of the human psyche (Jackson 2017 ; Joseph 2017 ; Miller 2010 ).

Despite this debate, few studies so far attempted to map the scientific discourse of psychology comprehensively. For example, Krampen et al. ( 2011 ) tried to forecast research trends in psychology using data provided by PsycINFO and PSYNDEX from 1977 to 2008. They assigned journal abstract data to the APA subject classification scheme and forecasted a relative decline in developmental psychology, methodology and statistics, organizational psychology with a focus on management, clinical psychology with a focus on psychotherapy, family psychology, and environmental psychology. Using the same data source, Krampen ( 2016 ) reports a decline of publications dealing with the history of psychology and thus self-reflexive studies on the discipline of psychology, whereas Krampen and Trierweiler ( 2016 ) uncovered increasing epistemic ties between psychology and the natural sciences that evolved from the 1920s onward. Flis and van Eck ( 2018 ) conducted an analysis of term co-occurence in titles and abstracts of 673,393 psychology articles published between 1950 and 1999 listed in PsycINFO. Their findings show a schism between experimental and physical psychology on the one hand, and applied psychology consisting of educational psychology, social psychology, as well as research on personality and clinical psychology on the other hand. Psychologists in the former domain apply experiments to investigate a limited number of treatment effects. In contrast, psychologists conducting research in the ‘applied’ branches ideal-typically rely on methods like correlation analysis or structural equation modeling. In this sense, the findings of Flis and van Eck ( 2018 ) empirically validate the observation of Cronbach ( 1957 ), who described an entrenchment between “experimentalists” and psychologists aligned to “correlational methods”.

Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation, Bittermann and Fischer ( 2018 ) studied the emergence of “hot topics” in psychology in German-speaking countries from 1980 to 2016. Based on 314, 573 English and German article abstracts listed in PSYNDEX and relying on the APA Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms , they investigated associations between topics uncovered and the terms provided by the thesaurus. Their findings indicate a redefinition of theoretical concepts over time in addition to a different application of these concepts across domains of psychology.

Benjafield ( 2019 ) investigated the most salient keywords in anglophone psychology from 1887 to 2014. His findings suggest that keywords associated with the emergence of psychological paradigms are widely used over extended periods of time. These keywords include “learning”, “perception”, “memory”, “motor”, “personality”, “performance”, “program” and “schizophrenia” among others. Based on the analysis of shared scientific vocabulary between different disciplines, the findings of Benjafield ( 2020 ) provide empirical evidence for a shift in psychology towards the natural sciences, concluding that:

[...] much of what we now call psychology may end up being part of biology [...]. The remainder may coalesce around the study of aspects of the person that are not easily reducible to biology and consequently may develop stronger affiliations with the humanities. (Benjafield 2020 , 15)

Furthermore, studies have demonstrated increasing alignments with the natural sciences for various subfields of psychology. For example, an examination of topics in sport and exercise psychology journals between 2008 and 2011 suggests a relative dominance of research on motivation with links to cognitive science and intersections between sport and health psychology (Lindahl et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, they identified isolated research areas such as “behavioral change, physical activity, and health”, “performance, anxiety, and chocking”, and “talent development and expertise”. Preckel and Krampen ( 2016 ) analyzed PSYNDEX data of research on highly gifted and mentally impaired persons issued between 1980 and 2014. They note a dramatic increase in research on gifted students since the 2000s and a growing number of empirically oriented papers. Kaplan ( 2015 ) identifies two distinct research cultures in educational psychology: Post-positivists who apply quantitative methods, and interpretative researchers using mainly qualitative methodology. In his view, the former is aligned to the natural sciences and increasingly endorsed as the sole legitimate paradigm in educational psychology due to the possibility to replicate experimental findings. At the same time, interpretative research is increasingly marginalized because its findings are harder to reproduce and do not presuppose universal laws of the psyche.

Moreover, studies show an increasing influence of neurosciences on the psychological discourse. Yeung et al. ( 2017b ) reveal neuroscience research to be increasingly important in the domains of behavioral sciences, geriatrics and gerontology and – especially – psychology. Methodologically, Yeung et al. ( 2017a ) note that statistical, computational, and technical approaches aligned with neurosciences are increasingly common in HI-journals. These methods are related to topics such as physiology, motor function, anatomy, aging, social neuroscience, and language and learning. Interestingly, a significant share of highly influential neurosciences papers (measured in citation rates) were not published in high impact journals and indicate the importance of other journals for the dissemination of novel insights (Yeung and Ho 2018 ).

Taken together, the findings provided by previous research indicate firstly an occurring shift towards the natural sciences primarily driven by neurosciences and cognitive sciences. Second, experimental methods and the use of fMRIs and other advanced imaging devices increasingly exert influence on the psychological discourse. Finally, it remains unclear whether the changes in the psychological discourse towards the natural sciences are driven by publications in HI or mainstream journals.

Data and methods

We utilize the Web of Science database to describe the research discourses in psychology, to map the landscape of psychological topics discussed in HI journals and mainstream journals as well as conference proceedings, and the changes over time. We queried the Web of Science database in September 2018 and downloaded all abstracts associated with at least one of the following Web of Science categories: “Psychology”, “Psychology, Psychoanalysis”, “Psychology, Multidisciplinary”, “Psychology, Experimental”, “Psychology, Clinical”, “Psychology, Educational”, “Psychology, Mathematical”, “Psychology, Social”, “Psychology, Developmental”, “Psychology, Biological”, “Psychology, Applied”. We then excluded all non-English abstracts. In total, our corpus included 528, 488 abstracts, stemming from articles published in 642 psychology outlets and 709 conference proceedings (1, 351 items in total).

As is common in quantitative text analysis, the acquired data needed to be prepared and cleaned. In a first step, we removed all stopwords like “in”, “and”, “or”, “the”. Following this, we tokenized and lemmatized the words Footnote 1 . Lemmatization is a common step in NLP to reduce different forms of a word (e.g., singular and plural) to a common base form. As a last preprocessing step, we concatenated bigrams appearing more than 50 times to detect phrases like “factor_analysis” or “statistical_significant” in our abstract data (Blaheta and Johnson 2001 ).

Working with large amounts of texts is a long-standing issue in the field of information retrieval (e.g. Billhardt et al. 2002 ). The main idea is to summarize a corpus of documents by reducing their dimensions, but to keep, at the same time, most of its relevant information. One popular branch of information retrieval is topic modeling (Jordan and Mitchell 2015 ), where a set of documents is assigned to meaningful themes (i.e. “topics”). Topics are directly derived from the documents by probabilistic algorithms and consist of words that co-occur across documents.

In so-called generative models, each topic is seen as a probability distribution across all words of a given language, describing the likelihood for a word to be chosen to be part of a certain topic (Blei et al. 2003 ; Griffiths and Steyvers 2004 ). Since this likelihood is independent of the position of the word in a text it is sometimes referred to as a “bag-of-words” representation of documents. Although this assumption is clearly not realistic (e.g. grammar is ignored), it has been proven to be very reliable in practical applications (DiMaggio et al. 2013 ; McFarland et al. 2013 ).

In this paper, we use a recently developed variety of probabilistic topic models called Structural Topic Models (STMs) by Roberts et al. ( 2014 ). Its key feature is to enable researchers to utilize document metadata (e.g. year) to improve the estimation of topics. Including the publication date has proven to be especially useful for longer time periods and changing discourses (Farrell 2016 ). It has been shown that the incorporation of additional covariates as “a way of ‘structuring’ the prior distributions in the topic model” improves the topic quality substantially (Roberts et al. 2016 , 1067). We follow this example and use the year of each document as a covariate in our models.

These improvements notwithstanding, the STM requires a researcher to make a decision on the number of topics ( k ) although the number of relevant themes is not known a priori. Insufficient numbers render models coarse, an excessive number could result in a model that is too complex. This is a widely recognized issue in topic modeling (e.g. Chang et al. 2009 ). To validate the number of topics, we first utilize two commonly used metrics, semantic coherence and exclusivity (Mimno et al. 2011 ; Roberts et al. 2014 ). Semantic coherence addresses whether a topic is internally consistent by calculating the frequency with which high probability topic words tend to co-occur in documents. However, semantic coherence alone can be misleading since high values can simply be obtained by very common words of a topic that occur together in most documents. To account for the desired statistical discrimination between topics we consider exclusivity. It provides us with the extent to which the words of a topic are distinct to it. Considering the optimum trade-off between exclusivity and coherence, we seek for a ‘plateau’, i.e., steps where coherence is not decreasing and, at the same time, exclusivity is not improving. We find such a range for \(k=(90,100)\) (cf. Fig. 5 in Appendix 1 ) Footnote 2 .

To further analyze and label each topic, we applied a three-step qualitative interpretative design. In a first step, three scholars labeled each topic based on the ten most frequent and most specific tokens as well as the most typical abstracts. The list of these tokens was established using the FREX measure, which combines the weighted frequency with which a word occurs in the documents associated with a topic with the exclusivity of it occurring only in these documents (Bischof and Airoldi 2012 ). In a second step, two other researchers reviewed the labels given in the first step and calculated the agreement of the topic labels. The values of this agreement-measure are 0 if all topics are labeled differently, and 2 or 3 respectively if two or three labels were sufficiently similar. We did so to penalize completely different interpretations of the respective topics.

The topics were labeled sufficiently similar by 2.25 scholars on average. In sum, eleven of our 100 topics were inconsistently labeled and two were consistently identified as junk topics. The first junk topic includes notes on publishing procedures, psychological awards and information on professional associations (T30). The second consists of non-English tokens present in multilingual abstracts (T100). In the third step, the latter two researchers either assigned the topic labels according to the most agreed label or suggested a new label if all of the first three scholars disagreed on the label in the first step.

The following section addresses the three initially raised research questions. To do so, we first present the characteristics of the most prevalent, rising, and declining topics and group them thematically by clustering our findings into distinct topic groups. In sum, nine topic groups emerged from our data (see Table 1 ). We further provide the prevalence for each topic and all nine clusters. In total, we analyze 21 topics which comprise \(32.3\%\) of all tokens according to their theta values. We then proceed with analyzing differences in publication patterns in HI journals on the one hand, and mainstream journals and proceedings on the other hand. Footnote 3

Prevalence of the ten most prevalent topics across all years and documents. Each topic is represented by its most aligned words

Characteristics of the most prevalent topics

Beginning with the analysis of the ten most prevalent topics over the whole period between 1995 and 2015, we see that the most prevalent topic (psychoanalysis, topic 8) shows an average document-topic probability of \(3.38\%\) (see Fig. 1 for a depiction of the expected proportions of the ten most prevalent topics) Footnote 4 . The expected document-topic probability refers to “the mean proportion of words across the documents that are assigned to this topic” (Roberts et al. 2014 , online appendix 31).

Additionally, Table 2 provides an overview on the prevalence and FREX words of the ten most prevalent topics. This percentage seems small at first, but considering the number of 100 topics chosen for our STM, the value is considerably higher than the expected value of \(1\%\) per topic Footnote 5 .

Three areas of research stand out within the ten most prevalent topics: methodology, cognition and perception, and studies on therapy and clinical intervention.

Topics focusing on methodology included research on quantitative methods with emphasis on item response theory (T38) and psychometrics (T47). These were the two most prevalent topics, revealing an ongoing debate on the adequacy of methods used in psychology. Against this backdrop, a variety of different research designs are addressed by psychology scholars, representing the field’s methodological diversity: Regression models, e.g. multilevel-, fixed-, random- and mixed effects models, monte-carlo simulations, and model misspecifications as sources of errors (T38), as well as reliability and validity of psychometric scales (T47). Both indicate a prevalence of quantitative methods in the psychological discourse.

Studies focusing on cognition and perception are associated with cognitive theories (T29), visual perception (T1), and spatial recognition (T73). Cognitive theories focus mainly on the development of mental models, reasoning, and the theory of mind. They aim to explain cognitive misconceptions of visual stimuli and for understanding visual information processing (T1). Similar patterns emerge for research on spatial recognition (T73). Again, the tokens loading high on the topic point to experimental designs to study the ability to process information or focus on two (or more) stimuli simultaneously.

Therapy and clinical trials include two topics and highlight a drive towards applications in psychology. Topics associated with this line of research include addiction interventions (T63), and psychoanalysis (T8). Whereas the former is aligned with clinical trials and experiments as methodological underpinnings, the latter is characterized by the relation between clients and psychotherapists in addition to the application of qualitative research methods. This methodological divide shows an alignment with the natural sciences for topics 63 and 88 (clinical trials of anti depressants), and alignment with social scientific approaches for therapeutic consultation for topic 8.

Three further topics are among the ten most prevalent which are representatives of distinct groups of topics discussed in more detail in the following sections. These are response reinforcement (T49), group theory (T80), and working memory (T85). The first topic focuses on animal experimentation, reinforced learning and conditioning and belongs to a topic cluster identified as behaviorism and animal experiments . The topic group theory covers concepts related to status formation, stereotypes, discrimination, and social identity. Hereby, a topic cluster is established that revolves around group dynamics . The last topic, working memory , belongs to a topic cluster centered on learning and memorization . Research belonging to this topic relies on experiments to measure performance on memorization tasks and information processing while being distracted or confronted with two or more types of information simultaneously. These topics specifically focus more strongly on experiments and a have a strong connection towards natural sciences.

Overall, applied, theoretical, and methodological topics are represented in similar proportions in the ten most prevalent topics during the study period.

The 10 most trending (upper echelon) and, respectively, declining topics (lower echelon)

Changes in psychological discourse

In order to analyze the changes in psychological discourse, we apply linear regression to illustrate the general (linear) trend of a subject over time and define the rise and decline of topics by the slope of their prevalence across time Footnote 6 . It is important to mention that this neither accounts for short-term changes at the beginning or end of the time frames, nor does it consider non-linear trends in the topics prevalence. While this is a clear limitation of our research design, it is also necessary to highlight the general trends in topic prevalence. Using a non-linear trend would be preferable, yet it would require a formal theory of semantic drifting in order to predict the amount of uptake or downturn one could expect on average. At the point of writing it is not clear if something like this would even be possible.

In order to make the changes in the psychological discourse more comparable, only the ten most declining as well as the ten topics with the steepest rise are considered to illustrate the changes in the discourse of psychology. The restriction to only focus on the Top 10 only is somewhat arbitrary, since we could just as well selected only nine or even eleven. However, since any other choice on the matter would be just as arbitrary and because we want to depict the overall changes, we chose a subset which we find to be illustrative.

Trending topics

There are topics discussed in psychology outlets that are gaining ground over time or witness relative decline in prominence (see Fig. 2 ). In this regard, Table 3 provides information on topic prevalence, FREX words and slopes of the ten trending topics.

Turning to trending topics, we see a mixture of topics associated with cognitive science, addictive and mental disorders, life satisfaction and motivation on the rise. Furthermore, there is some overlap between the highest trending and the most prevalent topics, namely addiction interventions (T63) and spatial recognition (T73). We also witness the ascent of brain imaging techniques (T54) within psychology outlets from 1995 ( \(\sim 0.5\%\) ) to 2015 ( \(\sim 1.6\%\) share on all publications). In fact, T54 shows the steepest slope of all trending topics and signals the rise of neuroscience topics in psychology. The topic brain imaging techniques is characterized by biological terms related to different areas of the brain, and by tokens related to brain imaging techniques such as the fMRI. As it does not fit into the previously introduced and discussed topic clusters, neurosciences emerge as a separate topic cluster from our data.

Looking on the other trending topics, we see a debate on regression models (T21), life satisfaction (T69) in general, the impact of chronic illnesses and quality of life (T76), research on obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and autism (T51), smoking behavior (T52), motivation (T67) and facial recognition (T3) gaining momentum. With this in mind, we are able to expand our topic clusters by either adding topics to already established clusters or by introducing new groups of topics.

Beginning with the former, we are able to add regression models (T21) to the methodology topic cluster. The tokens associated with this topic suggest that associated studies deal with predictive power of regression models, regression techniques in general, mediator effects and structural equation modeling. Albeit not as prevalent as our more general topics on quantitative methods and psychometrics , the topic of regression models indicate an ongoing interest in the refinement of classical statistical methods.

Facial recognition (T3) belongs to the cognition and perception topic cluster. It is associated with studies using experimental designs, and focus on ethnic discrimination based on skin color and facial expression of minorities. In contrast to the other, more prevalent topics belonging to the same topic cluster, facial recognition is more applied and aligned to social issues.

Turning to the clinical studies and clinical interventions topic cluster, we are able to append topic 51 dealing with OCD and autism . Topic 51 deals with conditions correlating to OCD and related disorders such as learning disabilities and accompanying character traits (e.g. hyperactivity or repetitive behavior patterns). It addresses a specialized and thematically limited subfield of psychology and by doing so distinguishes itself from the more prevalent and more general topics in the clinical studies and clinical interventions-cluster.

Moreover, we are able to add two additional topic clusters based on the remaining four topics. The first is labeled quality of life and includes life satisfaction (T69) and chronic illness and quality of life (T76). The former topic (T69) deals with the impact of positive thinking and positive events on short-term and long-term life satisfaction. Additionally, it covers subjective definitions of a “good life” and explores the relationship between character traits and life satisfaction. The latter topic (T76) sheds light on the relation between physical and mental health with a particular focus on chronic diseases. In contrast to the former, more biological terms are related to chronic illnesses and quality of life compared to life satisfaction , unveiling the mind-body dualism still present in psychology (Brennan and Houde 2017 ).

The second new topic cluster was labeled as addiction and self-regulative behavior and includes motivation (T67) and smoking (T52). Motivation deals with issues of procrastination, time usage and leisure time, and the investigation of different types of motivation (e.g. intrinsic or extrinsic motivation). Beyond that, it is discussed what types of self-regulative behaviors are negatively associated with procrastination. Smoking focuses on the reasons for adolescents to start and ways to quit smoking. This topic also deals with self-regulative behavior and its association with smoking patterns, relapse, and mental health problems associated with smoking patterns.

Overall, we see specialized, applied and thematically driven topics gaining ground in psychology. Methodologically, these topics are aligned with experimental designs and classical statistical methods such as regression techniques.

Declining topics

Now that we witnessed neurosciences, applied as well as rather specialized topics gaining prevalence as against other topics in psychology, which topics are in decline and what are their characteristics compared to trending topics?

At first glance, we observe a more or less continuous decline of six prevalent topics, namely visual perception (T1), quantitative methods with focus on item response theory (T38), psychometrics (T47), and response reinforcement / behavioral experiments (T49), psychoanalysis (T8), and cognition theory (T29). Of these topics, psychoanalysis witnessed the steepest decline. This however does not imply a fall from grace as seen in the still sizable prevalence of the psychoanalysis topic (T8). Besides the topics mentioned above, we witness a relative decline of memory loss disorders (T7), quantitative methods (validity) (T75), animal experiments (diet) (T41) and animal testing (T41). Table 4 gives an overview on the ten declining topics, their prevalence, FREX terms, and slopes.

Similar to the trending topics, we are able to assign additional topics to the thematic clusters. First of all, we can assign memory loss disorders (T7) to the topic cluster learning and memorization . In contrast to topic working memory (T85), it deals with cognitive impairment following Alzheimer’s disease, different forms of dementia and Parkinson’s disease. It further links memory loss disorders with clinical studies or biological descriptions of their effects on the brain, memorization and motor abilities.

Secondly, quantitative methods (validity) (T75) seems to fall straight into the already established methodology cluster. This topic deals with psychometric issues related to experiments and questionnaires, e.g. recall or information retrieval in item scales. It complements psychometrics insofar, as it focuses on the participants’ abilities to answer items correctly and to recall information. Furthermore, the topic quantitative methods (validity) is characterized by the absence of tokens related to prediction and model specifications. Therefore, the topic cluster reveals that the methodological discourse in psychology seems to focus increasingly on objective measurements and model specifications.

At last, we can assign animal experiment (diet) (T41) and animal testing (T96) to the behaviorism and animal experimentation topic cluster. Animal experiments on diet are characterized by tokens stemming from biology. The experiments described focus on the effects of diets and nutrition intake (or lack thereof) on the animals’ bodies. Furthermore, behavioral changes related to modifications of food intake are discussed. At last, animal testing involves the study on the effects of drugs and medication on the subjects’ bodies. Beside the physical effects, the impact of drugs and medication on task performance, regular behavior, and memorization were tested.

Insofar, both topics differ substantially from response reinforcement . They focus on physical reactions and the impact of administered substances instead of programming and learning of behavior. Also, both topics are more concerned with the description of the effects administered drugs and medication or forced dietary changes have on the animals’ bodies. This clearly sets them apart from response reinforcement with their focus on the explanation of learning behavior. We therefore see a divide among topics concerned with description and explanation with the former in decline.

The division of topics in high impact journals and mainstream journals

Differentiating most trending topics in psychology by HI and mainstream journals and conference proceedings

Differentiating most declining topics in psychology by HI and mainstream journals and conference proceedings

Not all contributions to the knowledge base in psychology are published in equally visible journals. Prior studies in the field of higher education research suggest differences in the spread of disciplinary knowledge depending on journal prestige (Kwiek 2020 ; Yeung et al. 2017a ). It is therefore reasonable to assume that topics with the ability to shape an entire academic discipline are mainly discussed in HI journals. However, as Münch ( 2014 ) and Yeung ( 2018 ) suggest, new and innovative topics may be discussed in rather marginalized outlets and have the ability to subvert the disciplinary discourse.

With this in mind, we take a closer look at trending and declining topics and their representation in HI and mainstream journals. We define the ten journals with the highest journal impact factor related to psychology according to the Web of Science database as HI journals. In this regard, Fig. 3 decomposes the changes in prevalence over time for the ten trending topics and their appearance in high impact journals (orange line) versus mainstream journals (blue line). The same is shown in Fig. 4 for declining topics.

Regarding trending and declining topics, we see two patterns emerge. Firstly, there are topics, whose growth is primarily driven by growing shares in publications in HI journals. The same applies for declining topics. Secondly, we find topics, where the gain or loss in prevalence is driven in equal parts by HI and mainstream journals. Beginning with trending topics, we see brain imaging (T54) and addiction interventions (T63) to belong to the first category. These findings signal not only growing prevalence, but also importance and ascribed quality within the psychological discourse.

On the other hand, psychoanalysis (T8) witnesses a decline in prevalence, mainly driven by a loss in prevalence in HI journals at the end of our observation period. This finding indicates that psychoanalysis with its focus on the interaction between therapist and client does not match the current trend in psychological research with its growing emphasis on objectivity and approaches aligned to the natural sciences.

Discussion and conclusion

Our paper explores the scholarly discourse held in psychology outlets and provides a descriptive overview of the topics that inform psychological research and its changing discourse over the last two decades. The most remarkable result is that psychology appears to head towards an application oriented, clinical discipline with a growing focus on brain imaging techniques (e.g., fMRI) and approaches closely aligned to neurosciences and cognitive sciences. This development is reflected in the rising prevalence of clinical trials, cognitive sciences, neurosciences, cognitive psychology and studies addressing quality of life issues. On the one hand, this concurs with Melchert’s ( 2016 ) vision of psychology as a unified clinical science under the lead of neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and evolutionary biology. On the other hand, our analysis also shows that the multiparadigmatic roots of psychology described by Brennan and Houde ( 2017 ) and criticized by Gentner ( 2010 ) or Melchert ( 2016 ) are still present today. This resonates with Jackson ( 2017 ), Henriques ( 2017 ), and Tryon ( 2017 ), who advocate for diversity in psychology in order to study phenomena as comprehensively as possible.

Our findings reveal an internal hierarchy of different domains which align with natural sciences as more popular and social sciences / humanities as less popular factions. This becomes particularly visible in the growth of neurosciences in the psychological discourse, which was published above average in HI journals. As indicated by Yeung et al. ( 2017a ), neuroscience research fell on fertile ground in psychology and was able to connect to already existing research in the domain of cognition sciences and cognitive psychology. This corroborates the findings of Gentner ( 2010 ) and Schwartz et al. ( 2016 ) that the neurosciences substantially contribute to the mind-body duality debate in psychology.

Furthermore, our paper provides evidence for the decreasing alignment between psychology and the humanities on the one hand, and an increase in relevance of the natural sciences (Krampen 2016 ; Krampen and Trierweiler 2016 ). This is especially true for the neurosciences and cognitive sciences as examined by Yeung ( 2018 ) and Yeung and Ho ( 2018 ). This substantiates previous findings of Benjafield ( 2020 ), who noted that psychology might end up either as part of biology or a divided discipline, whereby this division occurs in both basic research and clinical applications.

However, our findings do not support the forecast of Krampen et al. ( 2011 ). Albeit we found a decrease in the coverage of psychoanalysis and some areas of quantitative methods, we found growing prevalence of organizational psychology and coverage of regression techniques and methodology aligned to the neurosciences. Changes in the foundations of psychology seem to be carried by HI- and mainstream journals, albeit the topic proportions indicate no dominance of one particular branch of psychology.

Our study is, of course, prone to a number of limitations. Firstly, we rely on the Web of Science database and the pre-defined category of psychology. This is mostly due to the wider accessibility of the data. An alternative approach would have been to rely on the PsycINFO database. PsycINFO covers 2, 307 journals with a total of 2, 434, 849 publications issued between 1995 and 2015 in contrast to our 528, 488 abstracts, of which 487.816 are available in both databases Footnote 7 . Our sample therefore covered \(20.03\%\) of the abstracts available on PsycINFO between 1995 and 2015. Secondly, these numbers indicate that systematic errors may occur due to our use of the Web of Science database. For example, the inclusion of abstracts issued in journal articles and conference proceedings could lead to over- or underestimation of topics as well as their actual change over time. Thirdly, given the interdisciplinary nature of neuroscience and its strong connection to biology and life sciences, a significant amount of the associated research would not be included in our dataset. Future studies could address these three problems by using the PsycINFO database. Since it is curated by the APA, it is the most comprehensive and accurate database that may be used to conduct scientometric studies on psychology.

Despite these limitations, our study provides insights into how topics change over time depending on their coverage in HI and mainstream journals. In this vein, future studies could investigate how neurosciences and applied clinical branches of psychology spread into other branches of psychology. Taking a closer look at interdisciplinary areas between psychology and other disciplines could therefore shed light on the question whether dominated or marginalized methods and paradigms are transferred to other disciplines, such as the social sciences. Finally, we encourage scholars to investigate the overlap between PsycINFO, Web of Science and other databases as an avenue for future research. A replication study could thus, for example, map nuances in topic development not captured in the dataset obtained in Web of Science. Such a comparison can contribute insights into how individual subject areas (such as psychology) are delimited in the respective databases and what impact the respective definition has on the topics discussed in the discipline according to topic modeling approaches.

To remove stopwords we used the snowball stopword list from the stopwords package in R (Benoit et al. 2020 ), and custom wordlists containing (1) time related words (“year”, “january”, etc.), (2) numeral related words (“one”, “tenth”, etc.), and (3) miscellaneous subject related words (“examine”, “study”, etc.). The lemmatization was achieved through the ‘lemmatize_words’ function of the R package ‘textstem’ (Rinker 2018 ). The abstracts were tokenized into words through the ‘tokenize_words’ function of the R package ‘tokenizers’ (Mullen et al. 2018 ).

Please note that across all evaluated numbers of topics we find a high consistency of topic-document assignments (further details are discussed in "Appendix 1 ").

We denoted the ten journals with the highest impact factor in 2018 as HI journals. These include Annual Review of Psychology , Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Psychological Bulletin , Trends in Cognitive Sciences , Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , Psychological Inquiry , Clinical Psychology Review , and Personality and Social Psychology Review .

Note that junk topic 30 dealing with APA and publication issues is even more prevalent, but without meaning for our analysis. Because of this we decided to exclude it from our analysis.

The expected average document-topic probability is calculated by 1/ k .

The changes over time were significant for each topic except topics 6 (teamwork), 13 (memory), 23 (animal communication), and 58 (neurotransmitters). A full account of the significance of change in topic proportion, intercept and slope is given in "Appendix 2 ".

A comparison between our sample and PsycINFO is provided in "Appendix 3 ".

Anderson, A., McFarland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2012). Towards a computational history of the ACL: 1980-2008. In Proceedings of the ACL-2012 special workshop on rediscovering 50 years of discoveries, association for computational linguistics (pp. 13–21).

Arora, S., Ge, R., Halpern, Y., Mimno, D., Moitra, A., Sontag, D., et al. (2013). A practical algorithm for topic modeling with provable guarantees. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 280–288).

Bail, C. A. (2014). The cultural environment: Measuring culture with big data. Theory and Society, 43 (3–4), 465–482.

Google Scholar  

Benjafield, J. G. (2019). Keyword frequencies in anglophone psychology. Scientometrics, 118 (3), 1051–1064.

Benjafield, J. G. (2020). Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences. Scientometrics, 125, 1965–1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03671-7 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Benoit, K., Muhr, D., & Watanabe, K. (2020). stopwords: Multilingual Stopword Lists . https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stopwords , r package version 2.0.

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Studying mind and brain with fMRI. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1 (2), 158–161.

Billhardt, H., Borrajo, D., & Maojo, V. (2002). A context vector model for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (3), 236–249.

Bischof, J. M., & Airoldi, E. M. (2012). Summarizing topical content with word frequency and exclusivity. In Proceedings of the 29th International ConferEnce on Machine Learning (pp. 8–16). https://icml.cc/Conferences/2012/papers/113.pdf .

Bittermann, A., & Fischer, A. (2018). How to identify hot topics in psychology using topic modeling. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226, 3–13.

Blaheta, D., & Johnson, M. (2001). Unsupervised learning of multi-word verbs. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the ACL, association for computer linguistics (pp. 54–60).

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Brennan, J. F., & Houde, K. A. (2017). History and systems of psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buurma, R. S. (2015). The fictionality of topic modeling: Machine reading Anthony Trollope’s Barsetshire series. Big Data & Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715610591 .

Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J. L., & Blei, D. M. (2009). Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 288–296).

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 (11), 671–684.

DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. (2013). Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding. Poetics, 41 (6), 570–606.

Fairburn, C. G., & Patel, V. (2017). The impact of digital technology on psychological treatments and their dissemination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 88, 19–25.

Farrell, J. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (1), 92–97.

Flis, I., & van Eck, N. J. (2018). Framing psychology as a discipline (1950–1999): A large-scale term co-occurrence analysis of scientific literature in psychology. History of Psychology, 21 (4), 334–362.

Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 875–908.

Gaj, N. (2016). Unity and fragmentation in psychology: The philosophical and methodological roots of the Discipline . Milton Park: Routledge.

Gentner, D. (2010). Psychology in cognitive science: 1978–2038. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2 (3), 328–344.

Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 101 (suppl 1), 5228–5235.

Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21 (3), 267–297.

Henriques, G. (2017). Achieving a unified clinical science requires a meta-theoretical solution: Comment on Melchert (2016). American Psychologist, 72 (4), 393–394.

Jackson, M. R. (2017). Unified clinical science, or paradigm diversity? Comment on Melchert (2016). American Psychologist, 72 (4), 395–396.

Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349 (6245), 255–260.

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Joseph, S. (2017). The problem of choosing between irreconcilable theoretical orientations: Comment on Melchert (2016). American Psychologist, 72 (4), 397–398.

Kaplan, A. (2015). Opinion: Paradigms, methods, and the (as yet) failed striving for methodological diversity in educational psychology publifshed research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01370 .

Krampen, G. (2016). Scientometric trend analyses of publications on the history of psychology: Is psychology becoming an unhistorical science? Scientometrics, 106 (3), 1217–1238.

Krampen, G., & Trierweiler, L. I. (2016). Some unobtrusive indicators of psychology’s shift from the humanities and social sciences to the natural sciences. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8 (3), 44–66.

Krampen, G., Von Eye, A., & Schui, G. (2011). Forecasting trends of development of psychology from a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 87 (3), 687–694.

Kwiek, M. (2020). The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach. Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00553-y .

Leahey, E., & Moody, J. (2014). Sociological innovation through subfield integration. Social Currents, 1 (3), 228–256.

Lindahl, J., Stenling, A., Lindwall, M., & Colliander, C. (2015). Trends and knowledge base in sport and exercise psychology research: a bibliometric review study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8 (1), 71–94.

Marshall, P. J. (2009). Relating psychology and neuroscience: Taking up the challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (2), 113–125.

McFarland, D. A., Ramage, D., Chuang, J., Heer, J., Manning, C. D., & Jurafsky, D. (2013). Differentiating language usage through topic models. Poetics, 41 (6), 607–625.

McFarland, D. A., Lewis, K., & Goldberg, A. (2016). Sociology in the era of big data: The ascent of forensic social science. The American Sociologist, 47 (1), 12–35.

Melchert, T. P. (2016). Leaving behind our preparadigmatic past: Professional psychology as a unified clinical science. American Psychologist, 71 (6), 486–496.

Miller, G. A. (2010). Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (6), 716–743.

Mimno, D., Wallach, H. M., Talley, E., Leenders, M., & McCallum, A. (2011). Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 262–272).

Morf, M. E. (2018). Agencyc Chance, and the scientific status of psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52 (4), 491–507.

Mullen, L. A., Benoit, K., Keyes, O., Selivanov, D., & Arnold, J. (2018). Fast, consistent tokenization of natural language text. Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 655. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00655 .

Münch, R. (2014). Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence . Milton Park: Routledge.

Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., Heiberger, R., & McFarland, D. (2020). Paradigm wars revisited: A cartography of graduate research in the field of education (1980–2010). American Educational Research Journal, 57 (2), 612–652.

Preckel, F., & Krampen, G. (2016). Entwicklung und Schwerpunkte in der psychologischen Hochbegabungsforschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 1–14.

Rinker, T. W. (2018). Textstem: Tools for stemming and lemmatizing text . http://github.com/trinker/textstem , version 0.1.4.

Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., et al. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58 (4), 1064–1082.

Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Airoldi, E. M. (2016). A model of text for experimentation in the social sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111 (515), 988–1003.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Rule, A., Cointet, J.-P., & Bearman, P. S. (2015). Lexical shifts, substantive changes, and continuity in State of the Union discourse, 1790–2014. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (35), 10837–10844.

Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Meca, A., & Sauvigné, K. C. (2016). The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist, 71 (1), 52–70.

Shi, F., Foster, J. G., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science’s unfolding structure. Social Networks, 43, 73–85.

Toomela, A. (2019). The Problem Psychology: A Science Yet to Become a Science. In A. Toomela (Ed.), The Psychology of Scientific Inquiry (pp. 1–11). Cham: Springer.

Tryon, W. W. (2017). Basing clinical practice on unified psychological science: Comment on Melchert (2016). The American Psychologist, 72, 399–400.

Yeung, A. W. K. (2018). Bibliometric study on functional magnetic resonance imaging literature (1995–2017) concerning chemosensory perception. Chemosensory Perception, 11 (1), 42–50.

Yeung, A. W. K., & Ho, Y.-S. (2018). Identification and analysis of classic articles and sleeping beauties in neurosciences. Current Science, 114 (10), 2039–2044.

Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2017a). At the Leading Front of Neuroscience: A Bibliometric Study of the 100 Most-Cited Articles. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00363 .

Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2017b). The Changing Landscape of Neuroscience Research, 2006–2015: A Bibliometric Study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00120 .

Zagaria, A., Ando’, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54 (3), 1–42.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for important critiques and suggestions that significantly improved our article, as well as Brigitte Münzel and Isabella Czedik-Eysenberg for additional proofreading.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Science (grant numbers: 01PU17021A, 01PU17021B, 01PU17021C).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Oliver Wieczorek

Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Friedrichshafen, Germany

University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

Saïd Unger, Christian Koß & Raphael Heiberger

University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

Jan Riebling & Lukas Erhard

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Wieczorek .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix 1: Details on Structural Topic Models

Although STMs solve other technical issues like finding the optimal starting parameters and providing consistent results by a “spectral initialization” (Arora et al. 2013 ), selecting an appropriate number of topics is crucial for any further analysis. It remains a central task for researchers to interpret the latent semantic space qualitatively and decide whether the presented topics are meaningful or one is only “reading tea leaves” (Chang et al. 2009 ). Besides the problem of “garbage in, garbage out” ousting for all models (McFarland et al. 2016 ), determining the number of topics ( k ) is a wide-ranging decision made by the researcher. Insufficient numbers render models coarse, an excessive number could result in a model too complex for further investigation.

Comparable to efforts in cluster analysis to determine the optimal number of clusters, there is no “right” answer to the question on how many topics are appropriate for a given corpus (Grimmer and Stewart 2013 ; Munoz-Najar Galvez et al. 2020 ). Due to the fact that there is not a single, correct number of topics found in a corpus, careful examination and pondering of different topic solutions is key to choose a topic model that allows for qualitative judgment of the researchers (Rule et al. 2015 ). Fortunately, the qualitative consideration can be complemented and assisted by statistical measures.

Following this line of reasoning, we propose a twofold approach to choose the optimal number k of topics before we interpret the results of our STM qualitatively. First, we check internal validity of different choices of k by statistical measures. Second, we check consistency across k -models. Especially the last aspect demonstrates that almost all topics found by STMs are “nested”, and that k does not alter the semantic space substantially. Therefore our main unit of investigation is rather stable regardless of k being X or Y.

To investigate the internal validity of our models, we apply measures of semantic coherence and exclusivity. Both are widely used measures to approximate the number of k in topic models (Mimno et al. 2011 ; Roberts et al. 2014 ). The coherence of a semantic space addresses whether a topic is internally consistent by calculating the frequency with which words being highly associated with a topic (given by \(\theta\) ) tend to co-occur in documents. However, semantic coherence alone can be misleading since high values can simply be obtained by very common words that occur together systematically in most documents and are associated with the same topic. We therefore consider the exclusivity of topics in order to select a model with optimal number of distinct topics (Roberts et al. 2014 ). This measure provides us with the extent to which the tokens of a topic are distinct to it, i.e. words that have only high loadings in one topic. Both exclusivity and coherence complement each other and, hence, are examined in concert to give us a comprehensive, quantitative impression on the choice of k .

Thus, we are looking for a “plateau” of both indicators. This gives us an upper limit for reasonable k -number of topics. Figure 5 shows that this limit may well be between 80 and 100. After that plateau, coherence falls rather rapidly and exclusivity increases only slightly. This holds when we depict the distribution of the metrics by topic using violin plots Fig. 6 . 80 and 100 have the least outliers. To maximize resolution, we choose 100 as the best solution. As presented in Fig. 8 and Tables 5 , 6 , and 7 the hundred topics in our selected solution show very reasonable coherence and exclusivity values.

Distribution of exclusivity (right y-axis) and semantic coherence (left) on two axis. In general, exclusivity improves with a rising number of topics, whereas coherence gets worse

Depicts each topic as a point and the distribution of the metric as violin plot for each k . Red triangles show means of each k

In addition, we check the consistency of our topic models across a range of k . For that purpose, we use the “Fowlkes-Mallows index” (FM). It provides a straight-forward way to measure consistency by investigating the rate of change with regard to topic-document assignments across different values of k . To assign topics to documents we used the max-approach so that each document is assigned to its maximum topic, i.e., the max-theta of a document defines its topic. Figure 7 shows that k on the x-axis represents similarity of topic-assignments for all docs between two consecutive k ’s, i.e. a STM with k -topics is compared to the next smaller STM with \(k-50\) . We see relatively high and growing values of consistency from 50 to 100 topics. The FM index at \(k=100\) marks the peak, i.e., the STM with 100 topics is largely consistent with lower ranges of k . After 100 topics, consistency declines before ascending again after 150 topics. The value at \(k=100\) suggests that almost two thirds of topic assignments are stable. Hence, the choice of k suggested by FM is in line with the values provided by the coherence and exclusivity measures.

Fowlkes-Mallows index indicating overlap of topic-assignments (max-approach) for consecutive k ’s

Exclusivity and coherence of all topics (outlier T8: psychoanalysis marked in red)

Appendix 2: Significance levels of the slopes of the topic change over time

Appendix 3: additional sample information.

The PsycINFO database covers 2, 307 journals. In comparison, our sample comprises 642 journals of which 639 outlets are also contained in PsycINFO. Furthermore, we included 709 conference proceedings in our data. Insofar, we cover \(27.70\%\) of the journals included in PsycINFO. In total, the Web of Science sample used in this article includes 487, 816 of the 2, 434, 849 ( \(20.03\%\) ) abstracts of articles available in PsycINFO.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wieczorek, O., Unger, S., Riebling, J. et al. Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015. Scientometrics 126 , 9699–9731 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04069-9

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2020

Accepted : 28 May 2021

Published : 23 June 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04069-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Natural language processing
• Structural topic model
• Science of science

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Writing a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• Research Topic | Research Questions
• Outline (Example)
• What Types of Literature Should I Use in My Review?
• Project Planner: Literature Review
• Writing a Literature Review in Psychology
• Literature Review tips (video)

Table of Contents

• What is a literature review?
• How is a literature review different from a research article?
• The two purposes: describe/compare and evaluate
• Getting started Select a topic and gather articles
• Choose a current, well-studied, specific topic
• Search the research literature
• Read the articles
• Write the literature review
• Structure How to proceed: describe, compare, evaluate

Literature reviews survey research on a particular area or topic in psychology. Their main purpose is to knit together theories and results from multiple studies to give an overview of a field of research.

How is a Literature Review Different from a Research Article?

Research articles:

• are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question
• are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion

The Introduction of a research article includes a condensed literature review. Its purpose is to describe what is known about the area of study, with the goal of giving the context and rationale for the study itself. Published literature reviews are called review articles. Review articles emphasize interpretation. By surveying the key studies done in a certain research area, a review article interprets how each line of research supports or fails to support a theory. Unlike a research article, which is quite specific, a review article tells a more general story of an area of research by describing, comparing, and evaluating the key theories and main evidence in that area.

The Two Purposes of a Literature Review

Your review has two purposes:

(1) to describe and compare studies in a specific area of research and

(2) to evaluate those studies. Both purposes are vital: a thorough summary and comparison of the current research is necessary before you can build a strong evaluative argument about the theories tested.

Getting Started

(1) Select a research topic and identify relevant articles.

(2) Read the articles until you understand what about them is relevant to your review.

(3) Digest the articles: Understand the main points well enough to talk about them.

(4) Write the review, keeping in mind your two purposes: to describe and compare, and to evaluate.

SELECT A TOPIC AND COLLECT ARTICLES

Choose a current, well-studied, specific topic.

Pick a topic that interests you. If you're interested in a subject, you're likely to already know something about it. Your interest will help you to choose meaningful articles, making your paper more fun both to write and to read. The topic should be both current and well studied. Your goal is to describe and evaluate recent findings in a specific area of research, so pick a topic that you find in current research journals. Find an area that is well defined and well studied, meaning that several research groups are studying the topic and have approached it from different perspectives. If all the articles you find are from the same research group (i.e., the same authors), broaden your topic or use more general search terms.

You may need to narrow your topic. The subject of a short literature review must be specific enough, yet have sufficient literature on the subject, for you to cover it in depth. A broad topic will yield thousands of articles, which is impossible to survey meaningfully. If you are drowning in articles, or each article you find seems to be about a completely different aspect of the subject, narrow your topic. Choose one article that interests to you and focus on the specific question investigated. For example, a search for ‘teenage alcohol use’ will flood you with articles, but searching for ‘teenage alcohol use and criminal behavior’ will yield both fewer and more focused articles.

You may need to broaden your topic. You need enough articles on your topic for a thorough review of the research. If you’re unable to find much literature on your topic, or if you find articles you want that are not easy to find online, broaden your topic. What’s a more general way to ask your question of interest? For example, if you’re having a hard time finding articles on ‘discrimination against Asian-American women in STEM fields,’ broaden your topic (e.g., ‘academic discrimination against Asian-American women’ or ‘discrimination against women in STEM.’)

Consider several topics, and keep an open mind. Don't fall in love with a topic before you find how much research has been done in that area. By exploring different topics, you may discover something that is newly exciting to you!

Search the Research Literature

Do a preliminary search. Use online databases to search the research literature. If you don’t know how to search online databases, ask your instructor or reference librarian. Reference librarians are invaluable!

Search for helpful articles. Find one or more pivotal articles that can be a foundation for your paper. A pivotal article may be exceptionally well written, contain particularly valuable citations, or clarify relationships between different but related lines of research. Two sources of such articles in psychology are:

• Psychological Bulletin •
• Current Directions in Psychological Science (published by the American Psychological Society) has general, short articles written by scientists who have published a lot in their research area

How many articles? Although published review articles may cite more than 100 articles, literature reviews for courses are often shorter because they present only highlights of a research area and are not exhaustive. A short literature review may survey 7-12 research articles and be about 10-15 pages long. For course paper guidelines, ask your instructor.

Choose representative articles, not just the first ones you find. This consideration is more important than the length of your review.

Choose readable articles. Some research areas are harder to understand than others. Scan articles in the topic areas you are considering to decide on the readability of the research in those areas.

READ THE ARTICLES

To write an effective review, you’ll need a solid grasp of the relevant research. Begin by reading the article you find easiest. Read, re-read, and mentally digest it until you have a conversational understanding of the paper. You don’t know what you know until you can talk about it. And if you can’t talk about it, you won’t be able to write about it.

Read selectively. Don't start by reading the articles from beginning to end. First, read just the Abstract to get an overview of the study.

Scan the article to identify the answers to these “Why-What-What-What” questions:

• Why did they do the study? Why does it matter?
• What did they do?
• What did they find?
• What does it mean?

The previous four questions correspond to these parts of a research article:

• Introduction: the research question and hypotheses

Create a summary sheet of each article’s key points. This will help you to integrate each article into your paper.

TIP: Give Scholarcy a try.

Read for depth. After you understand an article’s main points, read each section in detail for to gain the necessary indepth understanding to compare the work of different researchers.

WRITE THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Your goal is to evaluate a body of literature; i.e., to “identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies” and “suggest next steps to solve the research problem” (APA Publication Manual 2010, p. 10). Begin writing when you have decided on your story and how to organize your research to support that story.

Organization

Organize the literature review to highlight the theme that you want to emphasize – the story that you want to tell. Literature reviews tend to be organized something like this:

Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic (what it is, why does it matter)
• Frame the story: narrow the research topic to the studies you will discuss
• Briefly outline how you have organized the review
• Headings. Use theme headings to organize your argument (see below)
• Describe the relevant parts of each study and explain why it is relevant to the subtopic at hand.
• Compare the studies if need be, to discuss their implications (i.e., your interpretation of what the studies show and whether there are important differences or similarities)
• Evaluate the importance of each study or group of studies, as well as the implications for the subtopic, and where research should go from here (on the level of the subtopic)

Conclusion: Final evaluation, summation and conclusion

Headings. Use headings to identify major sections that show the organization of the paper. (Headings also help you to identify organizational problems while you’re writing.) Avoid the standard headings of research articles (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion). Use specific, conceptual headings. If you are reviewing whether facial expressions are universally understood, headings might include Studies in Western Cultures and Studies in Non-Western Cultures. Organize your argument into topics that fit under each heading (one or more per heading).

Describe. For each section or subtopic, briefly describe each article or line of research. Avoid sudden jumps betewen broader and narrower ideas. Keep your story in mind to help keep your thoughts connected.

Compare. For each section or topic, compare related studies, if this is relevant to your story. Comparisons may involve the research question, hypotheses, methods, data analysis, results, or conclusions. However, you don’t want to compare everything. That wouldn’t be a story! Which parts are relevant? What evidence supports your arguments? Identifying strengths and weaknesses of each study will help you make meaningful comparisons.

If you're having trouble synthesizing information, you probably don't understand the articles well. Reread sections you don’t understand. Discuss the studies with someone: you don’t know what you know until you can talk about it.

Evaluate. Descriptions/comparisons alone are not illuminating. For each section or topic, evaluate the studies you have reviewed based on your comparisons. Tell your reader what you conclude, and why. Evaluating research is the most subjective part of your paper. Even so, always support your claims with evidence. Evaluation requires much thought and takes on some risk, but without it, your paper is just a book report.

Final evaluation and summation. On a broader scale, relating to your main theme, tell your reader what you conclude and why. Reiterate your main claims and outline the evidence that supports them.

Conclusion. How does your evaluatio change or add to current knowledge in the field field? What future studies are implied by your analysis? How would such studies add to current knowledge of the topic?

The purpose of a literature review is to survey, describe, compare, and evaluate research articles on a particular topic. Choose a current topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow. Find the story that you want to tell. Spend a lot of time reading and thinking before you write. Think critically about the main hypotheses, findings, and arguments in a line of research. Identify areas of agreement among different articles as well as their differences and areas for future study. Expect to revise your review many times to refine your story. A well-written literature review gives the reader a comprehensive understanding of the main findings and remaining questions brought about by research on that topic.

• << Previous: Project Planner: Literature Review
• Next: Literature Review tips (video) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:35 PM
• URL: https://gbc.libguides.com/literature_review

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
• Lippincott Open Access

Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs

Susanne hempel.

* RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Santa Monica

† University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

Kristie Gore

‡ RAND, National Security Research Division, Arlington

Bradley Belsher

§ Defense Health Agency, Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE), Falls Church, VA

Associated Data

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website, www.lww-medicalcare.com .

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Evidence synthesis is key in promoting evidence-based health care, but it is resource-intense. Methods are needed to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis needs within health care systems. We describe a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

Scoping searches targeted 15 sources, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Guidelines and National Defense Authorization Acts. We screened for evidence gaps in psychological health management approaches relevant to the target population. We translated gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Gaps amenable to evidence synthesis format provided the basis for stakeholder input. Stakeholders rated topics for their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. Feasibility scans determined whether topics were ready to be pursued, that is, sufficient literature exists, and duplicative efforts are avoided.

We identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. Areas included: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19), suicide prevention (14), depression (9), bipolar disorder (9), substance use (24), traumatic brain injury (20), anxiety (1), and cross-cutting (14) synthesis topics. Stakeholder input helped prioritize 19 potential PTSD topics and 22 other psychological health topics. To date, 46 topics have undergone feasibility scans. We document lessons learned across clinical topics and research methods.

Conclusion:

We describe a transparent and structured approach to evidence synthesis topic selection for a health care system using scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis format, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

Evidence synthesis is an essential step in promoting evidence-based medicine across health systems; it facilitates the translation of research to practice. A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and policy decisions. 1 However, systematic reviews are resource-intense undertakings. In a resource-constrained environment, before an evidence review is commissioned, the need and the feasibility of the review must be established.

Establishing the need for the review can be achieved through a research gap analysis or needs assessment. Identification of a gap serves as the first step in developing a new research question. 2 Research gaps in health care do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Research gaps are only critical where knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, and policymakers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. Evidence synthesis enables the assessment of whether a research gap continues to exist or whether there is adequate evidence to close the knowledge gap.

Furthermore, a gap analysis often identifies multiple, competing gaps that are worthwhile to be pursued. Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritization is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritization process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the health care system and the local needs of the health care stakeholders. A process of stakeholder input is an important mechanism to ensure that the evidence review will meet local needs as well to identify a receptive audience of the review findings.

In addition to establishing the need for an evidence review, the feasibility of conducting the review must also be established. In conducting primary research, feasibility is often mainly a question of available resources. For evidence reviews, the resources, the availability of primary research, and the presence of existing evidence reviews on the topic need to be explored. Not all topics are amenable for a systematic review which focus on a specific range of research questions and rely heavily on published literature. Furthermore, evidence review synthesizes the existing evidence; hence, if there is insufficient evidence in the primary research literature, an evidence review is not useful. Establishing a lack of evidence is a worthwhile exercise since it identifies the need for further research. However, most health care delivery organizations will be keen to prioritize areas that can be synthesized, that is, investing in synthesizing a body of research sizable enough to derive meaningful results. For evidence reviews, the presence of existing evidence syntheses is also an important consideration, in particular, to determine the incremental validity of a new review. Although primary research benefits profoundly by replication, secondary literature, in particular in the context of existing high-quality reviews and/or limited evidence, may not add anything to our knowledge base. 3

This work describes a structured and transparent approach to identify and prioritize areas of psychological health that are important and that can be feasibly addressed by a synthesis of the research literature. It describes a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System (MHS) and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

This project is anchored in the relationship between the Defense Health Agency Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE) and the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), one of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) dedicated to providing long-term analytic support to the Defense Health Agency. PHCoE, an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System funded a series of systematic reviews and evidence maps synthesizing psychological research. The project draws on the expertise of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) located at RAND, a center specializing in evidence synthesis. The project included scoping searches, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans. The project is ongoing; this manuscript describes methods and results from June 2016 to September 2018. The project was assessed by our Human Subject Protection staff and determined to be exempt (date July 7, 2016, ID ND3621; August 6, 2017, ID ND3714).

The following describes the process, Figure ​ Figure1 1 provides a visual overview.

Process of identifying research gaps and prioritizing psychological health evidence synthesis needs.

Scoping Searches to Identify Evidence Synthesis Gaps

Scoping searches targeted pertinent sources for evidence gaps. The searches focused on clinical conditions and interventions relevant to psychological health, including biological psychiatry, health care services research, and mental health comorbidity. Proposed topics and study populations were not limited by deployment status or deployment eligibility, but the topic section considered the prevalence of clinical conditions among Department of Defense active duty military personnel managed by the MHS. The scoping searches excluded evidence gaps addressing children and adolescents and clinical conditions exclusively relevant to veterans managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Scoping Search Sources

We screened 15 sources in total for evidence synthesis gaps.

Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines were a key source for documented evidence gaps. 4 – 9 Recently updated guidelines were screened only for evidence gaps that indicated a lack of synthesis of existing research or content areas that were outside the scope of that guideline (guidelines rely primarily on published systematic reviews and can only review a limited number of topic areas).

We consulted the current report of the committee on armed services of the House of Representatives regarding the proposed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the report for the upcoming fiscal year. 10 , 11 We specifically screened the report for research priorities identified for psychological health. We also screened the published National Research Action Plan designed to improve access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families. 12

We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury. We searched for publications published since 2000–2016 in the most relevant databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, that had the words research gap, knowledge gap, or research priority in the title and addressed psychological health (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). The search retrieved 203 citations. Six publications were considered potentially relevant and obtained as full text, 1 source was subsequently excluded because the authors conducted a literature search <3 years ago and it was deemed unlikely that a new review would identify substantially more eligible studies. 13 – 19

We also used an analysis of the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in the MHS 20 to identify interventions that were popular with patients but for which potentially little evidence-based guidance exists. We focused our scoping efforts on complementary approaches such as stress management, hypnotherapy, massage, biofeedback, chiropractic, and music therapy to align with the funding scope. In the next step, we reviewed the existing clinical practice guidelines to determine whether clinicians have guidance regarding these approaches. The Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel 21 is an anonymous survey conducted every 3 years on service members with the aim of identifying interventions or health behaviors patients currently use. To address evidence gaps most relevant to patients, we screened the survey results, and then matched the more prevalent needs identified with guidance provided in relevant clinical practice guidelines.

We consulted the priority review list assembled by the Cochrane group to identify research needs for systematic reviews. We screened the 2015–2017 lists for mental health topics that are open to new authors, that is, those that do not have an author team currently dedicated to the topic. None of the currently available topics appeared relevant to psychological health and no topics were added to the table. We also consulted with ongoing federally funded projects to identify evidence gaps that were beyond the scope of the other projects. In addition, we screened a list of psychological health research priorities developed at PHCoE for knowledge gaps that could be addressed in systematic reviews or evidence maps. Finally, we screened resources available on MHS web sites for evidence gaps.

Gap Analysis Procedure and Approach to Translating Gaps into Evidence Review Format

We first screened these sources for knowledge gaps, regardless of considerations of whether the gap is amenable to evidence review. However, we did not include research gaps where the source explicitly indicated that the knowledge gap is due to the lack of primary research. We distinguished 5 evidence gap domains and abstracted gaps across pertinent areas: interventions or diagnostic questions, treatment outcomes or specific populations, and health services research and health care delivery models.

We then translated the evidence gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Evidence maps provide a broad overview of large research areas using data visualizations to document the presence and absence of evidence. 22 Similar to scoping reviews, evidence maps do not necessarily address the effects of interventions but can be broader in scope. Systematic reviews are a standardized research methodology designed to answer clinical and policy questions with published research using meta-analysis to estimate effect sizes and formal grading of the quality of evidence. We considered systematic reviews for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness questions regarding specific intervention and diagnostic approaches.

Stakeholder Input

Evidence synthesis gaps that were determined to be amenable to systematic review or evidence map methods provided the basis for stakeholder input. Although all topics were reviewed by project personnel, we also identified psychological health service leads for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within the Defense Health Agency as key stakeholders to be included in the topic selection process. To date, 2 rounds of formal ratings by stakeholders have been undertaken.

The first round focused on the need for systematic review covering issues related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The second round focused on other potential psychological health topics determined to be compatible with the MHS mission. Represented clinical areas were suicide prevention and aftercare, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorder including alcohol and opioid use disorder, and chronic pain. All of the potential topics addressed either the effects of clinical interventions or health service research questions.

Stakeholders rated the topics based on their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. The raters used a scale 5-point rating scale ranging from “No impact” to “Very high impact.” In addition, stakeholders were able to add additional suggestions for evidence review. We analyzed the mean, the mode, and individual stakeholder rating indicating “high impact” for individual topics.

Feasibility Scans

Feasibility scans provided an estimate of the volume and the type of existing research literature which is informative for 3 reasons. First, this process determined whether sufficient research was available to inform a systematic review or an evidence map. Second, feasibility scans can provide an estimate of the required resources for an evidence review by establishing whether only a small literature base or a large number of research studies exists. Finally, feasibility scans identify existing high-profile evidence synthesis reports that could make a new synthesis obsolete.

Feasibility scans for potential evidence maps concentrated on the size of the body of research that would need to be screened and the relevant synthesis questions that can inform how this research should be organized in the evidence map. Feasibility scans for systematic reviews aimed to determine the number of relevant studies, existing high-quality reviews, and the number of studies not covered in existing reviews. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the focus of most of the systematic review topics, that is, strong research evidence that could inform clinical practice guideline committees to recommend either for or against interventions. An experienced systematic reviewer used PubMed, a very well-maintained and user-friendly database for biomedical literature, developed preliminary search strategies, and applied database search filters (eg, for RCTs or systematic reviews) in preliminary literature searches to estimate the research volume for each topic.

Scans also identified any existing high-quality evidence review published by agencies specializing in unbiased evidence syntheses such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, the Evidence Synthesis Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Health Technology Assessment program. We used the databases PubMed and PubMed Health to identify reports. We appraised the scope, relevance and publication year of the existing high-profile evidence reviews. The research base for psychological health develops rapidly and evidence syntheses need to ensure that current clinical policies reflect the best available evidence. When determining the feasibility and appropriateness of a new systematic review, we took the results of the original review and any new studies that had been published subsequent to the systematic review on the same topic into account.

The following results are described: the results of the scoping searches and gap analysis, the translation of gaps into evidence synthesis format, the stakeholder input ratings, and the feasibility scans.

Scoping Searches and Gap Analysis Results

The scoping search and gap analysis identified a large number of evidence gaps as documented in the gap analysis table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). Across sources, we identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. The evidence gaps varied considerably with regard to scope and specificity, for example, highlighting knowledge gaps in recommendations for medications for specific clinical indications or treatment combinations 4 to pointing out to gaps in supporting caregivers. 11 The largest group of evidence gaps were documented for interventions. This included open questions for individual interventions (eg, ketamine) 12 as well as the best format and modality within an intervention domain (eg, use of telehealth). 6 Diagnostic evidence gaps included open questions regarding predictive risk factors that could be used in suicide prevention 8 and the need for personalized treatments. 12 Outcome evidence gaps often pointed to the lack of measured outcomes to include cost-effectiveness as well as the lack of knowledge on hypothesized effects, such as increased access or decreased stigma associated with technology-based modalities. 23 Population evidence gaps addressed specific patient populations such as complex patients 5 and family members of service members. 11 The health services evidence gaps addressed care support through technology (eg, videoconferencing 23 ) as well as treatment coordination within health care organizations such as how treatment for substance use disorder should be coordinated with treatment for co-occurring conditions. 4

Potential Evidence Synthesis Topics

The gaps were translated into potential evidence map or systematic review topics. This translation process took into account that some topics cannot easily be operationalized as an evidence review. For example, knowledge gaps regarding prevalence or utilization estimates were hindered by the lack of publicly available data. In addition, we noted that some review questions may require an exhaustive search and a full-text review of the literature because the information cannot be searched for directly, and hence were outside the budget restraints.

The clinical areas and number of topics were: PTSD (n=19), suicide prevention (n=14), depression (n=9), bipolar disorder (n=9), substance use (n=24), traumatic brain injury (n=20), anxiety (n=1), and cross-cutting (n=14) evidence synthesis topics. All topic areas are documented in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

Stakeholder Input Results

Stakeholders rated 19 PTSD-related research gaps and suggested an additional 5 topics for evidence review, addressing both preventions as well as treatment topics. Mean ratings for topics ranged from 1.75 to 3.5 on a scale from 0 (no impact potential) to 4 (high potential for impact). Thus, although identified as research gaps, the potential of an evidence review to have an important impact on the MHS varied across the topics. Only 2 topics received a mean score of ≥3 (high potential), including predictors of PTSD treatment retention and response and PTSD treatment dosing, duration, and sequencing . In addition, raters’ opinions varied considerably across some topics with SDs ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 across all topics.

The stakeholders rated 22 other psychological health topics, suggested 2 additional topics for evidence review, and revised 2 original topics indicating which aspect of the research gap would be most important to address. Mean scores for the rated topics ranged from 0.25 to 3.75, with the SDs for each item ranging from 0 to 1.4. Six topics received an average score of ≥3, primarily focused on the topics of suicide prevention, substance use disorders, and telehealth interventions. Opinions on other topics varied widely across service leads.

Feasibility Scan Results

Evidence review topics that were rated by stakeholders as having some potential for impact (using a rating cutoff score>1) within the MHS were selected for formal feasibility scans. To date, 46 topics have been subjected to feasibility scans. Of these, 11 were evaluated as potential evidence map, 17 as a systematic review, and 18 as either at the time of the topic suggestion. The results of the feasibility scans are documented in the table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

The feasibility scan result table shows the topic, topic modification suggestions based on literature reviews, and the mean stakeholder impact rating. The table shows the employed search strategy to determine the feasibility; the estimated number of RCTs in the database PubMed; the number and citation of Cochrane, Evidence Synthesis Program, and Health Technology Assessment reviews, that is, high-quality syntheses; and the estimated number of RCTs published after the latest existing systematic review that had been published on the topic.

Each potential evidence review topic was discussed in a narrative review report that documented the reason for determining the topic to be feasible or not feasible. Reasons for determining the topic to be not feasible included the lack of primary research for an evidence map or systematic review, the presence of an ongoing research project that may influence the evidence review scope, and the presence of an existing high-quality evidence review. Some topics were shown to be feasible upon further modification; this included topics that were partially addressed in existing reviews or topics where the review scope would need to be substantially changed to result in a high-impact evidence review. Topics to be judged feasible met all outlined criteria, that is, the topic could be addressed in a systematic review or evidence map, there were sufficient studies to justify a review, and the review would not merely replicate an existing review but make a novel contribution to the evidence base.

The project describes a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis topics using scoping reviews, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

The work demonstrates an approach to establishing and evaluating evidence synthesis gaps. It has been repeatedly noted that research gap analyses often lack transparency with little information on analytic criteria and selection processes. 24 , 25 In addition, research need identification may not be informed by systematic literature searches documenting gaps but primarily rely on often unstructured content expert input. 26 , 27 Evidence synthesis needs assessment is a new field that to date has received very little attention. However, as health care delivery organizations move towards providing evidence-based treatments and the existing research continue to grow, both evidence reviews and evidence review gap identification and prioritization will become more prominent.

One of the lessons learned is that the topic selection process added to the timeline and required additional resources. The scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis topics, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans each added time and the project required a longer period of performance compared to previous evidence synthesis projects. The project components were undertaken sequentially and had to be divided into topic areas. For example, it was deemed too much to ask for stakeholder input for all 122 topics identified as potential evidence review topics. Furthermore, we needed to be flexible to be able to respond to unanticipated congressional requests for evidence reviews. However, our process of identifying synthesis gaps, checking whether topics can be translated into syntheses, obtaining stakeholder input to ensure that the gaps are meaningful and need filling, and estimating the feasibility and avoiding duplicative efforts, has merit considering the alternative. More targeted funding of evidence syntheses ensures relevance and while resources need to be spent on the steps we are describing, these are small investments compared to the resources required for a full systematic review or evidence map.

The documented stakeholder engagement approach was useful for many reasons, not just for ensuring that the selection of evidence synthesis topics was transparent and structured. The stakeholders were alerted to the evidence synthesis project and provided input for further topic refinement. This process also supported the identification of a ‘customer’ after the review was completed, that is, a stakeholder who is keen on using the evidence review is likely to take action on its results and ready to translate the findings into clinical practice. The research to practice gap is substantial and the challenges of translating research to practice are widely documented. 28 – 30 Inefficient research translation delays delivery of proven clinical practices and can lead to wasteful research and practice investments.

The project had several strengths and limitations. The project describes a successful, transparent, and structured process to engage stakeholders and identifies important and feasible evidence review topics. However, the approach was developed to address the specific military psychological health care system needs, and therefore the process may not be generalizable to all other health care delivery organizations. Source selection was tailored to psychological health synthesis needs and process modifications (ie, sources to identify gaps) are needed for organizations aiming to establish a similar procedure. To keep the approach manageable, feasibility scans used only 1 database and we developed only preliminary, not comprehensive searches. Hence, some uncertainty about the true evidence base for the different topics remained; feasibility scans can only estimate the available research. Furthermore, the selected stakeholders were limited to a small number of service leads. A broader panel of stakeholders would have likely provided additional input. In addition, all evaluations of the literature relied on the expertise of experienced systematic reviewers; any replication of the process will require some staff with expertise in the evidence review. Finally, as outlined, all described processes added to the project timeline compounding the challenges of providing timely systematic reviews for practitioners and policymakers. 31 , 32

We have described a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize areas of evidence synthesis for a health care system. Scoping searches and feasibility scans identified gaps in the literature that would benefit from evidence review. Stakeholder input helped ensure the relevance of review topics and created a receptive audience for targeted evidence synthesis. The approach aims to advance the field of evidence synthesis needs assessment.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank Laura Raaen, Margaret Maglione, Gulrez Azhar, Margie Danz, and Thomas Concannon for content input and Aneesa Motala and Naemma Golshan for administrative assistance.

Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Psychological Health Center of Excellence. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Psychological Health Center of Excellence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the United States government.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

Literature Reviews

• 1. Define your research question
• Getting started
• Types of reviews

Define topic

Brainstorming, limit scope, how ai can help, helpful resources.

• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Mission animated icons created by Freepik - Flaticon

For example, the following research question is too broad.

Does social media affect mental health in college students?

A more focused research question could be:

Does social media play a role in the number of eating disorder diagnoses in college-aged women?

Need some guidance? Contact your subject librarian for a research consultation or reach out to [email protected] .

Start the brainstorming process:

• Begin by identifying a broad topic of research interest (the more you're personally interested in it, the better!). Write it down to clarify your focus.
• Narrow down your scope  by considering specific areas within this topic that you want to explore.
• Identify key themes and elements  related to these specific areas. These will be the building blocks of your investigation.
• Finally,  integrate these key areas and elements  into a well-crafted research question.

One way to brainstorm is to use a flowchart.

The scope of a topic  encompasses the boundaries and constraints you set for your research. The more precise your research question, the smoother the research process becomes.

Feeling stuck? Here are some ways you can narrow down your topic:

• geographic location
• time period
• discipline/field of study
• age group, etc.

You:  I need to conduct a literature review about social media, mental health, and college students. What are some example research questions within this topic?

ChatGPT: 

• How does the frequency and nature of social media use impact the mental health of college students?
• What role do specific social media platforms play in influencing the mental well-being of college students?
• How do online social interactions on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter relate to the mental health outcomes of college students?
• Are there differences in the association between social media use and mental health outcomes based on demographic factors such as gender, age, or academic major among college students?
• What strategies do college students employ to cope with negative mental health effects associated with social media use?
• How does the perception of social support through online platforms affect the mental health of college students?
• To what extent does the comparison of oneself to others on social media contribute to mental health challenges among college students?
• What interventions or educational programs are effective in promoting positive mental health behaviors in the context of social media use for college students?
• How do social media literacy and awareness programs impact the mental health attitudes and behaviors of college students?
• What is the relationship between the use of social media for academic and social purposes and the mental health outcomes of college students?

Generative AI tools : ChatGPT , Google Gemini (formerly Bard) , Claude , Microsoft Copilot

For more information on how to incorporate AI tools into your research, check out the section on AI Tools .

• Developing Your Research Question
• Developing a Researchable Question
• Brainstorming tips from UNC Writing Center
• << Previous: Types of reviews
• Next: 2. Plan your search >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

• Frontiers in Psychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Research Topics

Creative Organization Development through Leadership

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Creativity is developed by guiding rather than being taught. For this, environments that allow creativity-rich and diverse experiences should be designed and affect lots of different issues in the organization. To build and sustain an organizational culture dominated by creativity and innovation, organizations must effectively identify and mobilize the creative resources of their members. When organizational members perceive a work environment that restricts or fails to encourage individual creative expression, a gap may exist between the level of individual creative potential and the actual amount of individual creativity practiced within the organization. Leadership development may represent one important key for unlocking this idle creative potential and enhancing overall organizational effectiveness. So, organizations should focus on leadership to develop creativity via all dimensions that affect organizational culture at all levels of the organization. To achieve this, reshaping organizational psychology and culture accordingly can be stated as one of the main missions of organizational leadership. Recent studies prove that creativity is necessary for both individual and organizational levels, and for achieving these levels together, leadership is crucial for organizations. This special issue aims to collect studies on how to develop creative organizations through leadership. To focus on this special topic, the following sub-topics may be studied in detail. Based on this main objective, this special issue will also reveal the effects of creative organizational culture, which is one of the most fundamental issues in terms of organizational psychology, and the factors affecting this culture in detail. In addition, this special issue aims to reveal how creative organizational culture is changing organizational behavior and psychology as well as organizational structure in today's rapidly changing world. Moreover, the creative organizational leaders who will produce this change, their characteristics, and the new skills they need to acquire can be stated as another important purpose of this special issue. This special issue aims to collect studies on how to develop creative organizations through leadership. For this aim, the issue seeks for the following sub-topics: 1. Emotional drivers of creativity 2. The relationship between creativity, intelligence, and brain function 3. Biological dimensions of creativity 4. Factors affecting creativity 5. The importance of creativity in organization development 6. How can a creative organizational culture be developed? 7. The relationship between creativity, sustainability and entrepreneurship 8. Creative leadership and its role in organization development 9. How can creativity be developed in organizations? 10. The role and functions of creativity in selecting and developing human resources 11. New leadership theories for creative organizations 12. Innovation, inclusion, creativity and leadership 13. Digital technologies for creative leadership 14. Autonomous systems for organizational creativity and development 15. Leadership models and organizational culture and climate'?

Keywords : Creativity, organizational development, leadership, entrepreneurship, emotional intelligence, organizational psychology, management

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

New Content From Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Meta-Analysis
• Methodology
• Preregistration
• Reproducibility

A Practical Guide to Conversation Research: How to Study What People Say to Each Other Michael Yeomans, F. Katelynn Boland, Hanne Collins, Nicole Abi-Esber, and Alison Wood Brooks  

Conversation—a verbal interaction between two or more people—is a complex, pervasive, and consequential human behavior. Conversations have been studied across many academic disciplines. However, advances in recording and analysis techniques over the last decade have allowed researchers to more directly and precisely examine conversations in natural contexts and at a larger scale than ever before, and these advances open new paths to understand humanity and the social world. Existing reviews of text analysis and conversation research have focused on text generated by a single author (e.g., product reviews, news articles, and public speeches) and thus leave open questions about the unique challenges presented by interactive conversation data (i.e., dialogue). In this article, we suggest approaches to overcome common challenges in the workflow of conversation science, including recording and transcribing conversations, structuring data (to merge turn-level and speaker-level data sets), extracting and aggregating linguistic features, estimating effects, and sharing data. This practical guide is meant to shed light on current best practices and empower more researchers to study conversations more directly—to expand the community of conversation scholars and contribute to a greater cumulative scientific understanding of the social world. 

Open-Science Guidance for Qualitative Research: An Empirically Validated Approach for De-Identifying Sensitive Narrative Data Rebecca Campbell, McKenzie Javorka, Jasmine Engleton, Kathryn Fishwick, Katie Gregory, and Rachael Goodman-Williams  

The open-science movement seeks to make research more transparent and accessible. To that end, researchers are increasingly expected to share de-identified data with other scholars for review, reanalysis, and reuse. In psychology, open-science practices have been explored primarily within the context of quantitative data, but demands to share qualitative data are becoming more prevalent. Narrative data are far more challenging to de-identify fully, and because qualitative methods are often used in studies with marginalized, minoritized, and/or traumatized populations, data sharing may pose substantial risks for participants if their information can be later reidentified. To date, there has been little guidance in the literature on how to de-identify qualitative data. To address this gap, we developed a methodological framework for remediating sensitive narrative data. This multiphase process is modeled on common qualitative-coding strategies. The first phase includes consultations with diverse stakeholders and sources to understand reidentifiability risks and data-sharing concerns. The second phase outlines an iterative process for recognizing potentially identifiable information and constructing individualized remediation strategies through group review and consensus. The third phase includes multiple strategies for assessing the validity of the de-identification analyses (i.e., whether the remediated transcripts adequately protect participants’ privacy). We applied this framework to a set of 32 qualitative interviews with sexual-assault survivors. We provide case examples of how blurring and redaction techniques can be used to protect names, dates, locations, trauma histories, help-seeking experiences, and other information about dyadic interactions. 

Impossible Hypotheses and Effect-Size Limits Wijnand van Tilburg and Lennert van Tilburg

Psychological science is moving toward further specification of effect sizes when formulating hypotheses, performing power analyses, and considering the relevance of findings. This development has sparked an appreciation for the wider context in which such effect sizes are found because the importance assigned to specific sizes may vary from situation to situation. We add to this development a crucial but in psychology hitherto underappreciated contingency: There are mathematical limits to the magnitudes that population effect sizes can take within the common multivariate context in which psychology is situated, and these limits can be far more restrictive than typically assumed. The implication is that some hypothesized or preregistered effect sizes may be impossible. At the same time, these restrictions offer a way of statistically triangulating the plausible range of unknown effect sizes. We explain the reason for the existence of these limits, illustrate how to identify them, and offer recommendations and tools for improving hypothesized effect sizes by exploiting the broader multivariate context in which they occur. 

It’s All About Timing: Exploring Different Temporal Resolutions for Analyzing Digital-Phenotyping Data Anna Langener, Gert Stulp, Nicholas Jacobson, Andrea Costanzo, Raj Jagesar, Martien Kas, and Laura Bringmann  

The use of smartphones and wearable sensors to passively collect data on behavior has great potential for better understanding psychological well-being and mental disorders with minimal burden. However, there are important methodological challenges that may hinder the widespread adoption of these passive measures. A crucial one is the issue of timescale: The chosen temporal resolution for summarizing and analyzing the data may affect how results are interpreted. Despite its importance, the choice of temporal resolution is rarely justified. In this study, we aim to improve current standards for analyzing digital-phenotyping data by addressing the time-related decisions faced by researchers. For illustrative purposes, we use data from 10 students whose behavior (e.g., GPS, app usage) was recorded for 28 days through the Behapp application on their mobile phones. In parallel, the participants actively answered questionnaires on their phones about their mood several times a day. We provide a walk-through on how to study different timescales by doing individualized correlation analyses and random-forest prediction models. By doing so, we demonstrate how choosing different resolutions can lead to different conclusions. Therefore, we propose conducting a multiverse analysis to investigate the consequences of choosing different temporal resolutions. This will improve current standards for analyzing digital-phenotyping data and may help combat the replications crisis caused in part by researchers making implicit decisions. 

Calculating Repeated-Measures Meta-Analytic Effects for Continuous Outcomes: A Tutorial on Pretest–Posttest-Controlled Designs David R. Skvarc, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz  

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to arrive at a more robust and reliable estimate of an overall effect or estimate of the true effect. Within the context of experimental study designs, standard meta-analyses generally use between-groups differences at a single time point. This approach fails to adequately account for preexisting differences that are likely to threaten causal inference. Meta-analyses that take into account the repeated-measures nature of these data are uncommon, and so this article serves as an instructive methodology for increasing the precision of meta-analyses by attempting to estimate the repeated-measures effect sizes, with particular focus on contexts with two time points and two groups (a between-groups pretest–posttest design)—a common scenario for clinical trials and experiments. In this article, we summarize the concept of a between-groups pretest–posttest meta-analysis and its applications. We then explain the basic steps involved in conducting this meta-analysis, including the extraction of data and several alternative approaches for the calculation of effect sizes. We also highlight the importance of considering the presence of within-subjects correlations when conducting this form of meta-analysis.   

Reliability and Feasibility of Linear Mixed Models in Fully Crossed Experimental Designs Michele Scandola, Emmanuele Tidoni  

The use of linear mixed models (LMMs) is increasing in psychology and neuroscience research In this article, we focus on the implementation of LMMs in fully crossed experimental designs. A key aspect of LMMs is choosing a random-effects structure according to the experimental needs. To date, opposite suggestions are present in the literature, spanning from keeping all random effects (maximal models), which produces several singularity and convergence issues, to removing random effects until the best fit is found, with the risk of inflating Type I error (reduced models). However, defining the random structure to fit a nonsingular and convergent model is not straightforward. Moreover, the lack of a standard approach may lead the researcher to make decisions that potentially inflate Type I errors. After reviewing LMMs, we introduce a step-by-step approach to avoid convergence and singularity issues and control for Type I error inflation during model reduction of fully crossed experimental designs. Specifically, we propose the use of complex random intercepts (CRIs) when maximal models are overparametrized. CRIs are multiple random intercepts that represent the residual variance of categorical fixed effects within a given grouping factor. We validated CRIs and the proposed procedure by extensive simulations and a real-case application. We demonstrate that CRIs can produce reliable results and require less computational resources. Moreover, we outline a few criteria and recommendations on how and when scholars should reduce overparametrized models. Overall, the proposed procedure provides clear solutions to avoid overinflated results using LMMs in psychology and neuroscience.   

Understanding Meta-Analysis Through Data Simulation With Applications to Power Analysis Filippo Gambarota, Gianmarco Altoè  

Meta-analysis is a powerful tool to combine evidence from existing literature. Despite several introductory and advanced materials about organizing, conducting, and reporting a meta-analysis, to our knowledge, there are no introductive materials about simulating the most common meta-analysis models. Data simulation is essential for developing and validating new statistical models and procedures. Furthermore, data simulation is a powerful educational tool for understanding a statistical method. In this tutorial, we show how to simulate equal-effects, random-effects, and metaregression models and illustrate how to estimate statistical power. Simulations for multilevel and multivariate models are available in the Supplemental Material available online. All materials associated with this article can be accessed on OSF ( https://osf.io/54djn/ ).   

Feedback on this article? Email  [email protected]  or login to comment.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Privacy Overview

• Neuroscience

2 Popular Psychology Myths, Debunked

Why these "fun facts" are no more than tall tales..

Posted May 5, 2024 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

The human mind holds more wonders than we can imagine—so much so that, for centuries, we’ve dedicated ourselves to trying to understand it. It’s in the very name; “psyche”, meaning mind or soul, and “ology”, meaning study, come together to refer to the field we know, love and take a great deal of interest in: psychology.

Since the time of our psychological forefathers, we’ve come far in our attempts to grasp the essence of the human mind and brain. While there’s still plenty we’re not certain of, there’s perhaps an equal amount of knowledge we’ve been able to gain. However, with this pursuit of knowledge comes the spread of mythological thought—ideas that, despite their prevalence, lack any empirical support and mislead us in our understanding of the mind.

You’ve likely heard these two myths before. Through actual psychological insight, you can learn the truth behind them.

1. People Are Either “Left Brained” Or “Right Brained”

The idea that people are either “left- or right-brained” is an enduring concept. The left side of the brain is personified as being the logical one, and the right side as being the creative one—and the idea suggests our personalities and skills are shaped by the hemisphere we favor. Are you a logical, analytical left-brainer or a free-spirited, creative right-brainer? It’s an alluring dichotomy.

Although they are symmetrically located within the brain, it’s common knowledge that the left and right hemispheres of the brain both develop and function asymmetrically. They both share nearly 100 billion neurons—close to the amount of stars in the Milky Way galaxy—that are located in identifiable regions and tuned to take on specific tasks. These two hemispheres work in tandem, but not in the way our intuition would lead us to think.

Research from the International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change underlines the counterintuitive way that the left and right hemispheres operate. For instance, the brain processes incoming visual information from the eyes through the occipital lobes at the back of the brain; however, the left hemisphere processes information from the right visual field, and vice versa. Similarly, the left frontal lobe typically controls the movement of the right side of the body, and also vice versa.

However, despite these asymmetries, the authors explain that there is no evidence to suggest that normal cognitive functioning happens exclusively in one hemisphere or the other. The corpus callosum—the bridge between the hemispheres—allows extensive communication between the hemispheres, making sure that brain activity is coordinated across both sides.

While the idea of “left- versus right-brained thinking” may seem like a convenient framework, it ultimately falls short as a scientific reality. While some people may be more adept in analytical thinking, and while others may thrive in creative pursuits, these strengths can’t be reliably attributed to the dominance of one hemisphere over the other. In reality, most of us have a diverse range of skills that can’t be neatly categorized into left-brained or right-brained categories.

2. Humans Only Use 10% of Their Brain

From the silver screen to casual conversations, the idea that humans only use 10% of their brains has made its way throughout popular culture. You might remember Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of a woman unlocking superhuman abilities as she surpasses the “10% threshold” in the movie Lucy . This idea, however, begs too many questions.

Humans are often referred to as “cognitive misers” in psychology. According to renowned cognitive scientist Keith Stanovich, animals—including humans—have evolved over time to help their genes survive and reproduce, rather than to always make perfect decisions. This means that being rational, or making decisions that perfectly match reality, isn’t always the most important thing for survival. Sometimes, it’s more beneficial for us to use less energy or resources, even if it means being a bit inaccurate.

Put simply, we often take the path of least resistance when it comes to thinking—and it’s this notion that may have given rise to the idea that we only use 10% of our brains. However, the theory of humans being cognitive misers by no means suggests that we are incapable of using the “full capacity" of our brains. If this were the case, our reality as humans would look a lot different.

To prove this, neuroscientist Barry Beyernstein set out six pieces of evidence to debunk the “10% myth”:

• If we only use 10% of our brains, then traumatic brain injuries to the other 90% would have no effect on our functioning. In reality, however, there’s virtually not a single part of the brain that can be damaged without impairing our functioning.
• No matter what we are doing, every area in a healthy, undamaged brain is always active. While some areas might not participate as much as others, they all play a part—even when we’re sleeping —in ensuring that we can function.
• The brain uses a massive amount of resources to operate. If we didn’t need 90% of our brains, humans likely would have evolved to eliminate these redundant areas to reduce energy consumption and increase survival chances.
• Research shows distinct regions of the brain responsible for different tasks, meaning that the brain operates as a specialized network rather than a homogeneous mass. We haven’t found any parts of the brain that don’t serve a purpose.
• Instruments that monitor the activity of individual brain cells reveal that most cells are always active. At all times, a majority of the brain is engaged in processing information.
• Brain cells that no longer function will degenerate over time. If 90% of our brain cells were useless, our autopsies would persistently show large-scale neurological degeneration.

The reality is that every part of our brain serves a purpose, and in no way does one half dominate the other. So, the next time you chat with a self-proclaimed “left-brainer”, or a person fantasizing about what humans would look like using 100% of their brain’s potential, remember that the truth about our minds is far more detailed and fascinating than these reductive myths suggest.

A version of this post also appears on Forbes.com.

Facebook image: Bricolage/Shutterstock

Mark Travers, Ph.D., is an American psychologist with degrees from Cornell University and the University of Colorado Boulder.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• 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
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting

'My research made me realize how fascinating psychology is'

5/17/2024 A&S Communications

Feifei (Lily) Ren

Psychology Beijing, China

What was your favorite class and why?  

My favorite class was environmental psychology with Professor Gary Evans because that class was inspirational to me on a personal level. It provided me answers that I was not able to understand by myself.

What are the most valuable skills you gained from your Arts & Sciences education?

My education here at A&S taught me professional communication skills and research skills that I will definitely be able to implement in my future careers.         

What have you accomplished as a Cornell student that you are most proud of?

I am very proud of my academic accomplishments. I was able to improve myself academically every semester, and I was part of many research projects and labs, including my honors thesis project. My research experience, especially my honors thesis project, made me realize how fascinating psychological research is, and inspired me to do more.  

If you were to offer advice to an incoming first year student, what would you say?

Try to be patient with your personal life and academic life! Try to take things easy and prioritize your personal wellbeing.

Every year, our faculty nominate graduating Arts & Sciences students to be featured as part of our Extraordinary Journeys series.  Read more about the Class of 202 4.

'It was rewarding to build something that people from the community enjoyed and learned from'

'I dream of investigating virtual reality and making an impact on the world'

'I'm a researcher in Cornell's Play and Learning Lab'

'I felt more empowered as a student and a woman'

The International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy

Exploring the Interplay of Emotional Intelligence and Self-esteem on the General Well-Being of University Students

| Published: May 18, 2024

This study investigates the interrelations among Emotional intelligence, Self-Esteem, and General well-being in a collegiate context, employing a comprehensive methodological approach to asses the psychological constructs that underpin academic and personal success among young adults. A total of 157 college students were recruited to participate in the research, providing a diverse sample for analysis. The study utilized three principal instruments for data collection: the Revised General Psychological Well-Being Measure (RPGIGWBM), an Emotional Intelligence Test, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, each chosen for their validity and reliability in measuring the respective constructs. Through quantitative analysis, this research aimed to elucidate the extent to which emotional intelligence and self-esteem act as predictors of general well-being among college students. Preliminary findings suggest a significant correlation between high levels of emotional intelligence and self-esteem with enhanced general well-being. These results contribute to the growing body of literature emphasizing the importance of psychological well-being in educational settings. By identifying key factors that influence well-being, this study underscores the potential for targeted interventions designed to improve college students’ emotional and psychological health, thereby enhancing their overall academic experience and life satisfaction. Further implications of these findings for educational policy and practice are discussed, highlighting the critical role of fostering emotional intelligence and self-esteem as foundational elements of student support programs.

Emotional Intelligence , Self-Esteem , General Well-being , Psychological constructs , young adults , collegiate context , Correlation , Academic experience , Life Satisfaction

This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024, Ritika, N. & Imran, M.

Received: April 18, 2024; Revision Received: May 12, 2024; Accepted: May 18, 2024

Mitali Sharma @ [email protected]

Article Overview

Published in   Special Issues of Volume 12, Issue 2, 2024