UPI Study › Courses › Research Methods in Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 3.3 Free with a free account
Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning in Research
Research Methods in Psychology · Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodological PlanningSection 3.3 · lesson 18 of 9411 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Research Methods in Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Research Methods in Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Working with Variables in Research →← Formulating Research Questions and HypothesesNext lesson: Working with Variables in Research →
In this lesson
How the direction of an argument decides what a study may conclude.
- Trace deduction from general principle to prediction
- Trace induction from observations to generalization
- Separate validity and soundness from strength and cogency
- Name four reasoning errors and the safeguard for each
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,478 words). Read along, or search it.
Research Design and Methodological Planning
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Every research study rests on an argument. Before anyone is recruited, the researcher has committed to a line of thinking. It connects what is known to what is about to be investigated. And it runs in one of two directions, up or down. Down from a general principle to a specific prediction. That is deduction. Up from particular observations to a general claim. That is induction. This is not abstract philosophy. It decides what your study is allowed to conclude. By the end, you will trace both directions and what each promises. You will separate validity and soundness from strength and cogency. And name four reasoning errors, with the safeguard for each.
Two Directions
Every Study Rests on an Argument
Two researchers investigate the same topic, exercise and mood. The first begins with theory: aerobic activity raises neurotransmitters linked to positive affect. From it she derives a prediction: adults doing thirty minutes of aerobic activity will report higher positive affect. The theory came first. The observation was designed to test it. The second researcher begins somewhere else entirely. In a community wellness program, he notices something over several months. The morning walking group seem more talkative than the evening stretching group. No theory prompted that. The pattern presented itself. He records it, and builds a tentative general claim out of it. Both are doing legitimate science, entering the cycle at different points. And each is entitled to a different kind of conclusion.
Top-Down
Deduction: From General to Particular
Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the particular. It begins with premises, statements accepted as true for the argument. From them it derives a conclusion that must follow if they hold. Here is the defining feature, and it is easy to miss. The conclusion is already contained within the premises. Nothing new is added. What was implicit is made explicit. The classical form is the syllogism, in three lines. Major premise. All participants scoring above the clinical cutoff are referred for follow-up. Minor premise. Participant forty-seven scored above the cutoff. Conclusion. That participant is referred. If both premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. That is the guarantee deduction offers, and the only one.
Three Words
Validity, Truth, and Soundness
Three words get confused constantly, and they are not the same thing. Validity is a property of the argument's structure, and nothing more. An argument is valid when the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Whether those premises are actually true does not enter into it. Anyone sleeping under four hours recalls poorly. Ravi slept three hours. Therefore Ravi recalled poorly. Valid, even if the first premise is doubtful. Truth is different. It belongs to individual premises, and evidence settles it. Soundness belongs to the whole argument: valid, and built on true premises. Only a sound argument establishes its conclusion. So a perfectly logical argument can still deliver a false conclusion. It happens whenever a researcher adopts an unexamined assumption from prior work. The reasoning may be flawless while the finding is worthless.
Testing Theory
The Hypothetico-Deductive Model
Most quantitative psychological research follows one structure. It is called the hypothetico-deductive model. The researcher begins with a theory, and deduces a hypothesis from it. The hypothesis says what should be observed if the theory holds. Data are collected under controlled conditions, then compared with the prediction. The sequence is deliberate, and the order is the whole point. The prediction is committed to in advance, so the data can contradict it. This is why pre-registering a hypothesis carries evidential weight. A prediction stated before data collection is a real test. The same statement, offered after the results are known, is merely description. The logic of deduction is what gives the first its force.
The Asymmetry
Why Nothing Is Ever Proven
Deductive logic reveals an asymmetry that shapes how conclusions are worded. Suppose a theory predicts an outcome, and that outcome does not occur. Then the theory, or one of its assumptions, is wrong. That is a valid deductive move, known formally as modus tollens. If the theory implies the prediction, and the prediction is false, the theory is false. Now run it the other way, and watch it break. The theory implies the prediction, and the prediction turns out correct. It still does not follow that the theory is true. Another explanation may produce exactly the same prediction. Treating a confirmed prediction as proof is called affirming the consequent. So researchers write that a hypothesis was supported, not proven. And one well-designed disconfirmation can outweigh several confirmations.
Bottom-Up
Induction: From Observation to Claim
Inductive reasoning runs the opposite way, from the particular to the general. The researcher gathers specific instances and finds what they share. Then proposes a conclusion that extends beyond the instances examined. Notice what that means. Induction adds content, saying more than the premises did. That is its value, and also the source of its risk. The chain runs upward, in four moves. Observations, then a pattern, then a tentative generalization, then a theory. Because the conclusion reaches beyond the evidence, induction is never called valid. It is judged strong or weak, by how much support the evidence supplies. And cogent when it is strong and its premises are true. Even the strongest inductive argument can be overturned by the next observation.
Four Forms
Forms of Induction, and Its Limit
Induction shows up in psychology in four recognizable forms. Enumerative induction observes repeated instances and generalizes from their frequency. All one hundred and twenty children observed responded within five seconds. Statistical generalization measures a sample, then infers the population value. That is the logic underneath every inferential statistic. Causal induction infers influence from covariation that persists as conditions change. Analogical induction extends a finding from one case to a case it resembles. Philosophers since David Hume have noted that induction cannot be justified by logic alone. No number of past observations guarantees that the next case will conform. Thousands of white swans support the claim that all swans are white. One black swan overturns it. So do not abandon induction. Discipline it, with diverse samples and stated boundaries.
Working Together
The Cycle of Inquiry
Presenting deduction and induction as rivals is misleading. In a mature research program they alternate. Observations accumulate and are generalized inductively into a tentative theory. The theory yields deductive predictions, tested against fresh observations. And the results feed back into a revised theory. The process is drawn as a wheel: deduction down one side, induction up the other. A single study normally occupies only one arc of that wheel. An exploratory interview study moves from observations to generalizations. A confirmatory experiment moves from theory to hypotheses to observations. Knowing which arc you are on tells you what your conclusion may say. It prevents a common error: reporting an exploratory finding in confirmatory language. Mixed-methods designs make the alternation explicit within one project.
A Third Form
Abduction: The Best Explanation
There is a third form of reasoning, between the other two. Researchers use it constantly, usually without labeling it. Abduction begins with a surprising observation, and asks what explanation would make it unsurprising. A client makes steady progress for six weeks, then suddenly regresses. Nothing in the treatment plan predicts it. The therapist weighs a medication change, a life event, a therapeutic rupture. Then selects whichever best accounts for the full pattern observed. That selection is abductive. It is a judgment about explanatory fit. Not deductive certainty, and not a generalization from many cases. Abduction is the ordinary source of research hypotheses, the weakest of the three. A rival explanation may fit the same facts, so it must be tested deductively.
Five Traps
Reasoning Errors and Safeguards
Every one of these errors has a specific design safeguard. Affirming the consequent treats a correct prediction as proof of the theory. It ignores rival theories that predict exactly the same result. So name those rivals in advance, and design so they predict differently. Hasty generalization describes a whole population from too few cases. Report your sample fully, and state the boundary the claim holds within. Confirmation bias records what fits the hypothesis and discounts what does not. Pre-register the plan, and add a second coder who does not know it. Illusory correlation sees a relationship because striking co-occurrences are memorable. Quantify the association across all four combinations of presence and absence. Circular reasoning explains a behavior by naming it, then stops. Define the construct independently of the behavior it is meant to explain.
Side By Side
Comparing the Two, and Choosing
Deduction runs from a general principle down to a specific case. Induction runs the other way, from specific cases up to a principle. A deductive conclusion is necessary, if the premises are true. An inductive conclusion is only probable, and never guaranteed. Deductive arguments are judged valid and sound; inductive ones strong and cogent. Deduction risks a false premise; induction risks over-generalizing from unrepresentative cases. So which do you choose? The state of knowledge settles it, not preference. Choose deduction when a theory yields a prediction specific enough to be wrong. Choose induction when the area is new, or you want participants' own accounts. Sequence the two when concepts must be named before being measured. Declare your direction openly, so a reader knows whether the hypothesis came first.
About Research Methods in Psychology at UPI Study
Research Methods in Psychology (Psychology 111) is a self-paced online course of 94 video lessons in 16 chapters, from the scientific method and research ethics to designs, data collection, sampling, measurement, validity, experiments, descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Research Methods vs Statistics
Why take it here
Why students take Research Methods in Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Research Methods in Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning in Research
What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning in research?
What is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?
Why do researchers say a hypothesis is supported rather than proven?
What is abductive reasoning in psychology?
About the Research Methods in Psychology course
How many college credits is Research Methods in Psychology?
How much does Research Methods in Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Research Methods in Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Research Methods in Psychology.
94 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →