There are many ways in which both researchers and the public can view this statement. One way is by looking at ethical principles. The ethical principle Fidelity and responsibility and the ethical principle justice, can be used to explain why psychology should be written for the layman, but can all psychological research be simplified? The whole idea that a research report should allow other researchers to repeat an experiment may support the idea that science should be exclusively for scientists.

To start with I’m going to explain the two ethical principles mentioned above. The first being fidelity and responsibility, this principle states that participants trust experimenters to be knowledgeable and responsible. So if a scientist was to write up their research in a way that the layman could not understand, how is the layman expected to build up trust and respect the researcher. This can really compromise research, for example, the public (who are used as participants) may be less likely to participate in research if they haven’t understood previous research and therefore don’t trust scientists to carry out research on them.

Furthermore, the ethical principle justice, states that everyone has the right to access and benefit from research. But how are the public supposed to access the research, if it is written in a way in which they don’t understand? The public may not understand fully how they may benefit from the research that has been published. Some people may ask, what the point is, with scientists conducting research but others not being able to learn from it. Psychological research looks at the publics behaviour, so shouldn’t the public be able to understand how they behave and ways to learn from it, such as coping mechanisms for anxiety or phobic responses. For example, if Milgram’s research on obedience wasn’t explained, we would not know today that its not just “German people” (or German criminals) who obeyed an authority figure to harm another person, but actually most people will. 65% of Milgrams participants gave the maximum voltage shock, which was labelled after the severe shock as XXX. Here is a link to the study: http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

However not all points support the idea that research should be published in a way that the layman can understand. The whole idea of publishing a research report is so that other scientists (psychological researchers) can repeat the research or conduct research that follows on from previous research.  If it was written in a way suitable for the public, other scientists may not be able to understand or compare their findings with other findings. Also, psychological research, before being published must follow the format given by the American Psychological Association (APA), therefore, even if scientists wanted to publish it in a way fit for the general public to read, for example publishing the results section differently, it would not follow the requirements needed by the APA in order to be published. Usually, if a psychologist wants their research to be published in an academic journal, their research would have to pass a peer review. This is where other colleagues with a similar research background check to see whether the APA criteria have been met. Here is a link about peer reviews from the APA website: http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/peer/index.aspx

Another point to look at it whether all psychological research can actually be simplified. For example, psychodynamic explanations given by Freud, are hard to simplify. How can the areas, the Id, ego and superego be simplified, when firstly psychologists cannot even prove that they exist! Or how can the Oedipus complex be explained to the general public, when only case studies such as Little Hans have been conducted. Here is a link, showing the complexity of the research on little Hans conducted by Freud: http://www.answers.com/topic/analysis-of-a-phobia-in-a-five-year-old-boy-little-hans

Another point to acknowledge is what source it is being published from. For example whether it is being published in the British Journal of psychology or whether it is being published in a magazine such as The Psychologist. The first is written in a format, suitable for other psychologists, whereas the second is written in a way, more suitable for the general public. Here is a link to, The Psychologist website: http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/.

In conclusion, we look at whether psychology should be either written for the layman or scientists, but what about publishing research for both scientists and the public. Maybe the best way it to have research published in both so other psychologists can compare their results by reading journals but the general public can understand research by reading it in magazines, so they don’t have to studied psychology to benefit from psychological research.