How to Interpret Psychology Research Like a Pro

Source: Artem Podrez / Pexels

A professor in my graduate school warned us against handing a tissue to a client who was crying. He explained that it could interrupt the release of their emotions and often served as a way of quelching the therapists’ anxiety by subconsciously stopping the client’s tears. I was mesmerized by this revelation and wrote it down in my notebook while imagining the title of a future book I would write called “Never Hand Your Client a Tissue and Other Secrets I Learned in Graduate School.”

Several weeks later, a woman in the back of the class began sobbing while sharing a difficult experience in her past that was triggered by the class material. We all watched and listened with rapt and empathetic attention. Then she stopped, looked at everyone with annoyance, and exclaimed, “Will someone please hand me a damn Kleenex? My makeup is getting ruined over here.”

My book plan began to evaporate as I reflected that the issue of handing over a tissue might be more complex. Over the years, I’ve made sure that a tissue box is within easy reach in my practice. When it was not, I was sensitive about quietly passing the tissue box and found it was received with great appreciation and a gentle smile while the client continued with what they were saying.

The point is that a professor proposed that handing a tissue would interrupt a person’s emotional flow. A classroom example demonstrated that a person’s emotional expression was halted when they did not have a tissue. And my anecdotal experience showed that people could still effectively share their feelings after being presented with a tissue.

What I did not do and have not found is empirical research that supports the theory that handing over a tissue inhibits one’s deeper emotional expression when crying.

While I have used the tissue example—which admittedly is not a fully developed theory—I hope to shed light on something important for students, budding researchers, and overall consumers of psychology, news, and science: Some of the information you read may relate to a person’s personal theory (in other words, their opinion), their observation (but perhaps only anecdotal evidence like my experience with the tissues), or a well-developed theoretical framework.

None of these are proven.

They may interest and resonate with you but are not empirical evidence.

So, how do we get empirical evidence? We aim to conduct research to test theories.

Of course, research can still be flawed. There may be bias, poor statistical measures, and other areas presenting flaws in the outcomes. That’s why researchers replicate—do it again and again and in different conditions—to see if their results hold up.

Sometimes, the results do not hold up, and popular trending ideas are disproven, often by other researchers. A widely known example of this is the power pose research by Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy, whose famous TED talk on the topic garnered almost 70 million views. The notion was highly influential in popular culture and influenced many people's behavior. Unfortunately, later researchers attempting to replicate the findings found exceptions to some of Cuddy’s claims. (Fortunately, taking on the power pose probably still empowers people more than it harms them.)

A more challenging example of navigating psychological research lies in the ongoing debate of how mental health and mental disorders are conceptualized, labeled, and treated. For instance, Du Toit (2017) offers an expansive way of looking at post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from an existential-phenomenological theoretical lens, positing that traditional medical models are more reductionistic, symptom-focused, and thereby less holistic and growth-focused.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thus, a mental diagnosis may be similarly treated with a medical-theoretical lens, while other, more holistic strategies, like an existential approach, could focus on the opportunities and other existential experiences one may have gained from traumatic exposure.

Replication Crisis Essential Reads

Revisiting the Self-Refilling Bowl of Soup

Is Psychology Research Unreliable?

This brings me to another way of looking at the research. Some studies investigate the research conducted to date from their respective theoretical lens. For example, Arrendos and Caparrós (2023) conducted a systematic review of research on existential psychotherapy for people with traumatic exposure and adverse experiences. Some of the consistent findings in the research showed that people were able to improve over time and that meaning-making and working through existential topics like death anxiety and complicated grief were important parts of the process that aided in post-traumatic growth. Moreover, the research pointed out that the trauma itself initiated positive transformations alongside the pain. The research suggests much more than this simplistic description. Yet it is cited here as an example of work that delves into the peer-reviewed research completed to date while also demonstrating that studies could have been conducted with a particular theoretical lens.

The bottom line: Not all research is equal. There might be replication difficulties, unproven theories or opinions conjectured, different theoretical lenses that view people and their symptoms in different ways, and some that present an analysis of research conducted in a particular subject area. Therefore, it might be easier to conceptualize research as one ingredient in a recipe and begin noticing how each ingredient intersects and connects to the variety of meals within the buffet of life.

While this post may or may not have made you question whether to hand a tissue to someone crying, I do hope it inspires you to pause and reflect before presenting a research study or anything else you have read as established fact.