The process occurring after a research study concludes involves informing participants about the study’s true nature, goals, and any deception employed. This explanation aims to alleviate any potential harm or distress experienced during the study. For instance, if a study involved misleading participants about the purpose of a task to examine their stress response, this post-experiment phase would reveal the actual hypothesis being tested and offer support resources if needed. It is a crucial component of ethical research practice.
Its significance lies in protecting participant well-being, upholding ethical research standards, and ensuring the integrity of psychological research. The post-study process helps to correct any misconceptions formed during the study and provides an opportunity to address any adverse effects experienced. Historically, emphasis on this process arose from increasing awareness of ethical considerations in research, particularly following studies that raised concerns about the treatment of participants. The main advantage is to provide a complete picture to participants about their contribution.
Understanding this concept is foundational for comprehending research ethics within psychological investigations. Its application is relevant in designing and evaluating research proposals. The following sections delve deeper into related considerations, covering informed consent, minimizing harm, and ensuring confidentiality in psychological studies.
1. Ethical imperative
The ethical imperative serves as the fundamental justification for post-experiment explanation. It dictates that researchers are obligated to protect the rights, welfare, and dignity of research participants. This obligation necessitates providing a complete account of the studys purpose, methods, and any deception employed upon its conclusion. Failure to adhere to this ethical standard directly undermines the principles of informed consent and respect for persons, leading to potential psychological harm and erosion of trust in psychological research. For instance, a study involving false feedback designed to influence self-esteem must include a post-experiment explanation that reveals the true nature of the feedback, preventing long-term negative impacts on the participant’s self-perception. Without a thorough post-study process, the study becomes ethically indefensible.
The importance of the ethical imperative stems from its role in ensuring the validity and reliability of research findings. Participants who feel deceived or mistreated are less likely to provide honest responses in future research, potentially skewing results and compromising the overall quality of psychological science. Moreover, adherence to ethical guidelines, including post-experimental disclosure, fosters a culture of transparency and accountability within the research community. This adherence strengthens public trust in psychological research and encourages participation in future studies. Consider, for example, studies on implicit bias; thorough explanation after revealing potential biases helps participants understand and address their own prejudices, ultimately contributing to a more equitable society.
In summary, the ethical imperative is inextricably linked to the design, execution, and reporting of psychological studies. It necessitates a post-experiment explanation as a vital component of responsible research practice. The absence of thorough and sensitive debriefing not only violates ethical standards but also undermines the integrity of the research process and the credibility of psychological science. Addressing challenges in implementing robust debriefing procedures, such as time constraints or participant reluctance, requires proactive planning, careful communication, and a firm commitment to upholding the ethical principles that govern psychological research.
2. Participant well-being
Participant well-being is intrinsically linked to the post-experiment explanation in psychological studies. This connection underscores the ethical responsibility of researchers to prioritize the physical and psychological health of those who contribute to scientific knowledge. The post-study explanation serves as a crucial mechanism for mitigating any potential harm incurred during the research process.
-
Psychological Distress Mitigation
The post-experiment explanation provides an opportunity to address any psychological distress experienced by participants. If a study involved deception or the manipulation of emotional states, the explanation allows researchers to clarify the true nature of the study and offer support to alleviate any negative feelings. For example, participants in a study involving exposure to disturbing images may experience anxiety or distress. The explanation allows researchers to normalize these reactions, provide coping strategies, and offer referrals to mental health professionals if necessary. Failing to address psychological distress could lead to long-term negative consequences for participants.
-
Informed Consent Reaffirmation
While informed consent is obtained prior to participation, the post-experiment explanation reinforces this process by ensuring participants fully understand what they experienced. This reinforcement allows individuals to re-evaluate their consent in light of the complete information about the study. If a participant feels their initial consent was not fully informed due to deception, they have the opportunity to withdraw their data or seek further clarification. This process safeguards participant autonomy and promotes ethical research practices.
-
Misconception Correction
Psychological studies often involve complex procedures or manipulations that can lead to misconceptions among participants. The post-experiment explanation provides an opportunity to correct these misconceptions and ensure that individuals leave the study with an accurate understanding of the research. For example, in studies involving cognitive biases, participants may develop inaccurate beliefs about their own abilities or decision-making processes. The explanation can clarify these biases and provide information to help participants make more informed judgments in the future.
-
Long-Term Impact Assessment
The post-experiment explanation is a critical component of assessing the long-term impact of a study on participant well-being. By engaging in open communication and providing resources, researchers can identify any unforeseen negative consequences that may arise after the study concludes. This assessment allows for proactive intervention and demonstrates a commitment to the ethical treatment of participants beyond the immediate research context. Follow-up assessments, if possible, further contribute to understanding and addressing any lingering effects of participation.
These facets highlight the multifaceted role of post-experiment explanation in safeguarding participant well-being. It is not merely a formality but a vital component of ethical research practice that promotes psychological health, autonomy, and accurate understanding. The effective implementation of thorough explanation is essential for maintaining the integrity of psychological research and fostering trust between researchers and the public.
3. Deception revelation
Deception revelation forms a cornerstone of ethical research practice, particularly within the framework of a post-study process. It necessitates the transparent disclosure of any misleading information participants received during a study, addressing the ethical implications of such procedures and ensuring participant understanding.
-
Ethical Justification Disclosure
The post-study process must explicitly state the reasons for employing deception. This justification requires a detailed explanation of why deceptive techniques were necessary to achieve the research goals and why alternative methods were unsuitable. For example, if participants were led to believe they were interacting with real individuals in a social experiment, the justification would explain how revealing the study’s true purpose beforehand would have compromised the validity of the findings. Failing to provide a convincing rationale undermines ethical standards and can lead to participant distrust.
-
True Study Purpose Explanation
Following the justification, researchers must thoroughly explain the actual purpose of the study. This explanation involves outlining the research question, hypotheses, and the specific variables being investigated. In the case of a study involving a placebo condition, the explanation would reveal that some participants did not receive the active treatment and detail the rationale for including this control group. Clarity and transparency are paramount in conveying the true study aims.
-
Impact on Participant Beliefs
The post-study phase should actively address the potential impact of deception on participant beliefs and attitudes. This involves exploring whether the deception led to any misconceptions or negative self-perceptions. For instance, if participants were falsely informed about their performance on a cognitive task, the explanation must correct any inaccurate beliefs about their abilities and provide reassurance. The goal is to mitigate any lasting psychological effects stemming from the deception.
-
Opportunity for Data Withdrawal
An integral aspect of deception revelation is providing participants with the opportunity to withdraw their data after learning the study’s true nature. This ensures that individuals retain control over their contribution to the research. Participants must be informed that their decision to withdraw will not result in any negative consequences and that their data will be removed from the study dataset. This safeguard protects participant autonomy and upholds ethical principles.
These facets demonstrate the critical role of deception revelation within post-study explanation. It is not simply an admission of misleading participants but a comprehensive process aimed at rectifying any harm, correcting misconceptions, and reaffirming ethical standards. A well-executed deception revelation process is essential for maintaining the integrity of psychological research and fostering trust between researchers and the public. Without it, the ethical foundations of the research are compromised, and the potential for negative consequences on participant well-being increases substantially.
4. Informed consent
Informed consent and the post-study explanation are inextricably linked, representing sequential phases in the ethical conduct of psychological research. Informed consent precedes participation, requiring researchers to provide potential participants with comprehensive information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. This process empowers individuals to make an autonomous decision about whether to participate. The post-study explanation, conversely, occurs after participation, serving to clarify any deception employed, correct misconceptions, and address any adverse effects experienced during the study. Consequently, the post-study process directly addresses limitations or incomplete disclosures inherent in the initial informed consent process, particularly in studies involving deception.
The importance of informed consent as a precursor to the post-study explanation lies in establishing a foundation of trust and ethical obligation. When deception is necessary, obtaining informed consent beforehand necessitates informing participants that some aspects of the study will be withheld or misrepresented. The post-study explanation then fulfills the ethical imperative to rectify this omission. For example, in a study examining conformity, participants may be unaware that other individuals are confederates instructed to provide incorrect answers. The post-study process reveals this deception, explaining its purpose and allowing participants to understand how it influenced their behavior. This complete disclosure ensures that participants are not left with inaccurate perceptions about their actions or the study’s intent. The practical significance of understanding this connection is evident in minimizing potential harm and maintaining the integrity of psychological research. Studies that neglect to adequately address deception in the post-study process risk violating ethical guidelines and eroding public trust in the field.
In conclusion, informed consent and the post-study process represent complementary components of ethical research. While informed consent initiates the process by providing preliminary information and obtaining agreement to participate, the post-study explanation completes the ethical loop by addressing any deception, mitigating harm, and ensuring participant understanding. Challenges in implementing effective post-study procedures, such as participant reluctance or logistical constraints, require proactive planning and a commitment to prioritizing ethical considerations. The ultimate goal is to uphold the rights and well-being of research participants while advancing the understanding of human behavior.
5. Misconception correction
Within the context of psychological research, misconception correction serves as a pivotal function within the post-study explanation. The process is designed to rectify any erroneous beliefs or misunderstandings that participants may have developed during their involvement in a study. Addressing these misconceptions is essential for safeguarding participant well-being and maintaining the integrity of research findings.
-
Addressing False Assumptions
Many psychological studies, particularly those employing deception or complex manipulations, can inadvertently lead participants to form inaccurate assumptions about the research’s purpose or their own performance. The post-study phase provides a structured opportunity to identify and correct these false assumptions. For example, in studies where participants are given false feedback about their abilities, the post-study process would explicitly correct this misinformation, ensuring participants do not leave with an altered and incorrect self-perception. Failure to address such assumptions can have lasting negative impacts on individuals.
-
Clarifying Study Objectives
Participants may not fully grasp the objectives of a study during the informed consent process, or their understanding may evolve throughout their involvement. The post-study explanation allows researchers to clarify the specific research questions being investigated and the rationale behind the study design. For instance, in studies exploring cognitive biases, participants might not initially understand the nature of these biases or how they are being assessed. The post-study phase would provide a detailed explanation, helping participants understand the broader implications of the research and their role in contributing to this understanding.
-
Debunking Pseudoscientific Beliefs
Psychological research sometimes touches on topics related to popular but unscientific beliefs. The post-study process can serve as an opportunity to debunk these pseudoscientific beliefs and provide participants with accurate information grounded in scientific evidence. For example, a study investigating the effects of subliminal messaging might inadvertently reinforce belief in its efficacy. The post-study explanation would address this by explaining the scientific consensus on subliminal messaging and providing resources for further learning. This corrective action promotes critical thinking and scientific literacy.
-
Preventing Misapplication of Findings
Participants might extrapolate study findings to contexts where they are not applicable, leading to misinterpretations or inappropriate actions. The post-study process can mitigate this risk by providing context and limitations to the research. For example, if a study demonstrates the effectiveness of a specific intervention for a particular population, the post-study explanation would emphasize that the findings may not generalize to other populations or settings. This precaution helps prevent the misapplication of research results and ensures that participants have a nuanced understanding of the study’s implications.
The facets of misconception correction underscore its integral role within the post-study explanation framework. By proactively addressing erroneous beliefs and ensuring accurate understanding, researchers uphold ethical standards and contribute to the responsible dissemination of scientific knowledge. In essence, misconception correction reinforces the value and credibility of psychological research, fostering a more informed and engaged public.
6. Harm mitigation
Harm mitigation is a paramount consideration interwoven with the implementation of post-study processes. Its objective is to minimize or eliminate any potential psychological or emotional distress experienced by participants as a direct result of their involvement in psychological research. Post-study explanation serves as a critical mechanism for achieving this objective.
-
Emotional Distress Management
Psychological studies, particularly those involving deception, exposure to disturbing stimuli, or manipulation of emotional states, can induce emotional distress in participants. The post-study explanation provides an opportunity to address this distress by offering support, normalizing reactions, and providing resources for further assistance. For example, in a study where participants are exposed to negative feedback, the post-study process can involve providing reassurance, correcting any misinterpretations of the feedback, and offering strategies for coping with negative emotions. This proactive approach minimizes the potential for long-term psychological harm.
-
Deception-Related Anxiety Reduction
Deception, while sometimes necessary for methodological rigor, can generate anxiety and distrust among participants. Revealing the deception during the post-study explanation, accompanied by a clear justification for its use, helps to alleviate these negative feelings. Researchers must transparently explain why deception was employed, emphasizing its necessity for achieving valid research findings and ensuring that participants understand they were not intentionally misled for malicious purposes. This transparency fosters trust and reduces the potential for lasting resentment or suspicion.
-
Self-Esteem Protection
Studies involving tasks that assess abilities or performance can inadvertently impact participants’ self-esteem, particularly if they receive negative feedback or perform poorly. The post-study phase should include strategies for protecting self-esteem, such as emphasizing the artificiality of the experimental setting, highlighting individual strengths, and framing performance in a constructive light. Researchers should avoid making disparaging remarks or drawing negative conclusions about participants’ abilities based on their performance in the study. The goal is to ensure that participants leave the study with their self-esteem intact.
-
Confidentiality Assurance
Maintaining confidentiality is crucial for protecting participant well-being. The post-study explanation should reiterate the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of participants’ data and responses. This reassurance can alleviate concerns about privacy violations and potential misuse of personal information. Researchers must explicitly state that data will be anonymized, stored securely, and used only for the purposes outlined in the informed consent process. Transparency and commitment to confidentiality foster trust and encourage honest participation in future research.
These facets illustrate how harm mitigation is intricately connected to the post-study explanation. By proactively addressing emotional distress, reducing deception-related anxiety, protecting self-esteem, and assuring confidentiality, researchers fulfill their ethical obligation to safeguard the well-being of research participants. The post-study explanation is not merely a formality but a critical component of responsible research practice that contributes to the ethical integrity of psychological science.
7. Educational component
The educational component inherent within post-study explanation serves a dual purpose: to inform participants about the specific research they contributed to and to broaden their understanding of psychological science in general. The opportunity to learn about research methods, ethical considerations, and the significance of findings transforms participants from subjects into informed contributors. The disclosure of the study’s true purpose, particularly after deception, is not merely a matter of ethical compliance; it is an opportunity to educate participants on why such methods were employed and the safeguards in place to protect them. For example, a student participating in a memory study might learn about cognitive biases and the challenges of conducting objective research, gaining insights beyond the specific task performed.
The educational aspect directly influences the future engagement of individuals with psychological research. Informed participants are more likely to trust the scientific process, share their experiences with others, and potentially participate in future studies. Moreover, it promotes a more scientifically literate populace, capable of critically evaluating psychological claims encountered in everyday life. A study on persuasion techniques, when followed by an educational explanation, can empower individuals to recognize and resist manipulative tactics, improving their decision-making skills. Therefore, prioritizing the educational component is not just about fulfilling an ethical obligation but also about fostering a more informed and engaged society.
In summary, integrating a robust educational component within the post-study explanation framework is essential for enhancing the participant experience, promoting scientific literacy, and upholding ethical standards in psychological research. Challenges in implementation, such as time constraints or participant disinterest, can be addressed by streamlining explanations, using accessible language, and emphasizing the relevance of the research to everyday life. This ensures that participants derive meaningful educational benefits from their involvement, strengthening the relationship between researchers and the public.
8. Data validity
Data validity, a cornerstone of rigorous psychological research, is inextricably linked with post-study explanation. The integrity and accuracy of collected data are directly influenced by the ethical treatment of participants, with the post-study process serving as a crucial mechanism for ensuring that participants’ experiences and understanding align with the true nature of the study.
-
Addressing Deception’s Impact
When deception is employed, participants may unknowingly provide responses or exhibit behaviors influenced by false beliefs. The post-study explanation is paramount in revealing the deception, correcting any misconceptions, and assessing whether the deception compromised the validity of the collected data. For example, if participants are falsely led to believe they are interacting with real individuals, their responses may be skewed by social desirability bias. Post-study explanation can uncover this bias and allow researchers to appropriately interpret or exclude affected data. The failure to address deception threatens the trustworthiness of the findings.
-
Minimizing Demand Characteristics
Demand characteristics, cues that suggest the study’s hypothesis to participants, can inadvertently influence their behavior, leading to data that reflects what participants believe the researcher expects rather than their genuine responses. The post-study explanation provides an opportunity to identify and mitigate the effects of demand characteristics by asking participants about their perceptions of the study’s purpose. If participants accurately guessed the hypothesis, their data may be flagged or analyzed separately to account for the potential influence of demand characteristics. Ignoring demand characteristics introduces systematic error into the data.
-
Identifying and Rectifying Misunderstandings
Participants may misunderstand instructions, procedures, or questions within a study, leading to inaccurate or irrelevant data. The post-study explanation allows researchers to clarify any ambiguities and ensure that participants fully comprehend the study’s requirements. By soliciting feedback and addressing concerns, researchers can identify instances where misunderstandings may have occurred and take corrective action, such as excluding affected data or revising the instructions for future studies. Unaddressed misunderstandings compromise the precision of the research.
-
Evaluating the Influence of Psychological Distress
If a study induces psychological distress or negative emotions, participants’ responses may be distorted or unreliable. The post-study process provides a forum for assessing the extent of emotional distress experienced by participants and evaluating its potential impact on data validity. If significant distress is identified, researchers may need to consider the ethical implications of their procedures and adjust their analysis to account for the potential influence of emotional states on the collected data. The presence of unacknowledged distress introduces confounding variables that undermine the validity of the conclusions.
These facets highlight the critical role that post-study explanation plays in safeguarding data validity. By addressing deception, minimizing demand characteristics, rectifying misunderstandings, and evaluating the influence of psychological distress, researchers can enhance the trustworthiness and accuracy of their findings. The absence of thorough and ethical post-study procedures directly undermines the validity of psychological research, jeopardizing the credibility of the entire field.
9. Trust restoration
Trust restoration is a vital objective within post-study explanation, particularly in research involving deception. When participants are misled about the true nature of a study, the post-study process becomes essential for repairing any damage to their trust in researchers and the field of psychology as a whole. The following facets detail the mechanisms by which trust is rebuilt after deception is revealed.
-
Transparent Disclosure
The cornerstone of trust restoration is the transparent and honest disclosure of the deception employed. This involves explaining precisely what information was withheld or misrepresented and providing a clear justification for its use. The explanation must be delivered in a respectful and non-defensive manner, acknowledging the potential impact of the deception on participants. For example, in a study where participants were led to believe they were administering electric shocks, the post-study process would involve revealing the true nature of the experiment and emphasizing that no real shocks were delivered. Transparency demonstrates respect for participants’ autonomy and helps to rebuild their trust in the researcher’s integrity.
-
Empathetic Acknowledgment
Beyond simply disclosing the deception, researchers must empathetically acknowledge the potential negative feelings that participants may experience as a result. This involves recognizing and validating emotions such as anger, betrayal, or anxiety. Researchers should express sincere remorse for any distress caused by the deception and offer support to help participants process their emotions. For instance, in a study where participants were given false negative feedback about their abilities, the post-study process would involve acknowledging the potential impact on their self-esteem and providing reassurance that the feedback was not an accurate reflection of their true capabilities. Empathetic acknowledgment demonstrates genuine concern for participant well-being and fosters a sense of connection, which are essential for rebuilding trust.
-
Open Dialogue and Question Answering
Providing an opportunity for open dialogue and answering participants’ questions is crucial for addressing lingering concerns and fostering a sense of closure. Participants should be encouraged to ask any questions they have about the study’s purpose, procedures, or ethical considerations. Researchers must be prepared to provide honest and thorough answers, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability. This open exchange allows participants to express their concerns, clarify any misunderstandings, and gain a deeper understanding of the research process. Open dialogue promotes mutual respect and facilitates the rebuilding of trust.
-
Commitment to Ethical Conduct
The post-study process should reinforce the researcher’s commitment to ethical conduct and the protection of participant rights. This involves reiterating the measures taken to ensure confidentiality, minimize harm, and obtain informed consent. Researchers should also emphasize their adherence to ethical guidelines and their willingness to address any concerns about the study’s ethical implications. Demonstrating a commitment to ethical conduct reinforces the researcher’s integrity and helps to restore participants’ trust in the research process. This is key to ensuring future research participation and overall confidence in the psychological field.
These facets demonstrate that trust restoration is not merely an afterthought but an integral component of ethical research practice. By prioritizing transparent disclosure, empathetic acknowledgment, open dialogue, and a commitment to ethical conduct, researchers can effectively rebuild trust with participants who have been subjected to deception. The success of post-study explanation, particularly in restoring trust, has a direct impact on willingness to participate in future research, ultimately benefitting the scientific community and the advancement of psychological knowledge.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the application and significance of debriefing, a critical element within psychological research, particularly pertinent to Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology students.
Question 1: What precisely constitutes the term as it relates to psychological research?
It refers to the post-experimental procedure wherein participants are informed of the study’s true nature, goals, and any deception employed. This process ensures participants leave the study with a complete understanding of their involvement and corrects any misconceptions formed during the research.
Question 2: Why is this post-study process considered an ethical imperative?
The post-study process aligns with fundamental ethical principles protecting research participants’ welfare and rights. It rectifies any deception, mitigates potential harm, and ensures participants are not left with lasting negative consequences resulting from their involvement in the study.
Question 3: What information must be disclosed during a typical post-study explanation?
The explanation should include the study’s true purpose, any deception employed and its justification, the expected results, and resources available to participants experiencing distress. Additionally, researchers should offer participants the opportunity to ask questions and withdraw their data if they choose.
Question 4: How does this process contribute to the validity of research data?
The procedure can reveal instances where participants misunderstood instructions or demand characteristics influenced their behavior. By addressing these issues, researchers can better assess the accuracy and reliability of the collected data, ensuring the validity of the research findings.
Question 5: What are the potential consequences of omitting a thorough post-study disclosure in research?
Failure to provide a complete post-study disclosure can lead to ethical violations, erode trust in psychological research, and potentially cause psychological harm to participants. It can also compromise the validity of the research findings and hinder the advancement of psychological knowledge.
Question 6: How does the concept of this process relate to informed consent in psychological studies?
While informed consent occurs before participation, a complete post-study process addresses limitations in the initial consent, especially in studies with deception. It reinforces the participant’s autonomy by providing a full understanding of the study and granting the option to withdraw data, thereby complementing the informed consent process.
This FAQ section underscores the crucial role of post-experiment explanations in maintaining ethical standards, ensuring data validity, and fostering trust within psychological research.
The following section transitions to discussing practical implementation and potential challenges in applying this essential process within research settings.
Tips for Mastering Understanding Debriefing
This section provides specific recommendations for enhancing comprehension and application of the concept within the context of AP Psychology.
Tip 1: Define the Term Precisely. A clear understanding of its definition is fundamental. The post-experimental explanation involves informing participants about a study’s true nature, goals, and any deception utilized. Ensure this core understanding is solid.
Tip 2: Distinguish from Informed Consent. While related, the post-study process is distinct from informed consent. The former occurs after participation to clarify and rectify, whereas the latter occurs before to inform and obtain agreement.
Tip 3: Recognize Ethical Implications. Understand that this process is not merely a procedural step, but an ethical obligation. It addresses deception, minimizes harm, and protects participant well-being, all of which are critical aspects of ethical research.
Tip 4: Understand the Component’s Purpose. Know that it’s purpose is to explain the true study purpose, address the impact of deception on participant beliefs and to provide an opportunity for data withdrawal.
Tip 5: Link to Relevant Studies. When studying landmark psychological research, consider how this process was (or should have been) implemented. Analyze the ethical implications of its presence or absence in shaping research outcomes.
Tip 6: Relate to Key Concepts. Connect the concept to broader themes within AP Psychology, such as ethical guidelines, research methods, and social psychology. Consider how deception may impact group dynamics or individual behavior, and then how it is addressed by explanation.
Tip 7: Practice Application through Scenarios. Apply the concept to hypothetical research scenarios. Consider different types of studies and evaluate how this element would need to be tailored to address specific ethical concerns and research goals.
By focusing on these tips, mastery of understanding becomes attainable. Accurate comprehension is critical for application in both academic and real-world contexts.
These tips provide a framework for building a solid understanding. The article’s final section summarizes key takeaways and offers concluding thoughts.
Conclusion
The exploration of “debriefing ap psychology definition” reveals its central position in ethical psychological research. Its implementation is not simply a procedural formality but rather a critical safeguard to ensure participant well-being, data validity, and the integrity of psychological science. By providing a complete understanding of the study, addressing any harm caused by deception, and restoring trust, effective contributes directly to the advancement of knowledge while upholding ethical standards.
Adherence to robust procedures is therefore essential for all researchers. A commitment to prioritizing ethical principles, and ensuring that the process is thorough, sensitive, and tailored to the specific needs of participants. By doing so, the research community will foster greater trust and promote the responsible development of psychological science, benefiting society as a whole.
