Rethinking the Pedagogy of Evaluating Causal Claims in the Psychology Curriculum

Abstract

Unfounded causal claims from the internet, the fact that randomized control trials (RCTs) cannot address many critical issues, and reports that scientific studies fail replication attempts suggest reconsidering how students learn to evaluate causal claims. Traditionally, students learn RCTs are at the top of the research methods hierarchy, and that they cannot infer causation from associations (e.g., correlations). Both traditions are debatable. Students need to learn how to evaluate causal claims they encounter in daily life as well as claims supported by scientific evidence. Students will become better critical thinkers from learning a definition of evidence that applies inside and outside the psychology laboratory and how to use anecdotes, associations, and RCTs in defense of causal claims. They must learn to question all evidence and seek patterns of supporting evidence for causal claims.