limitations and implications for research

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Implications in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Implications in Research

Implications in research refer to the potential consequences, applications, or outcomes of the findings and conclusions of a research study. These can include both theoretical and practical implications that extend beyond the immediate scope of the study and may impact various stakeholders, such as policymakers, practitioners, researchers , or the general public.

Structure of Implications

The format of implications in research typically follows the structure below:

• Restate the main findings: Begin by restating the main findings of the study in a brief summary .
• Link to the research question/hypothesis : Clearly articulate how the findings are related to the research question /hypothesis.
• Discuss the practical implications: Discuss the practical implications of the findings, including their potential impact on the field or industry.
• Discuss the theoretical implications : Discuss the theoretical implications of the findings, including their potential impact on existing theories or the development of new ones.
• Identify limitations: Identify the limitations of the study and how they may affect the generalizability of the findings.
• Suggest directions for future research: Suggest areas for future research that could build on the current study’s findings and address any limitations.

Types of Implications in Research

Types of Implications in Research are as follows:

Theoretical Implications

These are the implications that a study has for advancing theoretical understanding in a particular field. For example, a study that finds a new relationship between two variables can have implications for the development of theories and models in that field.

Practical Implications

These are the implications that a study has for solving practical problems or improving real-world outcomes. For example, a study that finds a new treatment for a disease can have implications for improving the health of patients.

Methodological Implications

These are the implications that a study has for advancing research methods and techniques. For example, a study that introduces a new method for data analysis can have implications for how future research in that field is conducted.

Ethical Implications

These are the implications that a study has for ethical considerations in research. For example, a study that involves human participants must consider the ethical implications of the research on the participants and take steps to protect their rights and welfare.

Policy Implications

These are the implications that a study has for informing policy decisions. For example, a study that examines the effectiveness of a particular policy can have implications for policymakers who are considering whether to implement or change that policy.

Societal Implications

These are the implications that a study has for society as a whole. For example, a study that examines the impact of a social issue such as poverty or inequality can have implications for how society addresses that issue.

Forms of Implications In Research

Forms of Implications are as follows:

Positive Implications

These refer to the positive outcomes or benefits that may result from a study’s findings. For example, a study that finds a new treatment for a disease can have positive implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the wider society.

Negative Implications

These refer to the negative outcomes or risks that may result from a study’s findings. For example, a study that finds a harmful side effect of a medication can have negative implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the wider society.

Direct Implications

These refer to the immediate consequences of a study’s findings. For example, a study that finds a new method for reducing greenhouse gas emissions can have direct implications for policymakers and businesses.

Indirect Implications

These refer to the broader or long-term consequences of a study’s findings. For example, a study that finds a link between childhood trauma and mental health issues can have indirect implications for social welfare policies, education, and public health.

Importance of Implications in Research

The following are some of the reasons why implications are important in research:

• To inform policy and practice: Research implications can inform policy and practice decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for actions that can be taken to address the issues identified in the research. This can lead to more effective policies and practices that are grounded in empirical evidence.
• To guide future research: Implications can also guide future research by identifying areas that need further investigation, highlighting gaps in current knowledge, and suggesting new directions for research.
• To increase the impact of research : By communicating the practical and theoretical implications of their research, researchers can increase the impact of their work by demonstrating its relevance and importance to a wider audience.
• To enhance the credibility of research : Implications can help to enhance the credibility of research by demonstrating that the findings have practical and theoretical significance and are not just abstract or academic exercises.
• To foster collaboration and engagement : Implications can also foster collaboration and engagement between researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders by providing a common language and understanding of the practical and theoretical implications of the research.

Example of Implications in Research

Here are some examples of implications in research:

• Medical research: A study on the efficacy of a new drug for a specific disease can have significant implications for medical practitioners, patients, and pharmaceutical companies. If the drug is found to be effective, it can be used to treat patients with the disease, improve their health outcomes, and generate revenue for the pharmaceutical company.
• Educational research: A study on the impact of technology on student learning can have implications for educators and policymakers. If the study finds that technology improves student learning outcomes, educators can incorporate technology into their teaching methods, and policymakers can allocate more resources to technology in schools.
• Social work research: A study on the effectiveness of a new intervention program for individuals with mental health issues can have implications for social workers, mental health professionals, and policymakers. If the program is found to be effective, social workers and mental health professionals can incorporate it into their practice, and policymakers can allocate more resources to the program.
• Environmental research: A study on the impact of climate change on a particular ecosystem can have implications for environmentalists, policymakers, and industries. If the study finds that the ecosystem is at risk, environmentalists can advocate for policy changes to protect the ecosystem, policymakers can allocate resources to mitigate the impact of climate change, and industries can adjust their practices to reduce their carbon footprint.
• Economic research: A study on the impact of minimum wage on employment can have implications for policymakers and businesses. If the study finds that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to job losses, policymakers can implement policies to increase the minimum wage, and businesses can adjust their payroll practices.

How to Write Implications in Research

Writing implications in research involves discussing the potential outcomes or consequences of your findings and the practical applications of your study’s results. Here are some steps to follow when writing implications in research:

• Summarize your key findings: Before discussing the implications of your research, briefly summarize your key findings. This will provide context for your implications and help readers understand how your research relates to your conclusions.
• Identify the implications: Identify the potential implications of your research based on your key findings. Consider how your results might be applied in the real world, what further research might be necessary, and what other areas of study could be impacted by your research.
• Connect implications to research question: Make sure that your implications are directly related to your research question or hypotheses. This will help to ensure that your implications are relevant and meaningful.
• Consider limitations : Acknowledge any limitations or weaknesses of your research, and discuss how these might impact the implications of your research. This will help to provide a more balanced view of your findings.
• Discuss practical applications : Discuss the practical applications of your research and how your findings could be used in real-world situations. This might include recommendations for policy or practice changes, or suggestions for future research.
• Be clear and concise : When writing implications in research, be clear and concise. Use simple language and avoid jargon or technical terms that might be confusing to readers.
• Provide a strong conclusion: Provide a strong conclusion that summarizes your key implications and leaves readers with a clear understanding of the significance of your research.

Purpose of Implications in Research

The purposes of implications in research include:

• Informing practice: The implications of research can provide guidance for practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders about how to apply research findings in practical settings.
• Generating new research questions: Implications can also inspire new research questions that build upon the findings of the original study.
• Identifying gaps in knowledge: Implications can help to identify areas where more research is needed to fully understand a phenomenon.
• Promoting scientific literacy: Implications can also help to promote scientific literacy by communicating research findings in accessible and relevant ways.
• Facilitating decision-making : The implications of research can assist decision-makers in making informed decisions based on scientific evidence.
• Contributing to theory development : Implications can also contribute to the development of theories by expanding upon or challenging existing theories.

When to Write Implications in Research

Here are some specific situations of when to write implications in research:

• Research proposal : When writing a research proposal, it is important to include a section on the potential implications of the research. This section should discuss the potential impact of the research on the field and its potential applications.
• Literature review : The literature review is an important section of the research paper where the researcher summarizes existing knowledge on the topic. This is also a good place to discuss the potential implications of the research. The researcher can identify gaps in the literature and suggest areas for further research.
• Conclusion or discussion section : The conclusion or discussion section is where the researcher summarizes the findings of the study and interprets their meaning. This is a good place to discuss the implications of the research and its potential impact on the field.

Advantages of Implications in Research

Implications are an important part of research that can provide a range of advantages. Here are some of the key advantages of implications in research:

• Practical applications: Implications can help researchers to identify practical applications of their research findings, which can be useful for practitioners and policymakers who are interested in applying the research in real-world contexts.
• Improved decision-making: Implications can also help decision-makers to make more informed decisions based on the research findings. By clearly identifying the implications of the research, decision-makers can understand the potential outcomes of their decisions and make better choices.
• Future research directions : Implications can also guide future research directions by highlighting areas that require further investigation or by suggesting new research questions. This can help to build on existing knowledge and fill gaps in the current understanding of a topic.
• Increased relevance: By highlighting the implications of their research, researchers can increase the relevance of their work to real-world problems and challenges. This can help to increase the impact of their research and make it more meaningful to stakeholders.
• Enhanced communication : Implications can also help researchers to communicate their findings more effectively to a wider audience. By highlighting the practical applications and potential benefits of their research, researchers can engage with stakeholders and communicate the value of their work more clearly.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

• 3 minute read
• 92.4K views

Table of Contents

Manuscripts that do not mention the implications of the study are often desk-rejected by journals. What constitutes the ‘implications’ of research, and why is it important to include research implications in your manuscript?

Research implications: An overview

Once you have laid out the key findings in your paper, you have to discuss how they will likely impact the world. What is the significance of your study to policymakers, the lay person, or other researchers? This speculation, made in good faith, constitutes your study’ implications.

A research paper that does not explain the study’s importance in light of its findings exists in a vacuum. The paper may be relevant to you, the author, and some of your co-workers. But it is unclear how others will benefit from reading it.

How can the findings of your study help create a better world? What can we infer from your conclusion about the current state of research in your field or the quality of methods you employed? These are all important implications of your study.

You cannot predict how your study will influence the world or research in the future. You can only make reasonable speculations. In order to ensure that the implications are reasonable, you have to be mindful of the limitations of your study.

In the research context, only speculations supported by data count as valid implications. If the implications you draw do not logically follow the key findings of your study, they may sound overblown or outright preposterous.

Suppose your study evaluated the effects of a new drug in the adult population. In that case, you could not honestly speculate on how the drug will impact paediatric care. Thus, the implications you draw from your study cannot exceed its scope.

Practical implications

Imagine that your study found a popular type of cognitive therapy to be ineffective in treating insomnia. Your findings imply that psychologists using this type of therapy were not seeing actual results but an expectancy effect. Studies that can potentially impact real-world problems by prompting policy change or change in treatments have practical implications.

It can be helpful to understand the difference between an implication of your study and a recommendation. Suppose your study compares two or more types of therapy, ranks them in the order of effectiveness, and explicitly asks clinicians to follow the most effective type. The suggestion made in the end constitutes a ‘recommendation’ and not an ‘implication’.

Theoretical implications

Are your findings in line with previous research? Did your results validate the methods used in previous research or invalidate them? Has your study discovered a new and helpful way to do experiments? Speculations on how your findings can potentially impact research in your field of study are theoretical implications.

The main difference between practical and theoretical implications is that theoretical implications may not be readily helpful to policymakers or the public.

How to Write Implications in Research

Implications usually form an essential part of the conclusion section of a research paper. As we have mentioned in a previous article, this section starts by summarising your work, but this time emphasises your work’s significance .

While writing the implications, it is helpful to ask, “who will benefit the most from reading my paper?”—policymakers, physicians, the public, or other researchers. Once you know your target population, explain how your findings can help them.

Think about how the findings in your study are similar or dissimilar to the findings of previous studies. Your study may reaffirm or disprove the results of other studies. This is an important implication.

Suggest future directions for research in the subject area in light of your findings or further research to confirm your findings. These are also crucial implications.

Do not try to exaggerate your results, and make sure your tone reflects the strength of your findings. If the implications mentioned in your paper are convincing, it can improve visibility for your work and spur similar studies in your field.

For more information on the importance of implications in research, and guidance on how to include them in your manuscript, visit Elsevier Author Services now!

Differentiating between the abstract and the introduction of a research paper

• Research Process

Writing a good review article

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an “Implications of Research” Section

4-minute read

• 24th October 2022

When writing research papers , theses, journal articles, or dissertations, one cannot ignore the importance of research. You’re not only the writer of your paper but also the researcher ! Moreover, it’s not just about researching your topic, filling your paper with abundant citations, and topping it off with a reference list. You need to dig deep into your research and provide related literature on your topic. You must also discuss the implications of your research.

Interested in learning more about implications of research? Read on! This post will define these implications, why they’re essential, and most importantly, how to write them. If you’re a visual learner, you might enjoy this video .

What Are Implications of Research?

Implications are potential questions from your research that justify further exploration. They state how your research findings could affect policies, theories, and/or practices.

Implications can either be practical or theoretical. The former is the direct impact of your findings on related practices, whereas the latter is the impact on the theories you have chosen in your study.

Example of a practical implication: If you’re researching a teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.

Example of a theoretical implication: You added a new variable to Theory A so that it could cover a broader perspective.

Finally, implications aren’t the same as recommendations, and it’s important to know the difference between them .

Questions you should consider when developing the implications section:

●  What is the significance of your findings?

●  How do the findings of your study fit with or contradict existing research on this topic?

●  Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support them, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge them, why do you think that is?

Why Are Implications Important?

You need implications for the following reasons:

● To reflect on what you set out to accomplish in the first place

● To see if there’s a change to the initial perspective, now that you’ve collected the data

● To inform your audience, who might be curious about the impact of your research

How to Write an Implications Section

Usually, you write your research implications in the discussion section of your paper. This is the section before the conclusion when you discuss all the hard work you did. Additionally, you’ll write the implications section before making recommendations for future research.

Implications should begin with what you discovered in your study, which differs from what previous studies found, and then you can discuss the implications of your findings.

Your implications need to be specific, meaning you should show the exact contributions of your research and why they’re essential. They should also begin with a specific sentence structure.

Examples of starting implication sentences:

●  These results build on existing evidence of…

●  These findings suggest that…

●  These results should be considered when…

●  While previous research has focused on x , these results show that y …

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

You should write your implications after you’ve stated the results of your research. In other words, summarize your findings and put them into context.

The result : One study found that young learners enjoy short activities when learning a foreign language.

The implications : This result suggests that foreign language teachers use short activities when teaching young learners, as they positively affect learning.

 Example 2

The result : One study found that people who listen to calming music just before going to bed sleep better than those who watch TV.

The implications : These findings suggest that listening to calming music aids sleep quality, whereas watching TV does not.

To summarize, remember these key pointers:

●  Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study.

●  They serve as a reflection of the research you’ve conducted.              

●  They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care.

●  They can be practical or theoretical.

●  They aren’t the same as recommendations.

●  You write them in the discussion section of the paper.

●  State the results first, and then state their implications.

Are you currently working on a thesis or dissertation? Once you’ve finished your paper (implications included), our proofreading team can help ensure that your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are perfect. Consider submitting a 500-word document for free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Limitations of the Study
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Apr 20, 2024 2:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Limitations: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on a research journey is an exciting endeavor, but every study has its boundaries and constraints. Understanding and transparently acknowledging these limitations is a crucial aspect of scholarly work. In this guide, we'll explore the concept of research limitations, why they matter, and how to effectively address and navigate them in your academic endeavors.

1. Defining Research Limitations:

• Definition: Research limitations are the constraints or shortcomings that affect the scope, applicability, and generalizability of a study.
• Inherent in Research: Every research project, regardless of its scale or significance, possesses limitations.

2. Types of Research Limitations:

• Methodological Limitations: Constraints related to the research design, data collection methods, or analytical techniques.
• Sampling Limitations: Issues associated with the representativeness or size of the study sample.
• Contextual Limitations: Restrictions stemming from the specific time, place, or cultural context of the study.
• Resource Limitations: Constraints related to time, budget, or access to necessary resources.

3. Why Acknowledge Limitations?

• Transparency: Acknowledging limitations demonstrates transparency and honesty in your research.
• Robustness of Findings: Recognizing limitations adds nuance to your findings, making them more robust.
• Future Research Directions: Addressing limitations provides a foundation for future researchers to build upon.

4. Identifying Research Limitations:

• Reflect on Methodology: Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your research design, data collection methods, and analysis.
• Examine Sample Characteristics: Evaluate the representativeness and size of your study sample.
• Consider External Factors: Assess external factors that may impact the generalizability of your findings.

5. How to Address Limitations:

• In the Methodology Section: Clearly articulate limitations in the methodology section of your research paper.
• Offer Solutions: If possible, propose ways to mitigate or address identified limitations.
• Future Research Suggestions: Use limitations as a springboard to suggest areas for future research.

6. Common Phrases to Express Limitations:

• "This study is not without limitations."
• "One limitation of our research is..."
• "It is important to acknowledge the constraints of this study, including..."

7. Examples of Addressing Limitations:

• Example 1 (Methodological): "While our survey provided valuable insights, the reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of response bias."
• Example 2 (Sampling): "The small sample size of our study limits the generalizability of our findings to a broader population."
• Example 3 (Resource): "Due to budget constraints, our research was limited to a single geographical location, potentially impacting the external validity."

8. Balancing Strengths and Limitations:

• Emphasize Contributions: Highlight the contributions and strengths of your research alongside the limitations.
• Maintain a Positive Tone: Discuss limitations objectively without undermining the significance of your study.

9. Feedback and Peer Review:

• Seek Feedback: Share your research with peers or mentors to gain valuable insights.
• Peer Review: Embrace the feedback received during the peer-review process to enhance the robustness of your work.

10. Continuous Reflection:

• Throughout the Research Process: Continuously reflect on potential limitations during the entire research process.
• Adjust as Needed: Be willing to adjust your approach as you encounter unforeseen challenges.

Conclusion:

Understanding and effectively addressing research limitations is a hallmark of rigorous and responsible scholarship. By openly acknowledging these constraints, you not only enhance the credibility of your work but also contribute to the broader academic discourse. Embrace the nuances of your research journey, navigate its limitations thoughtfully, and pave the way for future investigations.

Related Guides

• How to Write the Abstract of Your Research Paper?
• Research Methods : A Comprehensive Guide
• The Art of Wringing a Research Conclusion
• Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism
• Quantitative Research Methods
• Analyze and Discuss Your Research Findings Like a Pro

How to present limitations in research

Last updated

30 January 2024

Reviewed by

Limitations don’t invalidate or diminish your results, but it’s best to acknowledge them. This will enable you to address any questions your study failed to answer because of them.

In this guide, learn how to recognize, present, and overcome limitations in research.

• What is a research limitation?

Research limitations are weaknesses in your research design or execution that may have impacted outcomes and conclusions. Uncovering limitations doesn’t necessarily indicate poor research design—it just means you encountered challenges you couldn’t have anticipated that limited your research efforts.

Does basic research have limitations?

Basic research aims to provide more information about your research topic. It requires the same standard research methodology and data collection efforts as any other research type, and it can also have limitations.

• Common research limitations

Researchers encounter common limitations when embarking on a study. Limitations can occur in relation to the methods you apply or the research process you design. They could also be connected to you as the researcher.

Methodology limitations

Not having access to data or reliable information can impact the methods used to facilitate your research. A lack of data or reliability may limit the parameters of your study area and the extent of your exploration.

Your sample size may also be affected because you won’t have any direction on how big or small it should be and who or what you should include. Having too few participants won’t adequately represent the population or groups of people needed to draw meaningful conclusions.

Research process limitations

The study’s design can impose constraints on the process. For example, as you’re conducting the research, issues may arise that don’t conform to the data collection methodology you developed. You may not realize until well into the process that you should have incorporated more specific questions or comprehensive experiments to generate the data you need to have confidence in your results.

Constraints on resources can also have an impact. Being limited on participants or participation incentives may limit your sample sizes. Insufficient tools, equipment, and materials to conduct a thorough study may also be a factor.

Common researcher limitations

Here are some of the common researcher limitations you may encounter:

Time: some research areas require multi-year longitudinal approaches, but you might not be able to dedicate that much time. Imagine you want to measure how much memory a person loses as they age. This may involve conducting multiple tests on a sample of participants over 20–30 years, which may be impossible.

Bias: researchers can consciously or unconsciously apply bias to their research. Biases can contribute to relying on research sources and methodologies that will only support your beliefs about the research you’re embarking on. You might also omit relevant issues or participants from the scope of your study because of your biases.

Limited access to data : you may need to pay to access specific databases or journals that would be helpful to your research process. You might also need to gain information from certain people or organizations but have limited access to them. These cases require readjusting your process and explaining why your findings are still reliable.

• Why is it important to identify limitations?

Identifying limitations adds credibility to research and provides a deeper understanding of how you arrived at your conclusions.

Constraints may have prevented you from collecting specific data or information you hoped would prove or disprove your hypothesis or provide a more comprehensive understanding of your research topic.

However, identifying the limitations contributing to your conclusions can inspire further research efforts that help gather more substantial information and data.

• Where to put limitations in a research paper

A research paper is broken up into different sections that appear in the following order:

Introduction

Methodology

The discussion portion of your paper explores your findings and puts them in the context of the overall research. Either place research limitations at the beginning of the discussion section before the analysis of your findings or at the end of the section to indicate that further research needs to be pursued.

What not to include in the limitations section

Evidence that doesn’t support your hypothesis is not a limitation, so you shouldn’t include it in the limitation section. Don’t just list limitations and their degree of severity without further explanation.

• How to present limitations

You’ll want to present the limitations of your study in a way that doesn’t diminish the validity of your research and leave the reader wondering if your results and conclusions have been compromised.

Include only the limitations that directly relate to and impact how you addressed your research questions. Following a specific format enables the reader to develop an understanding of the weaknesses within the context of your findings without doubting the quality and integrity of your research.

Identify the limitations specific to your study

You don’t have to identify every possible limitation that might have occurred during your research process. Only identify those that may have influenced the quality of your findings and your ability to answer your research question.

Explain study limitations in detail

This explanation should be the most significant portion of your limitation section.

Link each limitation with an interpretation and appraisal of their impact on the study. You’ll have to evaluate and explain whether the error, method, or validity issues influenced the study’s outcome and how.

Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives

In this section, suggest how researchers can avoid the pitfalls you experienced during your research process.

If an issue with methodology was a limitation, propose alternate methods that may help with a smoother and more conclusive research project. Discuss the pros and cons of your alternate recommendation.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

You probably took steps to try to address or mitigate limitations when you noticed them throughout the course of your research project. Describe these steps in the limitation section.

• Limitation example

“Approaches like stem cell transplantation and vaccination in AD [Alzheimer’s disease] work on a cellular or molecular level in the laboratory. However, translation into clinical settings will remain a challenge for the next decade.”

The authors are saying that even though these methods showed promise in helping people with memory loss when conducted in the lab (in other words, using animal studies), more studies are needed. These may be controlled clinical trials, for example. 

However, the short life span of stem cells outside the lab and the vaccination’s severe inflammatory side effects are limitations. Researchers won’t be able to conduct clinical trials until these issues are overcome.

• How to overcome limitations in research

You’ve already started on the road to overcoming limitations in research by acknowledging that they exist. However, you need to ensure readers don’t mistake weaknesses for errors within your research design.

To do this, you’ll need to justify and explain your rationale for the methods, research design, and analysis tools you chose and how you noticed they may have presented limitations.

Your readers need to know that even when limitations presented themselves, you followed best practices and the ethical standards of your field. You didn’t violate any rules and regulations during your research process.

You’ll also want to reinforce the validity of your conclusions and results with multiple sources, methods, and perspectives. This prevents readers from assuming your findings were derived from a single or biased source.

• Learning and improving starts with limitations in research

Dealing with limitations with transparency and integrity helps identify areas for future improvements and developments. It’s a learning process, providing valuable insights into how you can improve methodologies, expand sample sizes, or explore alternate approaches to further support the validity of your findings.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

What are the limitations in research and how to write them?

Learn about the potential limitations in research and how to appropriately address them in order to deliver honest and ethical research.

It is fairly uncommon for researchers to stumble into the term research limitations when working on their research paper. Limitations in research can arise owing to constraints on design, methods, materials, and so on, and these aspects, unfortunately, may have an influence on your subject’s findings.

In this Mind The Graph’s article, we’ll discuss some recommendations for writing limitations in research , provide examples of various common types of limitations, and suggest how to properly present this information.

What are the limitations in research?

The limitations in research are the constraints in design, methods or even researchers’ limitations that affect and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity both internally and externally. 

Researchers are usually cautious to acknowledge the limitations of their research in their publications for fear of undermining the research’s scientific validity. No research is faultless or covers every possible angle. As a result, addressing the constraints of your research exhibits honesty and integrity .

Why should include limitations of research in my paper?

Though limitations tackle potential flaws in research, commenting on them at the conclusion of your paper, by demonstrating that you are aware of these limitations and explaining how they impact the conclusions that may be taken from the research, improves your research by disclosing any issues before other researchers or reviewers do . 

Additionally, emphasizing research constraints implies that you have thoroughly investigated the ramifications of research shortcomings and have a thorough understanding of your research problem. 

Limits exist in any research; being honest about them and explaining them would impress researchers and reviewers more than disregarding them. 

Remember that acknowledging a research’s shortcomings offers a chance to provide ideas for future research, but be careful to describe how your study may help to concentrate on these outstanding problems.

Possible limitations examples

Here are some limitations connected to methodology and the research procedure that you may need to explain and discuss in connection to your findings.

Methodological limitations

Sample size.

The number of units of analysis used in your study is determined by the sort of research issue being investigated. It is important to note that if your sample is too small, finding significant connections in the data will be challenging, as statistical tests typically require a larger sample size to ensure a fair representation and this can be limiting. 

Lack of available or reliable data

A lack of data or trustworthy data will almost certainly necessitate limiting the scope of your research or the size of your sample, or it can be a substantial impediment to identifying a pattern and a relevant connection.

Lack of prior research on the subject

Citing previous research papers forms the basis of your literature review and aids in comprehending the research subject you are researching. Yet there may be little if any, past research on your issue.

The measure used to collect data

After finishing your analysis of the findings, you realize that the method you used to collect data limited your capacity to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the findings. Recognize the flaw by mentioning that future researchers should change the specific approach for data collection.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling inaccuracies arise when a probability sampling method is employed to choose a sample, but that sample does not accurately represent the overall population or the relevant group. As a result, your study suffers from “sampling bias” or “selection bias.”

Limitations of the research

When your research requires polling certain persons or a specific group, you may have encountered the issue of limited access to these interviewees. Because of the limited access, you may need to reorganize or rearrange your research. In this scenario, explain why access is restricted and ensure that your findings are still trustworthy and valid despite the constraint.

Time constraints

Practical difficulties may limit the amount of time available to explore a research issue and monitor changes as they occur. If time restrictions have any detrimental influence on your research, recognize this impact by expressing the necessity for a future investigation.

Due to their cultural origins or opinions on observed events, researchers may carry biased opinions, which can influence the credibility of a research. Furthermore, researchers may exhibit biases toward data and conclusions that only support their hypotheses or arguments.

The structure of the limitations section 

The limitations of your research are usually stated at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so that the reader is aware of and comprehends the limitations prior to actually reading the rest of your findings, or they are stated at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

The ideal way is to divide your limitations section into three steps: 

1. Identify the research constraints; 

2. Describe in great detail how they affect your research; 

3. Mention the opportunity for future investigations and give possibilities. 

By following this method while addressing the constraints of your research, you will be able to effectively highlight your research’s shortcomings without jeopardizing the quality and integrity of your research.

Present your research or paper in an innovative way

If you want your readers to be engaged and participate in your research, try Mind The Graph tool to add visual assets to your content. Infographics may improve comprehension and are easy to read, just as the Mind The Graph tool is simple to use and offers a variety of templates from which you can select the one that best suits your information.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Writing Limitations of Research Study — 4 Reasons Why It Is Important!

It is not unusual for researchers to come across the term limitations of research during their academic paper writing. More often this is interpreted as something terrible. However, when it comes to research study, limitations can help structure the research study better. Therefore, do not underestimate significance of limitations of research study.

Allow us to take you through the context of how to evaluate the limits of your research and conclude an impactful relevance to your results.

Table of Contents

What Are the Limitations of a Research Study?

Every research has its limit and these limitations arise due to restrictions in methodology or research design.  This could impact your entire research or the research paper you wish to publish. Unfortunately, most researchers choose not to discuss their limitations of research fearing it will affect the value of their article in the eyes of readers.

However, it is very important to discuss your study limitations and show it to your target audience (other researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers etc.). It is very important that you provide an explanation of how your research limitations may affect the conclusions and opinions drawn from your research. Moreover, when as an author you state the limitations of research, it shows that you have investigated all the weaknesses of your study and have a deep understanding of the subject. Being honest could impress your readers and mark your study as a sincere effort in research.

Why and Where Should You Include the Research Limitations?

The main goal of your research is to address your research objectives. Conduct experiments, get results and explain those results, and finally justify your research question . It is best to mention the limitations of research in the discussion paragraph of your research article.

At the very beginning of this paragraph, immediately after highlighting the strengths of the research methodology, you should write down your limitations. You can discuss specific points from your research limitations as suggestions for further research in the conclusion of your thesis.

1. Common Limitations of the Researchers

Limitations that are related to the researcher must be mentioned. This will help you gain transparency with your readers. Furthermore, you could provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in you and your future studies.

2. Limited Access to Information

Your work may involve some institutions and individuals in research, and sometimes you may have problems accessing these institutions. Therefore, you need to redesign and rewrite your work. You must explain your readers the reason for limited access.

3. Limited Time

All researchers are bound by their deadlines when it comes to completing their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. However, the best practice is to acknowledge it and mention a requirement for future study to solve the research problem in a better way.

4. Conflict over Biased Views and Personal Issues

Biased views can affect the research. In fact, researchers end up choosing only those results and data that support their main argument, keeping aside the other loose ends of the research.

Types of Limitations of Research

Before beginning your research study, know that there are certain limitations to what you are testing or possible research results. There are different types that researchers may encounter, and they all have unique characteristics, such as:

1. Research Design Limitations

Certain restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect your final results or research outputs. You may have formulated research goals and objectives too broadly. However, this can help you understand how you can narrow down the formulation of research goals and objectives, thereby increasing the focus of your study.

2. Impact Limitations

Even if your research has excellent statistics and a strong design, it can suffer from the influence of the following factors:

• Presence of increasing findings as researched
• Being population specific
• A strong regional focus.

3. Data or statistical limitations

In some cases, it is impossible to collect sufficient data for research or very difficult to get access to the data. This could lead to incomplete conclusion to your study. Moreover, this insufficiency in data could be the outcome of your study design. The unclear, shabby research outline could produce more problems in interpreting your findings.

How to Correctly Structure Your Research Limitations?

There are strict guidelines for narrowing down research questions, wherein you could justify and explain potential weaknesses of your academic paper. You could go through these basic steps to get a well-structured clarity of research limitations:

• Declare that you wish to identify your limitations of research and explain their importance,
• Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices.
• Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future.

In this section, your readers will see that you are aware of the potential weaknesses in your business, understand them and offer effective solutions, and it will positively strengthen your article as you clarify all limitations of research to your target audience.

Know that you cannot be perfect and there is no individual without flaws. You could use the limitations of research as a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and improve the future of research. In a typical academic paper, research limitations may relate to:

1. Formulating your goals and objectives

If you formulate goals and objectives too broadly, your work will have some shortcomings. In this case, specify effective methods or ways to narrow down the formula of goals and aim to increase your level of study focus.

2. Application of your data collection methods in research

If you do not have experience in primary data collection, there is a risk that there will be flaws in the implementation of your methods. It is necessary to accept this, and learn and educate yourself to understand data collection methods.

3. Sample sizes

This depends on the nature of problem you choose. Sample size is of a greater importance in quantitative studies as opposed to qualitative ones. If your sample size is too small, statistical tests cannot identify significant relationships or connections within a given data set.

You could point out that other researchers should base the same study on a larger sample size to get more accurate results.

4. The absence of previous studies in the field you have chosen

Writing a literature review is an important step in any scientific study because it helps researchers determine the scope of current work in the chosen field. It is a major foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific goals or objectives.

However, if you are focused on the most current and evolving research problem or a very narrow research problem, there may be very little prior research on your topic. For example, if you chose to explore the role of Bitcoin as the currency of the future, you may not find tons of scientific papers addressing the research problem as Bitcoins are only a new phenomenon.

It is important that you learn to identify research limitations examples at each step. Whatever field you choose, feel free to add the shortcoming of your work. This is mainly because you do not have many years of experience writing scientific papers or completing complex work. Therefore, the depth and scope of your discussions may be compromised at different levels compared to academics with a lot of expertise. Include specific points from limitations of research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Have you ever faced a challenge of writing the limitations of research study in your paper? How did you overcome it? What ways did you follow? Were they beneficial? Let us know in the comments below!

Frequently Asked Questions

Setting limitations in our study helps to clarify the outcomes drawn from our research and enhance understanding of the subject. Moreover, it shows that the author has investigated all the weaknesses in the study.

Scope is the range and limitations of a research project which are set to define the boundaries of a project. Limitations are the impacts on the overall study due to the constraints on the research design.

Limitation in research is an impact of a constraint on the research design in the overall study. They are the flaws or weaknesses in the study, which may influence the outcome of the research.

1. Limitations in research can be written as follows: Formulate your goals and objectives 2. Analyze the chosen data collection method and the sample sizes 3. Identify your limitations of research and explain their importance 4. Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices 5. Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future

Excellent article ,,,it has helped me big

This is very helpful information. It has given me an insight on how to go about my study limitations.

Good comments and helpful

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Trending Now

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Unraveling Research Population and Sample: Understanding their role in statistical inference

Research population and sample serve as the cornerstones of any scientific inquiry. They hold the…

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Research Problem Statement — Find out how to write an impactful one!

What Is a Research Problem Statement? A research problem statement is a clear, concise, and…

How to Develop a Good Research Question? — Types & Examples

5 Effective Ways to Avoid Ghostwriting for Busy Researchers

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Limitations of the Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the application or interpretation of the results of your study. They are the constraints on generalizability and utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you chose to design the study and/or the method used to establish internal and external validity.

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.

Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate to your professor that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitiations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the findings and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in your paper.

Here are examples of limitations you may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your findings. Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is a lack of prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note that this limitation can serve as an important opportunity to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need in future research to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing self-reported data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data contain several potential sources of bias that should be noted as limitations: (1) selective memory (remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past); (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or otherwise limited, the reasons for this need to be described.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single research problem, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability within a sample is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a topic that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. It is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places and how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. Note that if you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating bias.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods . Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as a pilot study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in later studies.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study  is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to reframe your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to  the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't ask a particular question in a survey that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in any future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to prove what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed . January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings! After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitiations of your study. Inflating of the importance of your study's findings in an attempt hide its flaws is a big turn off to your readers. A measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated, or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Yet Another Writing Tip

A Note about Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgement about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Present the Limitations of the Study Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

The limitations of a study are the elements of methodology or study design that impact the interpretation of your research results. The limitations essentially detail any flaws or shortcomings in your study. Study limitations can exist due to constraints on research design, methodology, materials, etc., and these factors may impact the findings of your study. However, researchers are often reluctant to discuss the limitations of their study in their papers, feeling that bringing up limitations may undermine its research value in the eyes of readers and reviewers.

In spite of the impact it might have (and perhaps because of it) you should clearly acknowledge any limitations in your research paper in order to show readers—whether journal editors, other researchers, or the general public—that you are aware of these limitations and to explain how they affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the research.

In this article, we provide some guidelines for writing about research limitations, show examples of some frequently seen study limitations, and recommend techniques for presenting this information. And after you have finished drafting and have received manuscript editing for your work, you still might want to follow this up with academic editing before submitting your work to your target journal.

Why do I need to include limitations of research in my paper?

Although limitations address the potential weaknesses of a study, writing about them toward the end of your paper actually strengthens your study by identifying any problems before other researchers or reviewers find them.

Furthermore, pointing out study limitations shows that you’ve considered the impact of research weakness thoroughly and have an in-depth understanding of your research topic. Since all studies face limitations, being honest and detailing these limitations will impress researchers and reviewers more than ignoring them.

Where should I put the limitations of the study in my paper?

Some limitations might be evident to researchers before the start of the study, while others might become clear while you are conducting the research. Whether these limitations are anticipated or not, and whether they are due to research design or to methodology, they should be clearly identified and discussed in the discussion section —the final section of your paper. Most journals now require you to include a discussion of potential limitations of your work, and many journals now ask you to place this “limitations section” at the very end of your article. 

Some journals ask you to also discuss the strengths of your work in this section, and some allow you to freely choose where to include that information in your discussion section—make sure to always check the author instructions of your target journal before you finalize a manuscript and submit it for peer review .

Limitations of the Study Examples

There are several reasons why limitations of research might exist. The two main categories of limitations are those that result from the methodology and those that result from issues with the researcher(s).

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

Limitations of research due to methodological problems can be addressed by clearly and directly identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this could have been addressed—and SHOULD be addressed in future studies. The following are some major potential methodological issues that can impact the conclusions researchers can draw from the research.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling errors occur when a probability sampling method is used to select a sample, but that sample does not reflect the general population or appropriate population concerned. This results in limitations of your study known as “sample bias” or “selection bias.”

For example, if you conducted a survey to obtain your research results, your samples (participants) were asked to respond to the survey questions. However, you might have had limited ability to gain access to the appropriate type or geographic scope of participants. In this case, the people who responded to your survey questions may not truly be a random sample.

Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

When conducting a study, it is important to have a sufficient sample size in order to draw valid conclusions. The larger the sample, the more precise your results will be. If your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to identify significant relationships in the data.

Normally, statistical tests require a larger sample size to ensure that the sample is considered representative of a population and that the statistical result can be generalized to a larger population. It is a good idea to understand how to choose an appropriate sample size before you conduct your research by using scientific calculation tools—in fact, many journals now require such estimation to be included in every manuscript that is sent out for review.

Lack of previous research studies on the topic

Citing and referencing prior research studies constitutes the basis of the literature review for your thesis or study, and these prior studies provide the theoretical foundations for the research question you are investigating. However, depending on the scope of your research topic, prior research studies that are relevant to your thesis might be limited.

When there is very little or no prior research on a specific topic, you may need to develop an entirely new research typology. In this case, discovering a limitation can be considered an important opportunity to identify literature gaps and to present the need for further development in the area of study.

Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

After you complete your analysis of the research findings (in the discussion section), you might realize that the manner in which you have collected the data or the ways in which you have measured variables has limited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results.

For example, you might realize that you should have addressed your survey questions from another viable perspective, or that you were not able to include an important question in the survey. In these cases, you should acknowledge the deficiency or deficiencies by stating a need for future researchers to revise their specific methods for collecting data that includes these missing elements.

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

Study limitations that arise from situations relating to the researcher or researchers (whether the direct fault of the individuals or not) should also be addressed and dealt with, and remedies to decrease these limitations—both hypothetically in your study, and practically in future studies—should be proposed.

Limited access to data

If your research involved surveying certain people or organizations, you might have faced the problem of having limited access to these respondents. Due to this limited access, you might need to redesign or restructure your research in a different way. In this case, explain the reasons for limited access and be sure that your finding is still reliable and valid despite this limitation.

Time constraints

Just as students have deadlines to turn in their class papers, academic researchers might also have to meet deadlines for submitting a manuscript to a journal or face other time constraints related to their research (e.g., participants are only available during a certain period; funding runs out; collaborators move to a new institution). The time available to study a research problem and to measure change over time might be constrained by such practical issues. If time constraints negatively impacted your study in any way, acknowledge this impact by mentioning a need for a future study (e.g., a longitudinal study) to answer this research problem.

Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

Researchers might hold biased views due to their cultural backgrounds or perspectives of certain phenomena, and this can affect a study’s legitimacy. Also, it is possible that researchers will have biases toward data and results that only support their hypotheses or arguments. In order to avoid these problems, the author(s) of a study should examine whether the way the research problem was stated and the data-gathering process was carried out appropriately.

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

When you discuss the limitations of your study, don’t simply list and describe your limitations—explain how these limitations have influenced your research findings. There might be multiple limitations in your study, but you only need to point out and explain those that directly relate to and impact how you address your research questions.

We suggest that you divide your limitations section into three steps: (1) identify the study limitations; (2) explain how they impact your study in detail; and (3) propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives. By following this sequence when discussing your study’s limitations, you will be able to clearly demonstrate your study’s weakness without undermining the quality and integrity of your research.

Step 1. Identify the limitation(s) of the study

• This part should comprise around 10%-20% of your discussion of study limitations.

The first step is to identify the particular limitation(s) that affected your study. There are many possible limitations of research that can affect your study, but you don’t need to write a long review of all possible study limitations. A 200-500 word critique is an appropriate length for a research limitations section. In the beginning of this section, identify what limitations your study has faced and how important these limitations are.

You only need to identify limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (1) the quality of your findings, and (2) your ability to answer your research question.

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

• This part should comprise around 60-70% of your discussion of limitations.

After identifying your research limitations, it’s time to explain the nature of the limitations and how they potentially impacted your study. For example, when you conduct quantitative research, a lack of probability sampling is an important issue that you should mention. On the other hand, when you conduct qualitative research, the inability to generalize the research findings could be an issue that deserves mention.

Explain the role these limitations played on the results and implications of the research and justify the choice you made in using this “limiting” methodology or other action in your research. Also, make sure that these limitations didn’t undermine the quality of your dissertation .

Step 3. Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives (optional)

• This part should comprise around 10-20% of your discussion of limitations.

After acknowledging the limitations of the research, you need to discuss some possible ways to overcome these limitations in future studies. One way to do this is to present alternative methodologies and ways to avoid issues with, or “fill in the gaps of” the limitations of this study you have presented.  Discuss both the pros and cons of these alternatives and clearly explain why researchers should choose these approaches.

Make sure you are current on approaches used by prior studies and the impacts they have had on their findings. Cite review articles or scientific bodies that have recommended these approaches and why. This might be evidence in support of the approach you chose, or it might be the reason you consider your choices to be included as limitations. This process can act as a justification for your approach and a defense of your decision to take it while acknowledging the feasibility of other approaches.

P hrases and Tips for Introducing Your Study Limitations in the Discussion Section

The following phrases are frequently used to introduce the limitations of the study:

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”
• “As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.”
• “There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the study focused on …. Second ….”

For more articles on research writing and the journal submissions and publication process, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resources page.

And be sure to receive professional English editing and proofreading services , including paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

• Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations (PhD student)
• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Limitations of the Study (USC Library)
• Research Limitations (Research Methodology)
• How to Present Limitations and Alternatives (UMASS)

Article References

Pearson-Stuttard, J., Kypridemos, C., Collins, B., Mozaffarian, D., Huang, Y., Bandosz, P.,…Micha, R. (2018). Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002551

Xu, W.L, Pedersen, N.L., Keller, L., Kalpouzos, G., Wang, H.X., Graff, C,. Fratiglioni, L. (2015). HHEX_23 AA Genotype Exacerbates Effect of Diabetes on Dementia and Alzheimer Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. PLOS. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001853

Research Limitations & Delimitations

What they are and how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | September 2022

If you’re new to the world of research, you’ve probably heard the terms “ research limitations ” and “ research delimitations ” being thrown around, often quite loosely. In this post, we’ll unpack what both of these mean, how they’re similar and how they’re different – so that you can write up these sections the right way.

Overview: Limitations vs Delimitations

• Are they the same?
• What are research limitations
• What are research delimitations
• Limitations vs delimitations

First things first…

Let’s start with the most important takeaway point of this post – research limitations and research delimitations are not the same – but they are related to each other (we’ll unpack that a little later). So, if you hear someone using these two words interchangeably, be sure to share this post with them!

Research Limitations

Research limitations are, at the simplest level, the weaknesses of the study, based on factors that are often outside of your control as the researcher. These factors could include things like time , access to funding, equipment , data or participants . For example, if you weren’t able to access a random sample of participants for your study and had to adopt a convenience sampling strategy instead, that would impact the generalizability of your findings and therefore reflect a limitation of your study.

Research limitations can also emerge from the research design itself . For example, if you were undertaking a correlational study, you wouldn’t be able to infer causality (since correlation doesn’t mean certain causation). Similarly, if you utilised online surveys to collect data from your participants, you naturally wouldn’t be able to get the same degree of rich data that you would from in-person interviews .

Simply put, research limitations reflect the shortcomings of a study , based on practical (or theoretical) constraints that the researcher faced. These shortcomings limit what you can conclude from a study, but at the same time, present a foundation for future research . Importantly, all research has limitations , so there’s no need to hide anything here – as long as you discuss how the limitations might affect your findings, it’s all good.

Research Delimitations

Alright, now that we’ve unpacked the limitations, let’s move on to the delimitations .

Research delimitations are similar to limitations in that they also “ limit ” the study, but their focus is entirely different. Specifically, the delimitations of a study refer to the scope of the research aims and research questions . In other words, delimitations reflect the choices you, as the researcher, intentionally make in terms of what you will and won’t try to achieve with your study. In other words, what your research aims and research questions will and won’t include.

As we’ve spoken about many times before, it’s important to have a tight, narrow focus for your research, so that you can dive deeply into your topic, apply your energy to one specific area and develop meaningful insights. If you have an overly broad scope or unfocused topic, your research will often pull in multiple, even opposing directions, and you’ll just land up with a muddy mess of findings .

So, the delimitations section is where you’ll clearly state what your research aims and research questions will focus on – and just as importantly, what they will exclude . For example, you might investigate a widespread phenomenon, but choose to focus your study on a specific age group, ethnicity or gender. Similarly, your study may focus exclusively on one country, city or even organization. As long as the scope is well justified (in other words, it represents a novel, valuable research topic), this is perfectly acceptable – in fact, it’s essential. Remember, focus is your friend.

Need a helping hand?

Conclusion: Limitations vs Delimitations

Ok, so let’s recap.

Research limitations and research delimitations are related in that they both refer to “limits” within a study. But, they are distinctly different. Limitations reflect the shortcomings of your study, based on practical or theoretical constraints that you faced.

Contrasted to that, delimitations reflect the choices that you made in terms of the focus and scope of your research aims and research questions. If you want to learn more about research aims and questions, you can check out this video post , where we unpack those concepts in detail.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

18 Comments

Good clarification of ideas on how a researcher ought to do during Process of choice

Thank you so much for this very simple but explicit explanation on limitation and delimitation. It has so helped me to develop my masters proposal. hope to recieve more from your site as time progresses

Thank you for this explanation – very clear.

Thanks for the explanation, really got it well.

This website is really helpful for my masters proposal

Thank you very much for helping to explain these two terms

I spent almost the whole day trying to figure out the differences

when I came across your notes everything became very clear

thanks for the clearly outlined explanation on the two terms, limitation and delimitation.

Very helpful Many thanks 🙏

Excellent it resolved my conflict .

I would like you to assist me please. If in my Research, I interviewed some participants and I submitted Questionnaires to other participants to answered to the questions, in the same organization, Is this a Qualitative methodology , a Quantitative Methodology or is it a Mixture Methodology I have used in my research? Please help me

How do I cite this article in APA format

Really so great ,finally have understood it’s difference now

Getting more clear regarding Limitations and Delimitation and concepts

I really appreciate your apt and precise explanation of the two concepts namely ; Limitations and Delimitations.

This is a good sources of research information for learners.

thank you for this, very helpful to researchers

Very good explained

Great and clear explanation, after a long confusion period on the two words, i can now explain to someone with ease.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Qual Life Outcomes

Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency

Milo a puhan.

1 Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail room E6153, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

2 Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Dianne Bryant

3 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

4 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Giovanni Apolone

5 Scientific Directorate, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

Gerben ter Riet

6 Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts.

Introduction

The physicist Richard Feynman argued, during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology in 1974, that utter honesty must be a cornerstone of scientific integrity. He cautioned researchers from fooling themselves by saying: "We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work."[ 1 ]

We think that, in today's culture of publishing biomedical studies, many authors may not want to discuss limitations of their studies because they perceive a transparency threshold beyond which the probability of manuscript acceptance goes down (perhaps even to zero) [ 2 ]. The goals of this commentary are to briefly review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the biomedical literature, to discuss implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists who submitting their papers to biomedical journals. This commentary was initiated by two of the authors (MP and GtR), who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty), and proposed to the editors of Health and Quality of Life Outcomes . All editors supported the idea of writing a commentary on the importance of discussing limitations transparently and four editors (EAA, DB, FX, GA) joined the writing group. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers themselves.

Recognition, acknowledgment and discussion of all potentially important limitations by authors, if presented in an unbiased way, represent a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. The advantages of openly discussing limitations are probably long-term and benefit the scientific community and other users of the evidence: A candid discussion of limitations helps readers to correctly interpret the particular study. Conflicting results across studies may be explained by the patterns in limitations. Moreover, frank discussion of limitations informs future studies, which are likely to be of higher quality if they address the limitations of earlier studies. However, while encouraging others to openly discuss limitations of their studies is easy, discussing the limitations of one's own study is more challenging. Researchers usually have their opinion about how to design and execute studies or how to interpret the results and may not agree that some aspects of a study represent, in the view of others, a limitation. Risks of acknowledging limitations and having an open scientific discourse may include, at least in today's culture, eliciting negative comments by peer reviewers, non-acceptance by journals and a potentially negative image as a researcher.

Discussion of limitations in the medical literature

There is some evidence that limitations are not thoroughly discussed in the medical literature. A study using automated key word searching found that only 17% out of 400 papers published in leading medical journals used at least one word referring to limitations [ 3 ]. Not a single article discussed how a limitation could affect the conclusion. In a more detailed assessment of the medical literature, in which two independent reviewers assessed the abstract and discussion sections of 300 medical research papers, published in first and second tier general medical and specialty journals, 73% of all papers were found to acknowledge a median of 3 limitations [ 4 ]. This higher proportion (compared to the first study) is likely due to a more thorough assessment (i.e., by reviewers rather than an automated search) but could also be related to a slightly different selection of papers. The detailed assessment of these 300 papers revealed that 62% of all limitations referred to aspects of internal validity, which could systematically distort the results. Measurement errors, failure to measure important variables and potential confounding were among those acknowledged most frequently. The remaining limitations referred to aspects of applicability of the results to clinical practice (external validity). Differences between the study population and real-world populations were mentioned most frequently as barriers for applying the results in practice. Few authors discussed how the limitations could have affected the interpretation of study findings.

What is currently unclear is whether authors do or do not address those limitations that are most likely to affect internal validity and applicability of results in real practice. It may well be possible that authors discuss limitations because it is required by journal policies and worry that too open discussion jeopardizes the chances of acceptance. Also, more research is needed to see how the acknowledgment of potentially important limitations fits with the claims made in an article, for example about the effectiveness of a medical intervention or about the measurement properties of a patient-reported outcome.

It is time to discuss limitations not in isolation but in the context of the entire article and as part of a rhetorical-epistemic phenomenon that linguists call "hedging." Hedging refers to "the means by which writers can present a proposition as an opinion rather than a fact" [ 5 ]. By using hedging authors can express the extent of uncertainty about the importance and validity of their study but also prevent readers from making false accusations for strong or definitive statements. Of note, hedging has both positive and negative connotations since it can be used to set an appropriate tone but also to express an opinion that may not be fully supported by the facts.

Discussing implications of limitations prevents misunderstandings and supports interpretation of data

It requires a great deal of judgment to estimate the potential impact of limitations on internal or external validity of a study. Sometimes, the direction of bias may be towards an over- or underestimation of effects. For example, if there is systematic measurement error that equally affects different study groups (so called non-differential measurement error, for example if the exposure is measured with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 90%) the results are usually biased towards an underestimation of the effect [ 6 ]. Or, if a confounder is positively associated with the outcome and more prevalent in study participants exposed to the risk factor of interest, an overestimation of the effect can be expected. Some biases, for example selection bias and some forms of measurement error can, affect the results in a direction that is difficult to predict [ 6 ]. Sometimes, the impact of biases on internal validity may be so small that its description may not be warranted.

Very often the authors of an article are in the best position to judge the direction of a potential bias because they executed the study and have experienced first-hand limitations of their study. In addition, they often have the needed content knowledge that would inform the direction and potential extent of bias. Thus authors should acknowledge recognized limitations and discuss their likely implications on the interpretations of the findings; by doing so, they reduce the probability that readers will misjudge the validity and impact of their study. Of course, it is important that the authors also include the reasoning behind their judgment of the magnitude and direction of the potential bias to enable readers to form their own opinion on the impact of limitations.

For some limitations, however, the impact can better be judged in a meta-epidemiological context, that is, when all studies addressing the same research questions are analyzed together. Some journals ask authors to discuss their results in reference to an existing systematic review [ 7 ]. Thereby, not only heterogeneity of results across studies can be detected but it may be possible to estimate how much a limitation may affect the results. For example, a randomized trial may use a generic health-related quality of life instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment. The trial may show no effect and have high internal validity. However, other trials evaluating the same treatment may have used a disease-specific instrument and shown an effect that exceeded the minimal important difference. Or, studies may have shown that disease-specific instruments discriminate better between disease severity or change over time than generic instruments [ 8 , 9 ]. The limitation of the first trial that used a much less responsive generic instrument only becomes much clearer in a meta-epidemiological context. Another important purpose of systematic reviews is to identify limitations of existing studies and to help investigators to avoid them in the future. It is beyond the scope of this commentary to discuss different types of biases and their implications for the quality of evidence but we refer readers to the extensive literature on biases and to some approaches that are currently used to judge the implications of limitations on the strength of evidence [ 6 , 10 - 12 ].

An open discussion of limitations should not jeopardize paper acceptance by journals

We would like to strongly encourage authors submitting their articles to biomedical journals to openly discuss all potentially relevant limitations of their study. Specifically, we suggest including text in the abstract and discussion section (Table ​ (Table1 1 ):

Suggestions for discussing limitations of studies more transparently

At the end of the results section add one sentence highlighting the one or two main limitations of the study. The conclusion section should reflect the seriousness of the limitations as perceived by the authors and their potential impact on the results and interpretation of the study.

Discussion section

1. Report on all limitations that may have affected the quality of the evidence being presented, including aspects of study design and implementation. Readers depend on a candid communication by the authors and may get the impression that the investigators were naive if they are not reported. If space is limited an online appendix could be considered that describes the limitations as well as their potential implications in more details.

2. Give the authors' view on how the limitations impact on the quality of the evidence and discuss the direction and magnitude of bias. For example, a recent study reporting on the association of quality of life of elderly people with nursing home placement and death discussed the potential mechanism of a selection bias by economic status. The authors concluded that a selection bias based on economic status was unlikely because access to health care, and thus selection into the study, did not depend on economic status [ 13 ]. As explained above, few authors currently discuss how limitations could have affected the strength of the conclusions that may be drawn. However, the authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study and the meta-epidemiological context to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers.

3. Do not restrict the discussion of limitations to aspects of internal validity. For readers, it is important to learn about potential barriers for applying the evidence, generated in scientific studies, to practice. Discuss where the limits of applicability of the results may lie. This requires a discussion of the setting in which the study took place, how and why the results may differ in another setting (potential effect modification) and what barriers may exist to adopt new interventions or diagnostic procedures in a setting that is different from the research setting [ 14 ].

4. Discuss the strengths of the study that may counterbalance or outweigh (some of) the limitations. Be explicit about the strengths, in particular how the study was implemented, and do not limit the discussion of strengths to general statements about study design.

5. Provide suggestions for future research specifically overcoming the limitations of the current study. One may also consider describing how one's own study could be repeated and conducted differently to avoid some of the limitations. Articles acknowledging and putting into context all potentially relevant limitations could help shape the research agenda and may be more likely to be cited because they inform the design and conduct of future studies.

We acknowledge that, even if limitations are openly discussed, some articles will be rejected by journals because the limitations affect an article's validity, level of interest to the reader and comprehensibility too much as assessed by peer reviewers. But we believe that journal editors should consider the thoroughness with which limitations are discussed in their editorial decisions on acceptance. In fact, editors should consider it a shortcoming of the submission if a candid discussion is lacking. To end with Feynman's words, "[...] if you are doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."[ 1 ]

• Feynman RP. Cargo Cult Science. Eng Sci. 1974; 37 (7):10–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montori VM, Jaeschke R, Schunemann HJ, Bhandari M, Brozek JL, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ. 2004; 329 (7474):1093–1096. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7474.1093. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis JP. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60 (4):324–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puhan MA, Heller N, Joleska I, Siebeling L, Muggensturm P, Umbehr M, Goodman S, ter Riet G. The Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Vancouver, Canada: JAMA and BMJ; 2009. Acknowledging Limitations in Biomedical Studies: The ALIBI Study. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyland K. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publication Company; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark S, Horton R. Putting research into context--revisited. Lancet. 2010; 376 (9734):10–11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61001-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puhan MA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein R, Mador J, McKim D, Stahl E, Griffith L, Schunemann HJ. Relative responsiveness of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and four other health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic lung disease. Respir Med. 2007; 101 (2):308–316. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.04.023. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teckle P, Peacock S, McTaggart-Cowan H, van der Hoek K, Chia S, Melosky B, Gelmon K. The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9 :106. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008; 336 (7651):995–998. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336 (7650):924–926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes RB, Sackett D, Tugwell P, Guyatt GH. Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. 3. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bilotta C, Bowling A, Nicolini P, Case A, Pina G, Rossi SV, Vergani C. Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL) scores and adverse health outcomes at a one-year follow-up. A prospective cohort study on older outpatients living in the community in Italy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9 :72. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-72. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bausewein C, Simon ST, Benalia H, Downing J, Mwangi-Powell FN, Daveson BA, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care--users' cry for help. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9 :27. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-27. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Formal and Informal Strategic Planning pp 84–87 Cite as

Limitations and implications for future research

• Daniel Ebner 2  
• First Online: 10 December 2013

1911 Accesses

Part of the book series: BestMasters ((BEST))

This study comprises limitations and room for improvement like every other study. These limitations are mentioned subsequently, before implications and recommendations for further studies (see 6.2 Implications for future research) will complete this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

Daniel Ebner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Ebner, D. (2014). Limitations and implications for future research. In: Formal and Informal Strategic Planning. BestMasters. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04502-9_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04502-9_6

Published : 10 December 2013

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-04501-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-04502-9

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2024

Viral decisions: unmasking the impact of COVID-19 info and behavioral quirks on investment choices

• Wasim ul Rehman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9927-2780 1 ,
• Omur Saltik 2 ,
• Faryal Jalil 3 &
• Suleyman Degirmen 4  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  524 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

This study aims to investigate the impact of behavioral biases on investment decisions and the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of considering cognitive biases and sociodemographic factors in analyzing investor behavior and in designing agent-based models for market simulation. The findings reveal that these behavioral factors significantly positively affect investment decisions, aligning with prior research. The agent-based model’s outcomes indicate that younger, less experienced agents are more prone to herding behavior and perform worse in the simulation compared to their older, higher-income counterparts. In conclusion, the results offer valuable insights into the influence of behavioral biases and the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing on investment decisions. Investors can leverage these insights to devise effective strategies that foster rational decision-making during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is recognized as a significant health crisis that has adversely affected the well-being of global economies (Baker et al. 2020 ; Smales 2021 ; Debata et al. 2021 ). First identified in December 2019 as a highly fatal and contagious disease, it was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) (WHO 2020 ; Baker et al. 2020 ; Altig et al. 2020 ; Smales 2021 ; Li et al. 2020 ). The outbreak swiftly spread across 31 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China, eventually evolving into a severe global pandemic that significantly impacted the global economy, particularly equity markets and social development (WHO 2020 ; Kazmi et al. 2020 ; Li et al. 2020 ). Since the early 2020 emergence of COVID-19 symptoms, the pandemic has caused considerable market decline and volatility in stock returns, significantly impacting the prosperity of world economies (Rahman et al. 2022 ; Soltani et al. 2021 ; Rubesam and Júnior 2022 ; Debata et al. 2021 ; Baker et al. 2020 ; Altig et al. 2020 ). This situation has garnered the attention of many policymakers and economists since its classification as a public health emergency.

Pakistan’s National Command and Operation Centre reported its first two confirmed COVID-19 cases on February 26, 2020. Following this, the Pakistan Stock Exchange experienced a significant downturn, losing 2266 points and erasing Rs. 436 billion in market equity. Foreign investment saw a notable decline, with stocks worth $22.5 million contracting sharply. By the end of February 2020, stock investments totaling $56.40 million had been liquidated. This dramatic drop in equity markets is attributed to the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Khan et al. 2020 ). Additionally, for the first time in 75 years, Pakistan’s economy underwent its most substantial contraction in economic growth, recording a GDP growth rate of −0.4% in the first nine months. All three sectors of the economy—agriculture, services, and industry—fell short of their growth targets, culminating in a loss of one-third of their revenue. Exports declined by more than 50% due to the pandemic. Economists have raised concerns about a potential recession as the country grapples with virus containment efforts (Shafi et al. 2020 ; Naqvi 2020 ). Consequently, the rapid spread of COVID-19 has heightened volatility in financial markets, inflicted substantial losses on investors, and caused widespread turmoil in financial and liquidity markets globally (Zhang et al. 2020 ; Goodell 2020 ; Al-Awadhi et al. 2020 ; Ritika et al. 2023 ). This uncertainty has been exacerbated by an increasing number of positive COVID-19 cases.

Since the magnitude of the COVID-19 outbreak became evident, capital markets worldwide have been experiencing significant declines and volatility in stock returns, affected by all new virus variants despite their effective treatments (Hong et al. 2021 ; Rubesam and Júnior 2022 ; Zhang et al. 2020 ). Previous studies have characterized COVID-19 as a particularly devastating and deadly pandemic, severely impacting socio-economic infrastructures globally (Fernandes 2020 ). The pandemic has disrupted trade and investment activities, leading to imbalances in equity market returns (Xu 2021 ; Shehzad et al. 2020 ; Zaremba et al. 2020 ; Baig et al. 2021 ). In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, various governments, including Pakistan’s, have implemented unprecedented and diverse measures. These include restricting the mobility of the general public and commercial operations, and implementing smart or partial lockdowns, all aimed at mitigating the pandemic’s impact on global economic growth (Rubesam and Júnior 2022 ; Zaremba et al. 2020 ).

Investment decisions become notably complex and challenging when influenced by behavioral biases (Pompian 2012 ). In this context, numerous studies have sought to reconcile various behavioral finance theories with the notion of investors as rational decision-makers. One prominent theory is the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which asserts that capital markets are efficient when decisions are informed by symmetrical information among participants (Fama 1991 ). Yet, in reality, individual investors often struggle to make rational investment choices (Kim and Nofsinger 2008 ), as their decisions are significantly swayed by behavioral biases, leading to market inefficiencies. These biases, including investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/underreaction, and herding behavior, are recognized as widespread in human decision-making (Metawa et al. 2018 ). Prior research has identified various behavioral and psychological biases—such as loss aversion, anchoring, heuristic biases, and the disposition effect—that cause investors to stray from rational investment decisions. Moreover, investors’ responses to COVID-19-related news, like infection rates, vaccine developments, lockdowns, or economic forecasts, often reflect behavioral biases such as investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/underreaction, or herding behavior towards short-term events, thereby affecting market volatility (Soltani and Boujelbene 2023 ; Dash and Maitra 2022 ). These biases may have a wide applicability across different markets, regardless of specific cultural or regulatory differences. Consequently, we posit that these four behavioral biases, in the context of COVID-19, are key factors in reducing vulnerability in investment decisions (Dermawan and Trisnawati 2023 ), especially for individual investors who are more susceptible than in a typical investment environment (Botzen et al. 2021 ; Talwar et al. 2021 ). Therefore, understanding these behavioral biases—such as investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/underreaction, or herding behavior—during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial, as no previous epidemic has demonstrated such profound impacts of behavioral biases on investment decisions (Baker et al. 2020 ; Sattar et al. 2020 ).

Numerous studies have explored the impact of behavioral biases, including investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/under-reaction, and herding behavior, on investment decisions (Metawa et al. 2018 ; Menike et al. 2015 ; Nofsinger and Varma 2014 ; Qadri and Shabbir 2014 ; Asaad 2012 ; Kengatharan and Kengatharan 2014 ). Recent literature has also shed light on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial and precious commodity markets (Gao et al. 2023 ; Zhang et al. 2020 ; Corbet et al. 2020 ; Baker et al. 2020 ; Mumtaz and Ahmad 2020 ; Ahmed et al. 2022 ; Hamidon and Kehelwalatenna 2020 ). However, academic research specifically addressing the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing on behavioral biases remains limited. It has been observed that global pandemics, such as the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), significantly influence stock market dynamics, sparking widespread fear among investors and leading to market uncertainty (Del Giudice and Paltrinieri 2017 ; He et al. 2020 ). This study contributes to the field by examining how behavioral biases, such as investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/under-reaction, and herding behavior, are influenced by the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis. Furthermore, this research provides novel insights into real-time investor behavior and policymaking, thus advancing the academic debate on the role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing within behavioral finance.

The primary goal of this study is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on behavioral biases and their effect on investment decisions. Additionally, it aims to assess how various socio-demographic factors influence investment decision-making. These factors include age, occupation, gender, educational qualifications, type of investor, investment objectives, reasons for investing, preferred investment duration, and considerations prior to investing, such as the safety of the principal, risk level, expected returns, maturity period, and sources of investment advice. We hypothesize that these factors significantly influence investment decisions, and our analysis endeavors to investigate the relationship between these factors and investment behavior. By thoroughly examining these variables, the study aims to shed light on the role socio-demographic factors play in investment behavior and enhance the understanding of the investment decision-making process. Additionally, the study seeks to conduct a cluster analysis to identify hierarchical relationships and causality, alongside an agent-based learning model that illustrates the susceptibility of low-income and younger age groups to herding behavior. The article provides the codes and outcomes of the model.

The study will commence with an introduction that outlines the scope and significance of the research. Following this, a literature review will be provided, along with the development of hypotheses concerning the behavioral biases affecting investment decisions and the role of socio-demographic factors in shaping investment behavior. The methodology section will detail the research approach, data collection process, variables considered for analysis, and the statistical methods applied. Subsequently, the results section will present findings from the regression and moderating analyses, cluster analysis, and the agent-based learning model. This will include a detailed explanation of the model codes and their interpretations. The discussion section will interpret the study’s results, highlighting their relevance to policymakers, financial advisors, and individual investors. The article will conclude by summarizing the main discoveries and offering suggestions for further inquiry in this domain.

Literature review and development of hypotheses

Invsetor sentiments and investment decisions.

Pandemic-driven sentiments play a crucial role in determining market returns, making it imperative to understand pandemic-related sentiments to predict future investor returns. Consequently, we posit that the sharing of COVID-19 pandemic information is a critical factor influencing investor sentiments towards investment decisions (Li et al. 2021 ; Anusakumar et al. 2017 ; Zhu and Niu 2016 ; Jiang et al. 2021 ). Generally, investors’ sentiments refer to their beliefs, anticipations, and outlooks regarding future cash flows, which are significantly influenced by external factors (Baker and Wurgler 2006 ). Ding et al. ( 2021 ) define investor sentiment as the collective attitude of investors towards a particular market or security, reflected in trading activities and price movements of securities. A trend of rising prices signals bullish sentiments, while decreasing prices indicate bearish investor sentiment. These sentiments, including emotions and beliefs about investment risks, notably affect investors’ behavior and yield (Baker and Wurgler 2006 ; Anusakumar et al. 2017 ; Jansen and Nahuis 2003 ). Sentiment reacts to stock price news (Mian and Sankaraguruswamy 2012 ), with stock prices responding more positively to favorable earnings news during periods of high sentiment than in low sentiment periods, and vice versa. This sentiment-driven reaction to share price movements is observed across all types of stocks (Mian and Sankaraguruswamy 2012 ). Furthermore, research indicates that market responses to earnings announcements are asymmetrical, especially in the context of pessimistic investor sentiments (Jiang et al. 2019 ). Such reactions were notably pronounced during COVID-19 pandemic news, where sentiments such as fear, greed, or optimism significantly influenced market dynamics (Jiang et al. 2021 ). Thus, information related to the COVID-19 pandemic emerges as a valuable resource for forecasting future returns and market volatility, ultimately affecting investment decision-making (Debata et al. 2021 ).

Overconfidence and investment decision

Standard finance theories suggest that investors aim for rational decision-making (Statman et al. 2006 ). However, their judgments are often swayed by personal sentiments or cognitive errors, leading to overconfidence (Apergis and Apergis 2021 ). Overconfidence in investing can be described as an inflated belief in one’s financial insight and decision-making capabilities (Pikulina et al. 2017 ; Lichtenstein and Fischhoff 1977 ), or a tendency to overvalue one’s skills and knowledge (Dittrich et al. 2005 ). This results in investors perceiving themselves as more knowledgeable than they are (Moore and Healy 2008 ; Pikulina et al. 2017 ).

Overconfidence has been categorized into overestimation, where investors believe their abilities and chances of success are higher than actual, and over-placement, where individuals see themselves as superior to others (Moore and Healy 2008 ). Such overconfidence affects investment choices, leading to potentially inappropriate high-risk investments (Pikulina et al. 2017 ). Overconfident investors often attribute success to personal abilities and failures to external factors (Barber and Odean 2000 ; Tariq and Ullah 2013 ). Overconfidence also leads to suboptimal decision-making, especially under uncertainty (Dittrich et al. 2005 ).

Behavioral finance research shows that individual investors tend to overestimate their chances of success and underestimate risks (Wei et al. 2011 ; Dittrich et al. 2005 ). Excessive overconfidence prompts over-investment, whereas insufficient confidence causes under-investment; moderate confidence, however, leads to more prudent investing (Pikulina et al. 2017 ). The lack of market information often triggers this scenario (Wang 2001 ). Amidst recent market anomalies, COVID-19 information has significantly impacted investors’ overconfidence in their investment decisions. Studies have shown that overconfident investors underestimate their personal risk of COVID-19 compared to the general risk perception (Bottemanne et al. 2020 ; Heimer et al. 2020 ; Boruchowicz and Lopez Boo 2022 ; Druica et al. 2020 ; Raude et al. 2020 ). Overconfidence may lead to adverse selection and undervaluing others’ actions, underestimating the likelihood of loss due to inadequate COVID-19 information (Hossain and Siddiqua 2022 ). Consequently, this study hypothesizes that certain exogenous factors, integral to COVID-19 information sharing, may moderate investment decisions in the context of investor overconfidence.

Over/under reaction and investment decision

The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) suggests that investors’ attempts to act rationally are based on the availability of market information (Fama 1998 ; Fama et al. 1969 ; De Bondt 2000 ). However, psychological biases in investors systematically respond to unwelcome news, leading to overreaction and underreaction, thus challenging the notion of market efficiency (Maher and Parikh 2011 ; De Bondt and Thaler 1985 ). Overreaction and underreaction biases refer to exaggerated responses to recent market news, resulting in the overbuying or overselling of securities in financial markets (Durand et al. 2021 ; Spyrou et al. 2007 ). Barberis et al. ( 1998 ) identified both underreaction and overreaction as pervasive anomalies that drive investors toward irrational investment decisions. Similarly, Hirshleifer ( 2001 ) noted that noisy trading contributes to overreaction, which in turn leads to excessive market volatility.

The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak extends far beyond the loss of millions of lives, disrupting financial markets from every angle (Zhang et al. 2020 ; Iqbal and Bilal 2021 ; Tauni et al. 2020 ; Borgards et al. 2021 ). Market reactions have been significantly shaped by COVID-19 pandemic information sharing, affecting investors’ decisions (Kannadas 2021 ). Recent studies have found that investors’ biases in evaluating the precision and predictive accuracy of COVID-19 information can lead to overreactions and underreactions (Borgards et al. 2021 ; Xu et al. 2022 ; Kannadas 2021 ). Furthermore, research documents the growing influence of COVID-19 information sharing on market reactions worldwide, including in the US, Asian, European, and Australian markets (Xu et al. 2022 ; Nguyen et al. 2020 ; Nguyen and Hoang Dinh 2021 ; Naidu and Ranjeeni 2021 ; Heyden and Heyden 2021 ), indicating that market reactions, characterized by non-linear behavior, are driven by investors’ beliefs.

Previous literature has scarcely explored the role of investors’ overreaction and underreaction in decision-making. Recently, emerging research has begun to enrich the literature by examining the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing.

Herding behavior and investment decision

According to the assumptions of Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), optimal decision-making is facilitated by the availability of market information and stability of stock returns (Fama 1970 ; Raza et al. 2023 ). However, these conditions are seldom met in reality, as decisions are influenced by human behavior shaped by socio-economic norms (Summers 1986 ; Shiller 1989 ). Behavioral finance research suggests that herding behavior plays a significant role in the decline of asset and stock prices, implying that identifying herding can aid investors in making more rational decisions (Bharti and Kumar 2022 ; Jiang et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Verardo 2018 ; Ali 2022 ). Bikhchandani and Sharma ( 2000 ) define herding as investors’ tendency to mimic others’ trading behaviors, often ignoring their own information. It is essentially a group dynamic where decisions are irrationally based on others’ information, overlooking personal insights, experiences, or beliefs (Bikhchandani and Sharma 2000 ; Huang and Wang 2017 ). Echoing this, Hirshleifer and Hong Teoh ( 2003 ) argue that herding is characterized by investment decisions being influenced by the actions of others.

The sharp market declines prompted by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic raise questions about its influence on investors’ herding behaviors (Rubesam and Júnior 2022 ; Mandaci and Cagli 2022 ; Espinosa-Méndez and Arias 2021 ). Christie and Huang ( 1995 ) observed that investor herding becomes more evident during market uncertainties. Hwang and Salmon ( 2004 ) noted that investors are less likely to exhibit herding during crises compared to stable market periods when confidence in future market prospects is higher. The COVID-19 pandemic, as a major market disruptor, necessitates that investors pay close attention to market fundamentals before making investment decisions. Recent studies suggest that an overload of COVID-19 information could lead to irrational decision-making, potentially challenging the EMH by influencing herding behavior (Jiang et al. 2022 ; Mandaci and Cagli 2022 ). This highlights the importance for investors to be aware of market information asymmetry changes, such as those triggered by the COVID-19 outbreak, which could negatively impact their investment portfolios by altering their herding tendencies. This effect may be more pronounced among individual investors than institutional ones (Metawa et al. 2018 ). A yet unexplored area is the extent to which COVID-19 pandemic information sharing amplifies the herding behavior among investors during investment decision-making processes (Mandaci and Cagli 2022 ).

COVID-19 pandemic information sharing moderating the relationship between behavioral biases and investment decisions

Recent research indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic has notably influenced behavioral biases among investors, affecting their decision-making processes (Betthäuser et al. 2023 ; Vasileiou 2020 ). Since the pandemic’s onset, investors have shown increased sensitivity to pandemic-related news or developments, leading to intensified behavioral biases. This heightened sensitivity poses challenges to investors’ abilities to respond effectively. Specifically, information related to economic uncertainty, infection rates, and vaccination progress has shifted investor sentiment regarding risk perception (Gao et al. 2023 ). Additionally, pandemic news has altered the risk perception of overconfident investors, who previously may have underestimated the risks associated with COVID-19 (Bouteska et al. 2023 ). The increased uncertainty and market volatility triggered by COVID-19 news have also prompted investors to adapt their reactions based on new information, potentially fostering more rational decision-making (Jiang et al. 2022 ). The rapid spread of COVID-19-related news has been shown to diminish mimicry in investment decisions (Nguyen et al. 2023 ). This indicates that viral news about the pandemic makes investors more discerning regarding risk perceptions and investment strategies, moving away from mere herd behavior. Based on this discussion, the study proposes that COVID-19 pandemic information sharing acts as a moderating factor in the relationship between behavioral biases and investment decisions.

Sociodemographic factors and investment decision

The influence of demographic factors like gender, age, income, and marital status on investor behavior is well-documented in financial literature. However, examining these relationships within specific geographical contexts—such as countries, regions, states, and provinces—reveals that cultural values, beliefs, and experiences may blur the distinctions between human and cognitive biases in terms of their nuanced impacts. Evidence shows that certain demographic groups, particularly young male investors with lower portfolio values from regions less developed in terms of education and income, are more prone to overconfidence and familiarity bias in their trading activities. Conversely, investors with higher education levels and female investors are inclined to trade less frequently, resulting in better investment returns (Barber and Odean 2000 ; Gervais and Odean 2001 ; Glaser and Weber 2007 ).

This study’s findings further suggest that with increased stock market experience, investors tend to discount emotional factors, leading to more rational investment choices. Nonetheless, experience alone does not appear to markedly influence the decision-making process among investors (Al-Hilu et al. 2017 ; Metawa et al. 2019 ).

In summary, demographic variables such as age, gender, and education significantly impact investment decisions, especially when considered alongside behavioral aspects like investor sentiment, overconfidence, and herd behavior. Gaining insight into these dynamics is crucial for investors, financial advisors, and policymakers to devise effective investment strategies and enhance financial literacy.

Research methodology

Data and sampling.

The research methodology outlines the strategy for achieving the study’s objectives. This research adopted a quantitative approach, utilizing a survey method (questionnaire) to examine the behavioral biases of individual investors in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The target population comprised individual investors from Punjab province, specifically those interested in capital investments. Data were collected through convenient sampling techniques. A total of 750 questionnaires were distributed via an online survey (Google Form) to investors in four major cities of Punjab province: Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, and Faisalabad. Initially, 257 respondents completed the survey following follow-up reminder emails. Out of these, 223 responses were deemed usable, yielding a valid response rate of 29.73% for further analysis (Saunders et al. 2012 ).

To mitigate potential biases during the data collection process, we conducted analyses for non-response and common method biases. Non-response bias, which arises when there is a significant difference between early and late respondents in a survey, was addressed by comparing the mean scores of early and late respondents using the independent samples t -test (Armstrong and Overton 1977 ). Results (see Table 1 ) indicated no statistically significant ( p  > 0.05) difference between early and late responses, suggesting that response bias was not a significant issue in the dataset.

Furthermore, to assess the potential threat of common method variance, we applied Harman’s single-factor test, a widely used method to evaluate common method biases in datasets (Podsakoff et al. 2003 ). This technique is aimed at identifying systematic biases that could compromise the validity of the scale. Through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted without rotation, it was determined that no single factor accounted for a variance greater than the threshold (i.e., 50%). Consequently, common method variance was not considered a problem in the dataset, ensuring the reliability of the findings.

Figure 1 illustrates the framework of the model established for regression and moderating analyses that reveal the interactions between behavioral biases, investment decisions and COVID-19 pandemic information sharing.

Covid-19 pandemic informing sharing.

Measures for behavioral biases

A close-ended questionnaire based on five-point Likert measurement scales was prepared scaling (1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”) to operationalize the behavioral biases of investors. The first predictor is investor sentiments. It refers to investors’ beliefs and perspectives related to future cash flows or discourses of specific assets. It is a crucial behavioral factor that often drives the market movements, especially during pandemic. We used the modified 5-items scale from the study of (Metawa et al. 2018 ; Baker and Wurgler 2006 ). Second important behavioral factor is overconfidence, which measured the tendency of decision-makers to unwittingly give excessive weight to the judgment of knowledge and correctness of information possessed and ignore the public information (Lichtenstein and Fischhoff 1977 ; Metawa et al. 2018 ). This construct was measured by using the 3-items scale developed by Dittrich et al. ( 2005 ). In line with the studies of (see for example (De Bondt and Thaler 1985 ; Metawa et al. 2018 ), we opted the 4-items scale to measure the over/under reactions. It illustrates that investors systematically overreact to unexpected news, and this leads to the violation of market efficiency. They conclude that investors attach great importance to past performance, ignoring trends back to the average of that performance (Boubaker et al. 2014 ). Last, herding behavior effect means theoretical set-up suggesting that investment managers are imitating the strategy of others despite having exclusive information. Such managers prefer to make decisions according to the connected group to avoid the risk of reputational damage (Scharfstein and Stein 1990 ). In sense, a modified scale was anchored to examine the herd behavior of investors from the studies of Bikhchandani and Sharma ( 2000 ) and Metawa et al. ( 2018 ).

Measures for COVID-19 pandemic information sharing

To assess the moderating effect of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing, it was examined in terms of uncertainty, fear, and perceived risk associated with the virus (Kiruba and Vasantha 2021 ). Previous studies indicate that COVID-19 news and developments have markedly affected the behavioral biases of investors (Jiang et al. 2022 ; Nguyen et al. 2023 ). To this end, an initial scale was developed to measure the moderating effect of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing. The primary reason for creating a new scale was that existing scales lacked clarity and were not specifically designed to assess how anchoring behavioral biases affect investment decisions. Subsequently, a self-developed scale was refined with input from a panel of experts, including two academicians specializing in neuro or behavioral finance and two investors with expertise in the capital market, to ensure the scale’s face and content validity regarding COVID-19 pandemic information sharing. They reviewed the scale in terms of format, content, and wording. Based on their comprehensive review, minor modifications were made, particularly aligning the scale with pandemic news and developments to accurately measure the impact of the COVID-19 health crisis on investors’ behavioral biases. Ultimately, a four-item scale, employing a five-point Likert scale (1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”), focusing on COVID-19 related aspects (e.g., infection rates, lockdowns, vaccine development, and government stimulus packages) was utilized to operationalize the construct of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing (Bin-Nashwan and Muneeza 2023 ; Li and Cao 2021 ).

I believe that increasing information about rate of COVID-19 infections influenced my investment decisions.

I believe that increasing information about COVID-19 lockdowns influenced my investment decisions.

I believe that increasing information about COVID-19 vaccinations development, influenced my investment decisions, and

I believe that increasing information about government stimulus packages influenced my investment decisions.

Measures for investment decisions

To measure investment decision, the modified five points Likert scale ranging from (1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”) has been opted from the study of Metawa et al. ( 2018 ).

Hypotheses of study

The hypotheses of the study regarding regression analysis and moderating analyses are as follows in Table 2 :

The hypotheses outlined above were tested using regression analyses and moderating analyses. To reveal the clustering tendencies of investors exhibiting similar behaviors, cognitive biases, and sociodemographic variables, the feature importance values were investigated using K-means clustering analyses. Furthermore, findings and recommendations were provided to policymakers using agent-based models to develop policy suggestions within the scope of these hypotheses, offering insights for academic purposes.

Demographic profile of respondents

Table 3 provides a brief demographic profile of respondents.

Based on the percentages presented in Table 3 , the study primarily focuses on a specific demographic profile. Most participants were 20–30 years old (61.0%) with a higher educational background, particularly a master’s degree (67.3%). They were mostly salaried individuals (56.5%), male (61.0%), and identified as seasonal investors (63.7%). The investment objective of this group was mostly focused on growth and income (37.2%), while wealth creation (41.3%) was their primary purpose for investing. They preferred to invest equally in medium-term (43.5%) and long-term (28.3%) periods and considered high returns (38.6%) as the primary factor before investing. They received investment advice primarily from family and friends (44.8%) and social media (29.6%). Overall, the study indicates that the sample consisted of younger, male, salaried individuals with higher education levels who rely on personal networks and social media for investment advice. Their investment objectives are focused on wealth creation through growth and income, with an equal preference for medium and long-term investments.

Analysis and results

Descriptive summary.

Table 4 outlines the measures used to evaluate the constructs of the study, detailing the number of items for each construct, mean values, standard deviations, zero-order bivariate correlations among the variables, and Cronbach’s Alpha values. The evaluation encompasses a total of 29 items spread across six constructs: investor sentiments (5 items), overconfidence (3 items), over/under reaction (4 items), herding theory (3 items), investment decision (10 items), and COVID-19 information impact (4 items). The mean scores for these items fall between 3.535 and 3.779, with standard deviations ranging from 0.877 to 0.965.

Parallel coordinates (see Figs. 2 – 5 ) visualization is employed as a method to depict high-dimensional data on a two-dimensional plane, proving particularly beneficial for datasets with a large number of features or attributes. This technique involves the use of vertical axes to represent each feature, connected by horizontal lines that represent individual data points. This visualization method facilitates the identification of patterns, detection of clusters or outliers, and discovery of correlations among the features. Therefore, parallel coordinates visualization is instrumental in analyzing complex datasets, aiding in the informed decision-making process based on the insights obtained.

Strongly disagree (CIS1) choice parallel coordinates.

Disagree (CIS2) choice parallel coordinates.

Agree (CIS3) choice parallel coordinates.

Strongly agree (CIS4) choice parallel coordinates.

The analysis of responses to the COVID-19 information sharing questions reveals a significant correlation with the second and fourth-level responses concerning cognitive biases, including investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior. This observation leads to two key insights. Firstly, participants demonstrate an ability to perceive, respond to, and comprehend the nuances of their investment decisions as related to investor sentiment, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior. Consequently, they show a propensity to make clear decisions, indicating agreement or disagreement in their responses. Secondly, it is noted that individuals who acknowledge being significantly influenced by COVID-19 news tend to adopt more balanced investment strategies concerning these cognitive biases. Additionally, younger individuals, particularly those self-employed or not professionally investing, who show a preference for long-term value investments, are more inclined to exhibit these tendencies.

The value of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to investigate the nature, strength and relationship between variables. The results of correlation analysis reveal that all the constructs positively correlated.

To investigate the interconnections among variables in the dataset, correlations were computed and illustrated through a network graph. The correlation matrix’s values served as the basis for edge weights in the graph, with more robust correlations depicted by thicker lines (see Fig. 6a ). Each variable received a unique color, and connections showcasing higher correlations utilized a distinct color scheme to enhance visual clarity. This method offers a graphical depiction of the intricate relationships among various variables, facilitating the discovery of patterns and insights that might remain obscured within a conventional correlation matrix.

a Correlation diagraphs and matrix. b Correlation diagraphs and matrix.

The correlation analysis revealed a pronounced relationship between cognitive biases (such as investor sentiments, overconfidence, herd behavior, and investment decisions), COVID-19 information sharing, and socio-demographic factors (including age group, occupation, gender, educational qualifications, type of investor, investment objectives, investment purposes, preferred investment duration, factors considered prior to investing, and sources of investment advice). A correlation matrix graph was constructed to further elucidate these correlations, assigning different colors to each variable for visual differentiation (see Fig. 6b ). The thickness of the lines in the graph correlates with the strength of the relationships, indicating variables with high correlation more prominently.

These findings underscore the interconnected nature of the study variables, demonstrating that cognitive biases and socio-demographic factors exert a considerable impact on investment decisions. This analytical approach highlights the complexity of investor behavior and underscores the multifaceted influences on investment choices, providing valuable insights for understanding how various factors interact within the investment decision-making process.

Reliability test

For reliability test, the Cronbach alpha values were examined to check the internal consistency of the measure. The internal consistency of an instrument tends to indicate whether a metric or an indicator measure what it is intended to measure (Creswell 2009 ). The Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.7 indicates that all the items or the questions regarding the respective variable are good, highly correlated and reliable. The calculated Cronbach coefficient value for Investor sentiments (alpha = 0.888), over confidence (alpha = 0.827), over/under reaction (alpha = 0.858), herding behavior theory (alpha = 0.741), Investment decision (alpha = 0.933) and COVID-19 (alpha = 0.782) indicates that all of the constructs are reliable.

Validity test

Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument accurately measures or performs what it is designed to measure (Kothari 2004 ). To ensure the validity of the questionnaire and its constructs, the researcher engaged in a comprehensive literature review, sought the advice of consultants, and incorporated feedback from other professionals in the field. Additionally, the concepts of convergent validity and discriminant validity were evaluated to further assess the instrument’s validity.

Convergent validity assesses the extent to which items that are theoretically related to a single construct are, in fact, related in practice (Wang et al. 2017 ). To determine convergent validity, factor loading, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR) were calculated. According to Hair et al. ( 1998 ), factor loading values should exceed 0.60, composite reliability should be 0.70 or higher, and AVE should surpass 0.50 to confirm adequate convergent validity.

Table 5 demonstrates that all constructs utilized in this study surpass these threshold values, indicating strong convergent validity. This suggests that the items within each construct are consistently measuring the same underlying structure, reinforcing the validity of the questionnaire’s design and the constructs it aims to measure.

Discriminant validity measures the degree that the concepts are distinct from each other (Bagozzi et al. 1991 ) and it is evident that if alpha value of a construct is greater than the average correlation of the construct with other variables in model, the existence of discriminant validity exist (Ghiselli et al. 1981 ).

Hypotheses testing

To examine the conditional moderating effect of COVID-19 on the influence of behavioral factors (investor sentiments, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior) on investment decision-making, moderation analysis was conducted using the Process Macro (Model 1) for SPSS, as developed by Hayes, with bootstrapping samples at 95% confidence intervals. According to Hayes ( 2018 ), the analysis first explores the direct impact of the behavioral factors on investment decisions. Subsequently, it assesses the indirect influence exerted by the moderating variable (COVID-19). This two-step approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of how COVID-19 modifies the relationship between investors’ behavioral biases and their decision-making processes, shedding light on the extent to which the pandemic acts as a moderating factor in these dynamics.

For this study the mathematical model to test moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing can be explained as:

Y = Investment decisions (Dependent variable)

β 0  = Intercept

X 1  = Investment sentiments (Independent variable)

X 2  = Overconfidence (Independent variable)

X 3  = Over/under reaction (Independent variable)

X 4  = Herding behavior (Independent variable)

β 1 X 1  = Intercept of investors sentiments

β 2 X 2  = Intercept of overconfidence

β 3 X 3  = Intercept of over/under reaction

β 4 X 4  = Intercept of herding behavior

(X 1 * COVID-19) = Investors’ sentiments and moderation effect of COVID-19 information

(X 2 * COVID-19) = Overconfidence and moderation effect of COVID-19 information

(X 3 * COVID-19) = Over/under reaction and moderation effect of COVID-19 information

(X 4 * COVID-19) = Herding behavior and moderation effect of COVID-19 information

μ = Residual term.

Direct effect

In Table 6 , the direct effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable demonstrates that the behavioral factors (investor sentiments, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior) significantly influence investment decision (ID) with beta values of 0.961, 0.867, 0.884, and 0.698, respectively. The confidence interval (CI) values presented in Table 6 confirm these relationships are statistically significant. The positive and significant outcomes underline that behavioral factors critically impact investors’ decision-making attitudes. Consequently, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 (H1, H2, H3, and H4) are accepted, affirming the substantial role of investor sentiments, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior in shaping investment decisions.

Indirect moderating effect

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated risks, the impact of behavioral factors (investor sentiments, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herding behavior) on investment decisions tends to diminish. The findings presented in Table 6 and illustrated in Fig. 7 indicate that COVID-19 information sharing significantly and negatively moderates the relationship between these factors and investment decisions, leading to the acceptance of Hypotheses 5, 6, 7, and 8 (H5, H6, H7, and H8). The negative beta values underscore that the presence of COVID-19 adversely influences investors’ behavior, steering them away from rational investment decisions. This demonstrates that the pandemic context acts as a moderating factor, altering how behavioral biases impact investment choices, ultimately guiding investors towards more cautious or altered decision-making processes.

Moderating effect of Covid-19 pandemic information sharing.

K-means clustering analysis

K-means clustering analysis is utilized to uncover natural groupings within datasets by analyzing similarities between observations. This technique is especially beneficial for managing large and complex datasets as it reveals patterns and relationships among variables that may not be immediately evident. In this study, K-means clustering helps identify natural groupings based on socio-demographic factors, cognitive biases regarding investment decisions, and COVID-19 pandemic information sharing, thereby offering insights into the data’s underlying structure and identifying potential patterns or relationships among key variables.

The cluster analysis aims to ascertain the feature importance value of groups with similar investor behaviors, which is crucial for determining agents’ investment functions in subsequent agent-based modeling. Selecting the appropriate number of clusters in the K-means algorithm is essential, yet challenging, as different numbers of clusters can yield varying results (Li and Wu 2012 ).

Two prevalent methods for determining the optimal number of clusters are:

Elbow Method: This approach involves running the K-means algorithm with varying cluster numbers and calculating the total sum of squared errors (SSE) for each. SSE represents the squared distances of each data point from its cluster’s centroid. Plotting the SSE values against the number of clusters reveals a point known as the “elbow,” where the rate of SSE decrease markedly slows, indicating the optimal cluster number (Syakur et al. 2018 ).

Silhouette Analysis: Not mentioned directly in the narrative, but it’s another method that measures how similar an object is to its own cluster compared to other clusters. The silhouette score ranges from −1 to 1, where a high value indicates the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters.

The sklearn library provides tools for implementing the elbow method and silhouette analysis. For example, the code snippet described applies the elbow method by varying the number of clusters from 1 to 10 and calculating SSE for each scenario. The optimal number of clusters is identified by selecting a value near the elbow point on the resulting plot.

After clustering, the analysis progresses by using the fit () method from sklearn’s K-Means class to cluster the data, determine each cluster’s center coordinates, and assign each data point to a cluster. Feature importance values can be calculated using the Extra Trees Classifier class from sklearn, and these values can be visualized through a line graph.

Finally, to illustrate the clusters’ membership to the CIS1, CIS2, CIS3, and CIS4 inputs as a color scale bar, the seaborn library is used (see Fig. 8 (top) and Fig. 8 (bottom)). This involves calculating the average membership values for each cluster and visualizing these averages, providing a clear depiction of how each cluster associates with the different inputs, enriching the analysis of investor behaviors and their responses to COVID-19 information sharing.

Elbow method sum of squared error class determination (top) and clustering analysis results (bottom).

After employing a network diagram constructed from a correlation matrix to elucidate the interrelationships among variables, and utilizing the Elbow method to ascertain the optimal number of clusters, the K-means clustering algorithm was applied (see Fig. 9 ). This approach successfully identified three distinct clusters, highlighting the variables that exerted a significant influence on these clusters. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic information sharing variable, along with its corresponding CIS1, CIS2, CIS3, and CIS4 values, emerged as significant factors. The analysis indicated that overconfidence and overreaction were the predominant factors in crucial clustering, alongside cognitive biases and investment strategies that lead to similar behaviors among investors and varying levels of impact from COVID-19.

Cluster analysis feature importance value results.

Furthermore, sociodemographic factors such as age, occupation, and investor type were also identified as influential determinants. Leveraging these insights, policymakers and researchers can develop an agent-based model that incorporates herd behavior, along with age and income levels categorized by occupation, to effectively simulate market dynamics. This approach facilitates a comprehensive understanding of how different factors, particularly those related to the COVID-19 pandemic, influence investor behavior and market movements, thereby enabling the formulation of more informed strategies and policies.

An ingenious agent-based simulation for herding behavior

In this study, the findings of behavioral economics and finance research may contain results that are easy to interpret for policymakers but may involve certain difficulties in practical implementation. Specifically, for policymakers, an agent-based model has been created (see Appendix 1 for pseudo codes. In case, requested python codes are available). In a model consisting of 223 agents who trade on a single stock, prototypes of investors have been created based on the analysis presented here, and characteristics such as age group and income status, which are relatively easy to access or predict regarding their socio-demographic profiles, have been taken into account in the herd behavior function, considering the decision to follow the group or make independent decisions. Younger and lower-income agents were allowed to exhibit a greater tendency to follow the group, while 50 successful transactions were monitored to determine in which trend of stock price increase or decrease the balance of the most successful agent was increased or decreased (Gervais and Odean 2001 ).

In addressing the influence of age and income status on herding behavior, it is imperative to underscore the nuanced interplay between various socio-economic and psychological factors within our agent-based model framework. The model’s robustness stems from its capacity to simulate a range of investor behaviors by integrating key determinants such as investor sentiment, overconfidence, reaction to market events, and socio-demographic characteristics. Herein we expound on the contributory elements:

Investor Sentiment (IS1–IS5)

The model encapsulates the variability of investor sentiment, which oscillates with age and income, influencing individuals’ financial perspectives and risk propensities. Younger investors’ sentiment may tilt towards optimism driven by a more extensive investment horizon, while lower-income investors’ sentiment could lean towards caution, primarily driven by the pressing requirement for financial dsecurity (Baker and Wurgler 2007 ).

Overconfidence (OF1–OF5)

The tendency towards overconfidence is dynamically modeled, particularly among younger investors who may overrate their market acumen and predictive capabilities. This overconfidence may also manifest among lower-income investors as a psychological compensatory mechanism for resource inadequacy (Malmendier and Tate 2005 ).

Over/Under Reaction (OUR1–OUR5)

The model accounts for the influence of age and income on the velocity and extent of response to market stimuli. Inexperienced or financially restricted investors may be prone to overreactions due to a lack of market exposure or intensified economic strain (Daniel et al. 1998 ).

Herding Behavior (HB1–HB4)

Within the simulated environment, herding is more pronounced among younger investors, possibly due to peer influence, and among lower-income investors who may seek safety in conformity (Bikhchandani et al. 1992 ).

Investment Decision (ID1–ID10)

The model intricately reflects the complexities of investment decisions influenced by age-specific factors such as projected earnings and lifecycle influences. Investors with limited income may exhibit a predilection for security, swaying their investment choices (Yao and Curl 2011 ).

COVID-19 Information Sharing (CIS1–CIS4)

The pandemic era’s nuances are integrated into the model, acknowledging that younger investors could be more susceptible to digitally disseminated information, which, in turn, impacts their investment decisions. The credibility and source of information are also calibrated based on income levels (Shiller 2020 ).

Socio-demographic factors

Age: The model simulates younger investors’ reliance on the conduct of others, utilizing it as a heuristic substitute for experience (Dobni and Racine 2016 ).

Occupation: It captures how occupational background can broaden or restrict access to information and influence herding tendencies (Hong et al. 2000 ).

Gender: Gender disparities are incorporated, reflecting on investment styles where men may be more disposed to herding due to overconfidence (Barber and Odean 2001 ).

Qualification (Qualif.): The model acknowledges that higher education and financial literacy levels can curtail herding by fostering self-reliant decision-making (Lusardi and Mitchell 2007 ).

Investor Type (InvTyp): It differentiates between retail and institutional investors, noting that limited resources might push retail investors towards herding (Nofsinger and Sias 1999 ).

Investment Objective (InvObj): The model recognizes that short-term objectives might amplify herding as investors chase swift gains (Odean 1998 ).

Purpose: It contemplates the conservative herding behavior that is aligned with goals like retirement savings (Yao and Curl 2011 ).

Investment Horizon (Horizon): A lengthier investment horizon is modeled to potentially dampen herding tendencies (Kaustia and Knüpfer 2008 ).

Factors Considered Before Investing (factors): The model simulates a range of investment considerations, including risk tolerance and expected returns, which influence herding propensities (Shefrin and Statman 2000 ).

Source of Investment Advice (source): The influence of advice sources, such as analysts or financial media, on herding is also captured within the model (Tetlock 2007 ).

In conclusion, the agent-based model we present is meticulously designed to reflect the intricate fabric of financial market behavior. It is particularly attuned to the multi-layered aspects that drive herding, informed by empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings that rigorously define the interrelations between investor demographics and market behavior. The aforementioned socio-economic and psychological facets provide a comprehensive backdrop against which the validity and consistency of the model are substantiated.

The following code has been prepared using Python programming language with the Mesa, Pandas, SciPy, NumPy, Random and Matplotlib libraries. This code simulates a herd behavior of stock traders in a simple market (Hunt and Thomas 2010 ; McKinney 2010 ; Harris et al. 2020 ; Virtanen et al. 2020 ; Van Rossum 2020 ; Hunter 2007 ). The simulation runs for 50-time steps, with the stock price and balance of each agent printed at each step. The decision-making process of agents in the simulation is stochastic, with agents randomly choosing to buy, sell, or follow the market trend based on their characteristics and decision-making strategy.

The Stock Trader class in the model symbolizes individual agents, each characterized by a unique ID, balance, and a stock price. These agents are equipped with a method to compute the current stock price. The step() function within each agent embodies their decision-making process, which is influenced by their current balance and the prevailing stock price. Agents have the option to buy, sell, or align with the market trend, reflecting various investment strategies.

The Herding Model class encapsulates the entire simulation framework. It generates a population of Stock Trader agents and progresses the simulation over a designated number of time steps. Within this class, the agent_decision() method orchestrates each agent’s decision-making, factoring in individual characteristics and strategies. The step() method, in turn, adjusts the stock price based on the aggregate current stock prices of all agents before executing the step() method for each agent, thereby simulating the dynamic nature of the stock market.

Socio-demographic factors, specifically age and income status, are integrated into the agent-based model simulations, drawing upon insights from Parallel Coordinates and Cluster Analysis as well as relevant literature. The simulation posits that agents of younger age and lower income are predisposed to mimicking the market trend, whereas other agents exhibit a propensity for independent decision-making. Given the stochastic nature of the decision-making process, the behavior of agents varies across different runs of the simulation, introducing an element of unpredictability.

At each time step, the simulation outputs the stock price and balance of each agent, offering a snapshot of the market dynamics at that moment. Figure 10 provides a flow diagram elucidating the operational framework of the model’s code, presenting a visual representation of how the simulation unfolds over time.

Flowchart of agent-based model.

This model architecture allows for the exploration of how socio-demographic characteristics influence investment behaviors within a simulated market environment, offering valuable insights into the mechanisms driving market trends and individual investor decisions.

Within our agent-based model (ABM), “performance” embodies multiple dimensions reflective of the agents’ investment outcomes, influenced by socio-demographic factors and behavioral biases. The provided pseudo-code conceptualizes the implementation of these facets in the model.

Metrics used to quantify agent performance

Balance trajectory.

This primary indicator tracks the evolution of each agent’s financial balance over time, reflecting the impact of their buy, sell, or market trend-following decisions (Arthur 1991 ).

Decision strategy efficacy

Evaluates the effectiveness of an agent’s decision-making strategy (‘buy’, ‘sell’, or ‘follow’), influenced by socio-demographic variables such as age and income, as delineated in the agent_decision method (Tesfatsion and Judd 2006 ).

Market trend alignment

Assesses the correlation between an agent’s balance trajectory and overall market trends, indicating successful performance if an agent’s balance increases with market prices (Shiller 2003 ).

Risk management

Infers risk management skill from the volatility of balance changes, with less volatility indicating stable and potentially successful investment strategies (Markowitz 1952 ).

Wealth accumulation

Agents are ranked by their final balance at the simulation’s end to identify the most financially successful outcomes (De Long et al. 1990 ).

Adaptive behavior

The model evaluates agents’ adaptability to market price changes, revealing their capacity to capitalize on market movements (Gode and Sunder 1993 ).

Herding influence

Considers how herding behavior impacts financial outcomes, especially for younger and lower-income agents as programmed in the Herding Model class (Bikhchandani et al. 1992 ).

These performance metrics are quantified through agents’ balance and stock price histories, updated at each simulation step. These histories offer a time series analysis of financial trajectories, enabling pattern identification such as herding tendencies or the effects of overconfidence.

The model’s realism is enhanced by parameters like young_follow_factor and low_income_follow_factor, adjusting the propensity for herding among different socio-demographic groups. This inclusion allows the model to reflect real-world dynamics where age and income significantly impact investment performance.

In conclusion, our ABM presents a detailed framework for examining investment performance’s complex nature. It integrates behavioral economics and socio-demographic data, providing insights into investor behavior under simulated market conditions.

Characteristics of agents in the agent-based model

Demographics (age and income): Consistent with the focus of our study on socio-demographic factors, each agent is characterized by age and income parameters, which influence their investment behavior, particularly their propensity towards herding. Age and income are randomly assigned within realistic bounds reflecting the demographic distribution of typical investor populations.

Cognitive biases: Agents are imbued with behavioral attributes such as overconfidence, herding instinct, and over/under-reaction tendencies to market news, reflecting the psychological dimensions of real-world investors.

Investment strategy: Each agent follows a distinct investment strategy categorized broadly as ‘buy’, ‘sell’, or ‘follow’ (herding). The strategy is influenced by the agent’s demographic characteristics and cognitive biases.

Adaptability: Agents are capable of learning and adapting to market changes over time, simulating the dynamic and evolving nature of real-world investor behavior.

Social influence: Agents are influenced by other agents’ behaviors, especially under conditions conducive to herding, modeling the social dynamics of investment communities.

Wealth and portfolio: Agents have a variable representing their wealth, which fluctuates based on investment decisions and market performance. Their portfolio composition and changes therein are also tracked, offering insights into their risk-taking and diversification behaviors.

Significance of agent-based modeling

Agent-based modeling is a powerful tool that allows researchers to simulate and analyze complex systems composed of interacting agents. Its significance and utility in various fields, including economics and finance are profound:

Complexity and emergence: ABM can capture the emergent phenomena that arise from the interactions of many individual agents, providing insights into complex market dynamics that are not apparent at the individual level (Epstein and Axtell 1996 ).

Customizability and scalability: ABMs can be tailored to include various levels of detail and complexity, allowing for the simulation of systems ranging from small groups to entire markets (Tesfatsion and Judd 2006 ).

Experimental flexibility: ABMs facilitate virtual experiments that would be impractical or impossible in the real world, enabling researchers to explore hypothetical scenarios and policy implications (Gilbert and Troitzsch 2005 ).

Realism in behavioral representation: By incorporating cognitive biases and decision-making rules, ABMs can realistically represent human behavior, providing deeper behavioral insights than models assuming perfect rationality (Hommes 2006 ).

Policy analysis and forecasting: In economics and finance, ABMs are particularly useful for policy analysis, risk assessment, and forecasting, as they can incorporate a wide range of real-world factors and individual behaviors (LeBaron and Tesfatsion 2008 ).

By integrating these agent characteristics into our ABM and considering the broader implications of agent-based modeling, our study aims to provide nuanced insights into herding behavior among investors. We believe that our approach not only aligns with best practices in the field but also significantly contributes to the understanding of complex investment behaviors and market dynamics. We trust that this expanded description addresses the reviewer’s comment and underscores the robustness and relevance of our agent-based simulation approach.

Figure 11a, b panels display the balance changes of agents with respect to stock prices, age, and income status. By coding the balance increases and decreases as +1 and −1, respectively, and employing a line graph that matches the changes in stock prices, it has become possible to provide information about the agents’ performance. In panels a and b, it is observed that agents created after the age of 37.5 have been included in the higher income group on average, and during transitions of stock prices below 12.75 units, between 17 and 20 units, and between 26 and 27.50 units, the agents’ responses to price state changes are accompanied by noticeable transitions (increases and decreases) in their portfolio states, depending on age and income status.

a Agents’ performance. b Agents’ responses.

In Fig. 12 , in the agent-based model’s 50 repeated simulations, at the 45th simulation, the stock price is 20.03 units, and the balance of agent number 74 reaches 911 units. The price-income-balance change graph for the agent throughout the 50 transactions is presented below.

Balance change according to stock price for agent 74.

Upon examining the descriptive statistics of the income for agent number 74, who diverges from the herding tendency profile of the model and is in the higher income group aged 40 and above, the highest balance value is 911 units, the lowest balance level is 732 units, the average is 799 units, and the standard deviation is 41 units. When the overall balance of the agents is investigated, it is observed that the average balance of the agents is around 84 units. Considering the existence of an agent with the lowest balance of −670 units, it can be concluded that agent number 74 has demonstrated a significantly superior performance.

Discussion and conclusion

The influence of behavioral biases on investors’ decision-making has yielded mixed findings in literature. Wan ( 2018 ) observed a positive impact of behavioral biases, considered forward-looking factors, on investment decisions. Conversely, Zulfiqar et al. ( 2018 ) noted a markedly negative impact of overconfidence on investment decisions. Similarly, Aziz and Khan ( 2016 ) explored the role of heuristic factors (representative, anchoring, overconfidence, and availability bases) and found them significantly influencing investment decision and performance. However, they reported that prospect factors (loss aversion, regret aversion, and mental accounting biases) had an insignificant impact on these outcomes.

These varied results may stem from a complex interplay of factors such as cultural differences, pandemic-related information, economic conditions, regulatory environments, historical context, and investors’ financial literacy levels, contributing to differences in how behavioral biases influence investment decisions across regions (Metawa et al. 2018 ).

This study contributes to the field of behavioral finance by revealing the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic information sharing on the relationship between behavioral quirks and investment choices, specifically in the context of Pakistan. Key contributions include:

Investors’ sentiments

This study shows that COVID-19 pandemic information sharing significantly moderates the relationship between investors’ sentiments and their investment decisions, validating that pandemic-related information, such as infection rates and economic downturns, heavily influences investors’ sentiments and alters their risk perceptions (Anastasiou et al. 2022 ; Hsu and Tang 2022 ; Bin-Nashwan and Muneeza 2023 ; Gao et al. 2023 ; Sohail et al. 2020 ).

Overconfidence

It reveals how COVID-19 information reshapes overconfident investors’ risk perceptions, urging them to reassess their investment portfolios in light of the pandemic’s uncertainties and economic implications (Bouteska et al. 2023 ; Li and Cao 2021 ).

Over/under reaction

The study uncovers that the pandemic information moderates the relationship between over-under reaction and investment decisions, suggesting that investors adjust their reactions based on evolving pandemic information, leading to more informed and rational investment choices (Jiang et al. 2022 ).

Herd behavior

It finds that COVID-19 pandemic information significantly reduces herd behavior among investors, encouraging them to make rational decisions rather than blindly following the majority (Nguyen et al. 2023 ).

In conclusion, this study illustrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly moderated the relationship between behavioral biases and investment decisions. Furthermore, clustering analyses and agent-based outcomes suggest that younger, less experienced agents prone to herding behavior exhibit a higher propensity for such behavior and demonstrate lower performance in agent-based models. These findings pave the way for further research into additional cognitive biases and socio-demographic variables’ effects on investment decisions.

Implications

This study contributes to the field of behavioral finance that COVID-19 pandemic information sharing significantly moderates the relationship between behavioral biases (e.g., investors’ sentiments, overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herd behavior) and investment decisions. Therefore, policy implications stem from findings are substantial, and thus addressing behavioral biases during COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate the market inefficiencies and promote better decision-making. First, this study suggests that investing in comprehensive financial education plans will enhance the financial literacy of investors and enable them to better recognize the behavioral biases during times of uncertainty and crises. Second, findings imply that accurate and transparent information sharing about COVID-19 pandemic can better mitigate the behavioral biases, especially government interventions (e.g., National Command and Coordination Centre) ensuring reliable information can lead the investors to make more rational and informed investment decisions during the time of uncertainty and crises. Last, findings provide insights to policy makers that pandemic news and developments significantly influenced behavioral biases of investment decisions (Khurshid et al. 2021 ). For example, news about number of causalities, infection rates, vaccine progress, government stimulus packages, or stock market downturns had immediate effects on behavioral biases especially when an investor is overconfidence, over/under reaction, and herd behavior. In this sense, enhancing information transparency about COVID-19 news in media can reduce the influence of sensationalized news on investor decisions.

Limitations and call for future research

This study significantly enhances the understanding of behavioral factors’ impact on investors’ decision-making processes, presenting important findings within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While these contributions are notable, the research is subject to certain limitations that pave the way for future exploration and deeper investigation into this complex field.

Firstly, the study underscores the necessity for further research to validate its results through larger sample sizes and a more diverse array of respondents. Adopting a longitudinal design could prove particularly insightful, enabling an analysis of behavioral biases across different stages of the pandemic and providing a dynamic perspective on how investor behaviors evolve over time.

In addition, there’s a highlighted opportunity for future studies to delve into the behaviors influencing institutional investor decisions within Pakistan. The complex decision-making processes and investment portfolios of institutional investors, coupled with challenges like data availability and the heterogeneity among institutions, present a fertile ground for investigation. Such research could unravel how various factors, including market conditions and macroeconomic assessments, impact institutional investment strategies.

The study also points out the need to broaden the investigation to include other potential behavioral factors beyond those focused on in the current research, such as loss aversion, personality traits, anchoring, and recency biases. Expanding the scope of behavioral factors examined could significantly enrich the behavioral finance field by offering a more comprehensive view of the influences on investment decisions.

Moreover, while the insights gained from a Pakistani context during the COVID-19 pandemic are invaluable, extending the research to include global (e.g., China, Japan, USA) and other emerging markets (e.g., BRICS) would enhance understanding of the universality or specificity of behavioral biases in investment decisions across various economic, cultural, and regulatory environments.

Lastly, the study’s reliance on quantitative data points to the potential benefits of incorporating qualitative data into future research. Undertaking case studies within specific securities brokerages or investment banks could provide an in-depth investigation of investor behavior, generating new insights that could inspire further research.

To support the development of more sophisticated agent-based models and to foster collaborative research efforts, the study makes its source code available to other researchers. This openness to collaboration promises to stimulate innovative approaches to understanding and modeling investor behavior across diverse contexts, contributing to the advancement of the behavioral finance field.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Gujranwala Campus, Gujranwala, Pakistan

Wasim ul Rehman

Manager of Economics Research Department, Marbas Securities Co., Istanbul, Turkey

Omur Saltik

Institute of Quality and Technology Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Faryal Jalil

Department of Economics, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

Suleyman Degirmen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this research work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wasim ul Rehman .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The data was collated through an online survey approach (questionnaire) during the last variant of COVID-19 where anonymity of the respondents is meticulously preserved. The respondents were not asked to provide their names, identification, address, or any other identifying elements. The authors minutely observed the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. In addition, we hereby certify that this study was conducted under the ethical approval guidelines of Office of Research Innovation and Commercialization, University of the Punjab granted under the office order No. D/ 409/ORIC dated 31-12-2021.

Informed consent

The consent of participants was obtained through consent form during the last variant of COVID-19. The consent form contains the title of study, intent of study, procedure to participate, confidentiality, voluntary participation of respondents, questions/query and consent of the respondents. The respondents were requested to provide their willingness to participate in survey on consent form via email before filling the online-surveyed (questionnaire). Further, participants were also assured that their anonymity would be maintained and that no personal information or identifying element would be disclosed. The consent form is in the supplementary files.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Consent form, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rehman, W.u., Saltik, O., Jalil, F. et al. Viral decisions: unmasking the impact of COVID-19 info and behavioral quirks on investment choices. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 524 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03011-7

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2023

Accepted : 28 March 2024

Published : 20 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03011-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Brief interventions 2.0: a new agenda for alcohol policy, practice and research

• Duncan Stewart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-4280 1 ,
• Mary Madden 2 &
• Jim McCambridge 2  

Globalization and Health volume  20 , Article number:  34 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

33 Accesses

Metrics details

Alcohol problems are increasing across the world and becoming more complex. Limitations to international evidence and practice mean that the screening and brief intervention paradigm forged in the 1980s is no longer fit for the purpose of informing how conversations about alcohol should take place in healthcare and other services. A new paradigm for brief interventions has been called for.

Brief interventions 2.0

We must start with a re-appraisal of the roles of alcohol in society now and the damage it does to individual and population health. Industry marketing and older unresolved ideas about alcohol continue to impede honest and thoughtful conversations and perpetuate stigma, stereotypes, and outright fictions. This makes it harder to think about and talk about how alcohol affects health, well-being, and other aspects of life, and how we as a society should respond. To progress, brief interventions should not be restricted only to the self-regulation of one’s own drinking. Content can be orientated to the properties of the drug itself and the overlooked problems it causes, the policy issues and the politics of a powerful globalised industry. This entails challenging and reframing stigmatising notions of alcohol problems, and incorporating wider alcohol policy measures and issues that are relevant to how people think about their own and others' drinking. We draw on recent empirical work to examine the implications of this agenda for practitioners and for changing the public conversation on alcohol.

Against a backdrop of continued financial pressures on health service delivery, this analysis provokes debate and invites new thinking on alcohol. We suggest that the case for advancing brief interventions version 2.0 is both compelling and urgent.

In an era of restrictions on health budgets and ageing populations, alcohol problems are increasing across the world [ 1 ], generating new treatment demand and need for interventions. This is particularly so in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where alcohol markets are expanding and harm per litre consumed is greatest [ 2 ], whilst within high income countries, alcohol makes health inequalities worse [ 3 ]. Substantial mental health comorbidities are increasingly the norm in treatment systems [ 4 ], and physical health comorbidities are becoming more visible in older populations [ 5 ].

The obvious response to this situation is to make a better case to win more resources, resist cuts and defend what exists. We suggest, however, that this is not enough, and that new thinking is now needed. Health systems struggle to embrace prevention across the board [ 6 ]. “Brief interventions” originated in the public health understanding of alcohol. The nature of the challenge has changed in fundamental ways in recent decades, and their limitations are better understood. This makes timely a re-appraisal, reconnecting to contemporary public health ideas and evidence.

We propose that we should now reimagine the contents and aims of brief interventions, and how they might act in synergy with other efforts to address the avoidable damage done by alcohol.

The brief intervention concept

A little under half a century ago, the rise of the new public health movement made health promotion and disease prevention central to improving population health. Alcohol was highly relevant to this development. The World Health Organisation brought together alcohol researchers in a major programme that developed the AUDIT screening tool [ 7 ] and undertook a randomised trial that demonstrated that it was possible to have conversations with people in primary care that led them to reduce drinking [ 8 ]. This represented a new way of responding to alcohol problems; avoiding waiting until treatment for well-established problems was sought.

Many of the key research questions identified in a “golden age” of research advances in the late 1980s and early 1990s remain unanswered today [ 9 ]. There were theoretical weaknesses in the advice and counselling interventions developed and practitioners did not implement them in routine practice [ 10 ]. Much of the available evidence is from high-income countries, with relatively few trials conducted in LMICs [ 11 ]. Conflicting findings and the limitations of the large body of international literature have received too little attention [ 12 ]. It is perhaps most appropriately interpreted as demonstrating efficacy; recent large trials in naturalistic conditions demonstrate that confident claims of effectiveness are misplaced [ 12 ]. As a result, programmes may attain reach, which is itself challenging, but cannot be expected alone to deliver health impacts in populations where they are implemented [ 13 ]. The digital alcohol intervention literature has evolved in similar ways, with much promise in early studies, but with near exclusive reliance on self-reported outcomes not routinely included within risk of bias assessments, large trials with different findings than smaller trials, and substantial unexplained heterogeneity in meta-analyses [ 10 ].

Over the last 10 years a consensus has taken hold in the field that a change in direction is needed; a chronic disease paradigm is one possibility [ 14 , 15 ], and more extensive development of digital interventions another [ 16 ]. Our thinking centres on the unhelpful dislocation of brief interventions from wider alcohol policy measures everywhere. We note the very different contexts for the audience for this paper. These include readers in LMICs where there are no brief intervention programmes or alcohol policy measures. And also, readers in high income countries where such programmes provide important care services (such as screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in the U.S.) with or without otherwise well-developed alcohol policies.

The alcohol challenge for health systems

Adults, and children, are exposed to alcohol marketing in competition with relatively impotent health promotion messages [ 17 ]. Norms are shaped early in life, and drinking and heavy drinking is normalized in many countries. With the aid of new technologies, marketing is getting ever more sophisticated [ 18 ]. The environment is also one in which the persistence of stereotypical ideas of the so called ‘alcoholic’ and stigmatized images of alcohol problems obstruct broader thinking about the nature and impacts of alcohol harms [ 19 ]. Public understanding has not been informed by the developing science: there remains no consensus in the research community on what is an alcohol problem [ 20 ].

Locating an alcohol problem within the individual, consonant with neoliberal ideas that people are responsible for everything in their own lives, invisibilises government and business roles and responsibilities in causing alcohol problems [ 21 ]. Large corporations typically make a potentially dangerous drug widely available, encourage people to use it, shape government policy to place few restrictions on its use, and then blame those who end up having problems with it [ 22 ]. The ethical issues here warrant attention, especially as problems for drinkers cause families and communities to have alcohol problems too [ 23 ].

The structure of the alcohol industry increasingly resembles tobacco, especially in beer and spirits [ 24 ]. The largest companies are now highly profitable and operate globally, whereas only 30 years ago they were national operators. They are connected to tobacco companies in various ways [ 22 , 25 ] and use the same approaches; selling themselves as part of the solution not part of the problem, with the resources needed to do that effectively [ 26 ]. Alcohol policy interference is unrestricted, whereas tobacco has been curbed [ 27 ].

The power of alcohol industry marketing needs to be restricted if we are to help people to manage their alcohol consumption in ways which limit damage to health and well-being. Brief interventions have sought to help people avoid or manage problems with alcohol, but that is harder to do now in the contexts of lifetime exposure to industry and other social influences, deepening inequalities and weakened capacity or willingness to manage unhealthy commodity industries [ 28 ]. It is perhaps unsurprising that the original ambitions for brief interventions have yet to be realised convincingly when prices are low, availability easy and norms encourage more drinking [ 29 ]. To progress, we need to recognise that, for many reasons, alcohol and the problems it causes may be challenging to identify and discuss with individuals. Invidiously, this is especially so when drinking is heavier. We need to find new ways of talking about all of this.

Ways forward for brief interventions 2.0

Brief interventions are simply conversations about alcohol, so how might brief interventions 2.0 (BI 2.0) make them more powerful?

Firstly, we should not continue to think of brief interventions as only to do with self-regulation of one’s own consumption, in isolation from personal health and social contextual factors. This means re-orientating brief interventions to the damage done, directly and indirectly, by a toxic and carcinogenic drug and the enormous burden it places on health services and society. There is no entirely safe dose [ 30 , 31 ] and people with existing health problems are particularly vulnerable to additional harms from interference with the effects of medications designed to benefit health, including on adherence [ 5 ]. These impacts should be integral to routine discussions about treatments, conditions and wider well-being, rather than the current practice of regarding alcohol as a separate, “lifestyle” issue. Such constructs inhibit patients and practitioners in approaching alcohol and its harms meaningfully.

Brief intervention content has also failed to keep pace with and take account of contemporary evidence on the wider determinants of health [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], the continued challenges they present for policy and practice [ 35 ], and the particular vulnerability of the most disadvantaged to alcohol harms [ 36 ]. Stigmatising attitudes, cultural norms, price, availability, and industry marketing are important influences on drinking behaviour [ 37 ], so we need brief interventions to address these issues too. Having a wider content repertoire may help people to think differently about the place of alcohol in their lives, and in wider society. This may be particularly apposite where there is media attention or concurrent policy debates and developments; brief intervention programmes could be designed to incorporate attention to them. In the absence of policy innovations, in all countries where alcohol consumption is widespread, there is mass media content on alcohol; alcohol harm hides in plain sight. Such influences should not only be more fully recognised as the context in which conversations about one’s own drinking takes place but can also be a part of that conversation. We should be talking about whatever is interesting about alcohol to the people we have the time and opportunity to talk with.

A further proposition follows on from this. Where new policy measures are being considered, adopted, or implemented, or where there are public health campaigns, brief intervention programmes could form a key part of more integrated comprehensive alcohol strategies. Innovative resources, in diverse media, can be produced that support conversations taking place that reinforce the effects of other interventions. Such materials may be designed to prompt thinking, enhance readiness and willingness to discuss alcohol, with health and other services being able to take further the implications for the needs they serve. Adjusting programme aims in this way may seem obvious, and is very much in line with the original aspirations for brief interventions as instruments of public health improvement, so it is disappointing that possible synergies of this kind have been so little studied. Opportunities for so doing should be grasped when they arise.

Progressing BI 2.0 is contingent on overcoming the prevalent idea that labelling people as ‘alcoholics’ or ‘problem drinkers’ provides the most helpful way of thinking about this subject [ 38 ]. It does not. In fact, it gets in the way [ 39 ]. People can have many problems, and the more one drinks the more likely it is that alcohol will complicate things, often in ways that are difficult to appreciate [ 40 ]. Perhaps, focusing on what may seem the less serious initially may help problem recognition, such as having a hangover, missing a day’s work, or an “accident”. There is something to consider in these examples that it might be helpful to discuss rather than disregard.

At the population-level, it is for all of us and our policy makers to consider how far and in which ways we have an alcohol problem [ 41 ]. This does not mean denying that alcohol also brings pleasure and other benefits. Decision-making around use of this drug needs to be more rational, because currently it is too pressured by pro-consumption influence and relics of past ways of thinking. Ultimately, development of BI 2.0 requires a candid public conversation about how alcohol and alcohol problems interfere with the lives that people want to live.

Putting BI 2.0 ideas into practice

In busy and over-burdened health services, it may at first seem far-fetched to expect that BI 2.0 will appeal to practitioners or their managers, especially so if presented as a new or additional task. A better approach is to present it as a way of responding to what patients already bring with them. We have been working with clinical pharmacists in primary care to help them briefly explore whether there are any alcohol connections to why patients are presenting or have been asked to attend [ 42 ]. To be a conscientious professional, many health care practitioners need to be able to discuss alcohol for medication safety, adherence, and effectiveness reasons, as well as the implications of alcohol for many conditions. Seeing alcohol as a drug makes it not just legitimate but important to raise and integrate clinically into consultations for both professionals and patients [ 43 ]. Most importantly for the patient, alcohol is discussed in the context of their health and what matters to them, using their own language and terminology, where the relevance is clear.

If people make connections between alcohol, medicines regimes, other daily activities and their health, then this invites broader social contexts into discussions. Too often, conversations in health and care settings about alcohol are too brief, too crude, heavily moralised, paternalistic and all too easy to ignore, when they are not avoided altogether [ 43 , 44 ]. Confident, skilled practitioners can offer support that helps people make their own decisions about alcohol use, navigating the cultural influences that make talking about alcohol more challenging than it needs to be. For professionals as well as patients. Much existing information and other tools for discussion look dry and dull, especially in comparison to industry investment in engaging marketing materials. So too our digital resources. We need content that is appealing, lively, and engaging to capture and keep hold of attention. We should design material that people will want to share with others in their social networks. Intimacy also matters; content that resonates personally is to be prized because that is tapping into what’s important to the person.

For all these reasons, and more, these conversations need to be skilfully handled or the deleterious effects of alcogenic cultural baggage will continue to hinder us. That is why we think that working with practitioners and opening up practice development issues is a promising place to move forward with BI 2.0 (Table  1 ).

Conclusions

There is global recognition that tackling alcohol harms requires a multifaceted approach, incorporating restrictions on availability, advertising, and pricing policies as well as facilitating access to brief interventions [ 34 , 45 ]. We have presented ideas for progressing BI 2.0, which orientates intervention content and aims to these other elements and the larger contexts, and puts prevention at the heart of policy and practice. This requires a system-wide approach that avoids the pitfalls of focusing on stereotyped notions of problem drinking, highlights the need to strengthen the wider public conversation on alcohol and promotes synergies with developing alcohol policies. Our intention is to provoke discussion, debate, study and action, and we suggest this must proceed with urgency.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

• Brief interventions

Low- and middle-income countries

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment

Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392:1015–35.

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. Geneva: WHO; 2018. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/274603/9789241565639-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Aaccessed 20 Nov 2023.

Mackenbach JP, Kulhanova I, Bopp M, Borrell C, Deboosere P, Kovacs K, et al. Inequalities in Alcohol-Related Mortality in 17 European Countries: A Retrospective Analysis of Mortality Registers. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001909.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Harris J, Dalkin S, Jones L, Ainscough T, Maden M, Bate A, et al. Achieving integrated treatment: a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions. Lancet Psychiat. 2023;10:632–43.

Stewart D, McCambridge J. Alcohol complicates multimorbidity in older adults. BMJ. 2019;365:l4304.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, Adams C, Alleyne G, Asaria P, et al. Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1438–47.

Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Babor T, Grant M. Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems. Report on Phase II: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Brief Interventions in Primary Health Care. Geneva: WHO; 1992. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/project-on-identification-and-management-of-alcohol-related-problems.-report-on-phase-ii-a-randomized-clinical-trial-of-brief-interventions-in-primary-health-care . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

McCambridge J, Cunningham JA. The early history of ideas on brief interventions for alcohol. Addiction. 2014;109:538–46.

McCambridge J. Reimagining brief interventions for alcohol: towards a paradigm fit for the twenty first century? : INEBRIA Nick Heather Lecture 2019: This lecture celebrates the work of Nick Heather in leading thinking in respect of both brief interventions and wider alcohol sciences. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):41.

Ghosh A, Singh P, Das N, Pandit PM, Das S, Sarkar S. Efficacy of brief intervention for harmful and hazardous alcohol use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from low middle-income countries. Addiction. 2022;117(3):545–58.

McCambridge J, Saitz R. Rethinking brief interventions for alcohol in general practice. BMJ. 2017;356:j116.

Heather N. Can screening and brief intervention lead to population-level reductions in alcohol-related harm? Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):15.

Glass JE, Andréasson S, Bradley KA, Finn SW, Williams EC, Bakshi AS, et al. Rethinking alcohol interventions in health care: a thematic meeting of the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs (INEBRIA). Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2017;12(1):14.

Rehm J, Anderson P, Manthey J, Shield KD, Struzzo P, Wojnar M, et al. Alcohol use disorders in primary health care: what do we know and where do we go? Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(4):422–7.

Boniface S, Davies E. Digital tools and apps to reduce alcohol use. BMJ. 2023;382:1665.

Hastings G, Sheron N. Alcohol marketing: grooming the next generation: children are more exposed than adults and need much stronger protection. BMJ. 2013;346:f1227.

Madden M, McCambridge J. Alcohol marketing versus public health: David and Goliath? Glob Health. 2021;17(1):45.

Williamson L. Destigmatizing alcohol dependence: the requirement for an ethical (not only medical) remedy. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(5):e5-8.

Toner P, Bohnke JR, Andersen P, McCambridge J. Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;202:39–49.

Room R. Addiction and personal responsibility as solutions to the contradictions of neoliberal consumerism. Crit Public Health. 2011;21(2):141–51.

McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(9):1571–84.

Room R, Ferris J, Laslett AM, Livingston M, Mugavin J, Wilkinson C. The drinker’s effect on the social environment: a conceptual framework for studying alcohol’s harm to others. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(4):1855–71.

Jernigan D, Ross CS. The alcohol marketing landscape: alcohol industry size, structure, strategies, and public health responses. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2020;S19:13–25.

McCambridge J, Garry J, Room R. The origins and purposes of alcohol industry social aspects organizations: insights from the tobacco industry documents. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2021;82(6):740–51.

McCambridge J, Mitchell G, Lesch M, Filippou A, Golder S, Garry J, et al. The emperor has no clothes: a synthesis of findings from the Transformative Research on the Alcohol industry. Policy and Science research programme Addiction. 2023;118(3):558–66.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organisation: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO; 2005. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42811/9241591013.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, Bertscher A, Bondy K, Chang HJ, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1194–213.

Reith G. Addictive consumption: capitalism, modernity and excess. Oxon: Routledge; 2019.

Google Scholar  

Anderson BO, Berdzuli N, Ilbawi A, Kestel D, Kluge HP, Krech R, et al. Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(1):e6–7.

GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015–35.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marmot M, Allen J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. London: Institute of Health Equity; 2020. https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10-years-on . Aaccessed 22 Nov 2023.

World Health Organisation. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO; 2008. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-IER-CSDH-08.1 . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Preventing harmful alcohol use: OECD health policy studies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b4ffb-en . Accessed 01 Dec 2023.

Rasanathan K. 10 years after the Commission on Social Determinants of Health: social injustice is still killing on a grand scale. Lancet. 2018;392(10154):1176–7.

Probst C, Kilian C, Sanchez S, Lange S, Rehm J. The role of alcohol use and drinking patterns in socioeconomic inequalities in mortality: a systematic review. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(6):e324–32.

World Health Organisation. Draft action plan (2022–2030) to effectively implement the global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol as a public health priority. Geneva: WHO; 2022. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150_7Add1-en.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Saitz R. International statement recommending against the use of terminology that can stigmatize people. J Addict Med. 2016;10(1):1–2.

Lesch M, McCambridge J. A long-brewing crisis: the historical antecedents of major alcohol policy change in Ireland. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(1):135–43.

Gough B, Madden M, Morris S, Atkin K, McCambridge J. How do older people normalise their drinking?: An analysis of interviewee accounts. Appetite. 2020;146:104513.

Lesch M, McCambridge J. Coordination, framing and innovation: the political sophistication of public health advocates in Ireland. Addiction. 2021;116(11):3252–60.

McCambridge J, Atkin K, Dhital R, Foster B, Gough B, Madden M, et al. Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):63.

Madden M, Stewart D, Mills T, McCambridge J. Alcohol, the overlooked drug: clinical pharmacist perspectives on addressing alcohol in primary care. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2023;18(1):22.

Rapley T, May C, Frances KE. Still a difficult business? Negotiating alcohol-related problems in general practice consultations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(9):2418–28.

World Health Organisation: The SAFER technical package: five areas of intervention at national and subnational levels. Geneva: WHO; 2019. at national and subnational levels. Geneva: WHO; 2019. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/330053/9789241516419-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research [NIHR] Programme Grants for Applied Research (reference: RP-PG-0216–20002). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Sciences and Professions, London Metropolitan University, London, N7 8DB, UK

Duncan Stewart

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Mary Madden & Jim McCambridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceptualised the article, DS and JM did the initial drafts and all contributed to the writing, editing, and approved the final version. DS is the guarantor.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duncan Stewart .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Stewart, D., Madden, M. & McCambridge, J. Brief interventions 2.0: a new agenda for alcohol policy, practice and research. Global Health 20 , 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01031-1

Download citation

Received : 11 December 2023

Accepted : 20 March 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01031-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Global health
• Health systems
• Alcohol policy

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]