observational techniques

• Observational methods involve watching behaviour in a controlled or naturalistic setting.
• naturalistic: observing people in their natural environment, behaviour isn't controlled - ppl can choose how to behave and the researcher doesn't interfere.

  • strengths: high external validity bcs findings can often be generalised to everyday life as the behaviour is studied within the environment where it would normally occur
  • weaknesses: lack of control over the research situation makes replication of investigation difficult. may be many uncontrolled confounding/extraneous variables making it more difficult to judge any pattern of behaviour
• controlled: some variables in the environment are regulated/ manipulated by the researcher, a researcher can investigate the effect of certain things on behaviour - can take place in a laboratory or natural setting

  • strengths: confounding/extraneous variables may be less of a factor so replication of the observation becomes easier
  • weaknesses: may produce findings that cannot be as readily applied to everyday life
• covert: behaviour may be occasionally recorded without getting consent of the participants, participants are unaware they are the focus of the study + their behaviour is recorded in secret. e.g from a balcony or across a room

  • strengths: participants unaware they are being watched therefore removes problem of demand characteristics, increases internal validity of the data gathered.
  • weaknesses: the ethics may be questioned as people, even in public might not want their behaviours to be noted (they have a right to privacy)
• overt: participants know their behaviour is being observed and have given their informed consent

  • strengths: more ethically acceptable
  • weaknesses: participants have knowledge that they are being observed and this may have a significant influence on their behaviour. i.e data will not be valid as their behaviour is unnatural
• participant: may be necessary for the observer to become part of the group they are studying

  • strengths: researcher can experience the situation as the participants do, giving them increased insight into the lives of the people being studied - may increase external validity of the findings
  • weaknesses: researcher may come to identify too strongly with those they are studying + lose objectivity, scientists refer to this as adopting a local lifestyle when the line between being a researcher and being a participant is blurred.
• non- participant: when the researcher remains separate from those they are studying and records behaviour in a more objective manner. may be impossible/impractical to join particular groups so this is the only option e.g middle aged female researcher in yr10 boy's school

  • strengths: allows the researcher to maintain an objective psychological distance from their participants so there is less of a danger of them adopting a local lifestyle
  • weaknesses: may lose valuable insight to be gained in a participant observations as they are too far removed from the people and behaviour they are studying.
• observational design - ways of recording data

  structured

  unstructured
• structured

  a way of recording data from their observation. there may be too much going on in a single observation for the researcher to record it all so the target behaviours are simplified and these will become the main focus of the investigation, using behavioural categories.

  • strengths: simpler, more systematic, quantitative data so analysing and comparing behaviour is more straight forward
  • weaknesses: researcher may miss key details
• structured: behavioural categories - breaking a target behaviour down into observable and measurable components. e.g affection is target behaviour - components is hugging, smiling, kissing etc.

  • strengths: makes data collection more structured and objective, easier to record as there is a specific focus on certain behaviours.
  • weaknesses: categories must be observable + measurable so they don't require further interpretation. categories should be exclusive and not overlap e.g the difference between 'smiling' and 'grinning' would be difficult to discern (recognise)
• unstructured

  researcher writes down everything they see in detail producing accounts of behaviour. this method is more appropriate when observations are small scale + involve few participants

  • strengths: more richness and depth of detail collected
  • weaknesses: produces qualitative data which is more difficult to record and analyse. researcher may miss key detail by only recording info that 'catches their eye,' this increases the risk of observer bias
• structured: time sampling - involves recording behaviour within a pre-established time frame. e.g in a particular football match we may only be interested in one specific player so we may make a note (using behavioural checklist) of what our target individual is doing every 30 seconds.

  • strengths: effective in reducing the number of observations that have to be made
  • weaknesses: instances when behaviour is sampled may be unrepresentative of the observation as a whole
• structured: event sampling - involves counting the number of times a particular behaviour (the event) occurs in a target individual, or group. e.g event sampling of dissent (disagreement) at a football match would mean counting the no. of times players would disagree with the referee.

  • strengths: useful when the target behaviour or event happens quite infrequently + could be missed by if time sampling was used
  • weaknesses: if the specified event is too complex, the observer may overlook important details if using event sampling.
• inter-observer reliability: an observation carried out by at least 2 researchers, bcs with 1 they may miss important details or only notice events that confirm their hypothesis which introduces bias. the data from different observers is compared to check for consistency i.e reliability + this is inter-observer reliability.

  80% or more agreement has high inter-observer reliability and therefore decreases inter-observer bias.
• inter-observer reliability is done by:

  • observers should familiarise themselves with the behavioural categories used.
  • then observe the same behaviour at the same time as part of a small scale pilot study
  • observers should compare data they have recorded and discuss any differences in interpretations
  • finally, they should analyse the data from the study

  IOR is calculated by correlating each pair of observations made and an overall figure is produced
• pilot studies - a small-scale trial run of the actual investigation.

  • it includes a handful of participants rather than the total to check the procedure
  • this allows the researcher to identify any potential issues and to modify the design or procedure -> saving time and money in the long run
  • aim is to check procedures including timings, instructions being clear, check materials and measuring scales, to allow the researcher to speak to participants and see how they got on + make changes or modifications if necessary therefore avoids wasting time/ money in the real experiment