(8) Observational Techniques

• observation is a 'non experimental' method of research that allows the researcher to study particular behaviour
• The six different observation techniques are :

  • naturalistic observations
  • controlled observations
  • covert observations
  • overt observations
  • participant observations
  • non perticipant observations
• observations provide psychologists with a way of seeing what people do without having to ask them directly
• observations is often used :

  • within an experiments as a way of assessing the dependent variable
  • allowing researchers flexibility to study more complex interactions between variables
• observations allows researchers to study observable behaviour within a natural or controlled setting
• Naturalistic Observations :

  • take place in setting or context where the target behaviour would be expected
  • all aspects of the environment are free to vary
  • an artificial lab setting is not used
  • helps to study 'interactions'/ behaviour where it would normally take place
• Controlled Observations :

  • sometimes useful to control certain aspects of the research situation
  • artificial environment used
  • standardised procedure used
  • structuralism
• Example of Controlled Observation :

  • Mary Ainsworth - part of Strange Situation studies
  • used a specially designed playroom environment
  • recorded how children reacted to their mothers vs with a stranger
  • recorded data through the help of a two way mirror - to not disturb the actions of the children
• EVALUATIONS of Naturalistic Environment :

  Strength :

  • have high internal validity
  • findings often generalised to everyday life
  • because behaviour studied within environment where it would normally occur
• EVALUATION of Naturalistic Observations

  Negatives :

  • lack of control over the research situations - extraneous variables
  • makes replication of the investigation difficult
  • many uncontrolled extraneous variables - difficult to judge pattern of behaviour
• EVALUATION of Controlled Observations

  Positives :

  • extraneous variables less of a factor
  • standardised procedure + structuralism used
  • makes replication of the observation easier - reliable results
  • empirical evidence
• EVALUATION of Controlled Observations

  Negatives :

  • produces findings that cannot be easily applied to real life settings
  • lacks ecological validity
• Covert Ovservations :

  • behaviour recorded without first obtaining the consent of the participants
  • Participant unaware they are the focus of the study - behaviour observed in secret
  • such behaviour must be public + happening anyway if the observation is to be ethical - not forcing people in the situation (by creating a scene/ scenario)
• Overt Observations :

  • participant knows their behaviour is being observed
  • given their informed consent beforehand
• EVALUATION of Covert Observations

  Positives :

  • removes problem of participant reactivity - participants not aware they are being watched
  • ensures behaviour observed will be natural
  • increases (internal) validity of the data gathered
• EVALUATION of Covert Observation

  Negatives :

  • ethics may be questioned - people even in public may not wish their behaviour is noted
  • their personal decision
  • lack of informed consent + right to withdraw + right to withdraw data
• EVALUATION of Overt Observation

  Positives :

  • more ethically acceptable
• EVALUATION of Overt Observation

  Negatives :

  • possible demand characteristics - participants aware/ have knowledge that they are being observed
  • Influences the DV
  • more participant reactivity
• participant reactivity = participants change their behaviour as they are being watched (not acting normal)
• Participant Observations :

  • observer becomes part of the group they are studying
  • gives a first hand account
  • more data collected
• Non-participant Observations :

  • researcher remains separate from those they are studying
  • records behaviour in a more objective manner
  • often impractical or even possible to join particular groups so non participation is the only option
• EVALUATION of Participant Observations

  Positives :

  • researcher can give an increased insight into the lives of the people being studied - researcher experiences the situation as the participants do
  • increases the validity of the findings
• EVALUATION of Participant Observations

  Negatives :

  • researcher may identify too strongly with the participants
  • study loses objectivity
  • researcher may be 'going native' - link between being a researcher and being a participant becomes blurred
  • researcher/ experimenter bias
• EVALUATION of Non-Participant Observation

  Positives :

  • allows researcher to maintain an objective psychological distance from participant
  • less danger of them 'going native'
  • less chances of bias
• EVALUATION of Non-Participant

  Negatives :

  • lose valuable insight to be gained in a participant observation
  • are too far removed from the people and behaviour they are studying
  • may start to lack internal validity
• going native = link between being a researcher and being a participant becomes blurred
• David Rosenhan conducted the study in 1973
• David Rosenhan (1973) :

  • investigated the problem of defining abnormal behaviour
  • arranged 8 pseudopatients, one of whom was himself - faked symptoms of mental disturbance (eg hearing voices) in various psychiatric institutions
  • once they gained access, the observations began - observed and recorded the daily life of the patients in the instituitions
  • genuine patients realised that the pseudopatients were fake but staff were slower catch on
  • behaviour of the confederates was considered as abnormal behaviour from the staff -even though it was normal-eg note taking as repetitive writing beh.