Non-participant observation of phone use

• Aim of non-participant observation of mobile phone use:

  To consider how people use their mobile phones. To consider if different genders use mobile phones a different amount.
• Alternative hypothesis of non-participant observation of phone use:

  There will be a difference in mobile phone use (how many times people look at their mobile phone in 20 mins) according to gender (male/female). (Non-directional).
• What is the IV?

  Gender (male/female)
• What is the operationalised DV?

  Mobile phone use/how often a mobile phone is used (how many times they look at phone in 25 mins).
• What is the null hypothesis?

  There will be no difference in mobile phone use (how many times people look at their mobile phone in 25 minutes) according to gender (male/female).
• Extraneous variables?


  Watching TV
• Possible confounding variables?


  Age (similar ages), occupation (could do matched pairs but would be difficult), time of day (standardised to weekday evening), activity they're doing (whilst watching TV) & distractions (in field so can't control but researchers won't talk with/distract participants).
• What type of research is this?

  Non-participant observation- observe what people are doing without participating in activity they are engaged in. Can see what people actually do rather than what they say they will do so may be more valid.
• Limitations of this methodology?

  Difficult to replicate same conditions for all participants. Only observing for certain length of time which may not be representative. If people know they're being watched, may act differently (reduces validity).
• Sampling technique?


  Opportunity- quick & easy
• Disadvantages of opportunity sampling?

  May not be representative of whole population- likely to be biased (may not generalise).
• Characteristics of sample:


  Parents aged 30-60
• Consent


  Could ask for full informed consent but would likely cause demand characteristics. Ask if they'll take part in study of phone use for psychology- don't give details. Debrief fully after. Right to withdraw. Consent form.
• Deception


  Tell them it's about phone use- debrief after.
• Risk of harm


  May be uncomfortable about being observed (dealt with consent & right to withdraw).
• Confidentiality


  Don't use names only numbers. Data shared with only team for analysis.
• Privacy


  Private space (home) but would expect to see child in home. Can't see what using phone for (only numerical data).
• How do we make results valid & reliable?

  Standardised procedure, controlling CV & EVs, reducing demand characteristics by not giving exact time of observation & non-participant researcher covert so fewer demand characteristics.
• Procedures:


  Select sample- parent(s) at home & ask for consent. Select an evening to collect data for 20 mins whilst participant watching TV. Record number of uses of phone using event sampling. Researcher sat slightly away in guise of revising- not to interact with participant. Use data collection sheet. Debrief & give right to withdraw. Collate data from rest of research team.
• Possible issues with methodology & procedures:

  Participant may try interact with researcher (say you're busy), participant may leave room, event sampling only looks at frequency of phone use & not duration of use & participant may work out study & act differently.
• Inferential statistic used:


  Mann Whitney- ratio data (at least ordinal), test of difference & independent groups.
• Graphical representation:


  Bar chart of means- gender is categories (nominal) or pie chart to show proportions. Line graph with frequency for different groups (as number of uses is continuous/ratio data).
• Descriptive statistic used:


  Mean (as long as no extreme values)- numerical ratio data SD- more precise than range
• Findings for males:


  Mean= 3.17 SD= 1.72
• Findings for females:


  Mean= 2.67 SD= 1.78
• Inferential statistic findings:


  2 tailed test: Mann Whitney U value= 26 Critical value at P<0.05 = 14 not significant
• Issues/limitations:


  Uneven sample sizes could have made findings less robust. Researcher bias? Short time frame may not generalise. Different researchers & homes & event sampling didn't account for duration of phone use, only frequency.
• How could you assess validity & reliability?

  People didn't work out they were being observed, face validity, could use test-retest method (count up mobile phone use on different occasion & check for correlation). Inter-rater reliability (but not appropriate at home).
• Improve research by:


  Measure mobile phone use over longer time frame, use test-retest method, larger sample (even sizes) & time how long people using phone for.
• Conclusions:


  Men used phones more on average than women. Slightly more variation in results for women, but overall little difference in dispersion. No significant difference in phone use by males & females. Reject alternative hypothesis & accept null.