5.7 - Observation
Understanding observational methods
Observations form a key research technique in psychology, where researchers watch and record participants' behaviours to gather data. This method aims to capture how people act in various situations, providing insights into natural or controlled responses.
Key features of observations
Key features of observations revolve around several dimensions: whether participants are aware of being watched (overt or covert), the observer's involvement in the group (participant or non-participant), how data is collected (structured or unstructured), and the setting where the observation occurs (naturalistic or controlled).
Overt and covert observations
This dimension focuses on participants' awareness during the observation, which affects both ethical considerations and the naturalness of the behaviour observed.
Overt observation
Participants are fully aware that they are being watched, often because researchers inform them beforehand.
Covert observation
Participants remain unaware of the observation, allowing researchers to capture more authentic behaviours without influencing actions through knowledge of scrutiny.
Evaluating overt and covert observations
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Overt observations uphold ethical standards by avoiding deception and allowing participants to give informed consent or withdraw if desired. | Overt observations can trigger demand characteristics, where participants change their behaviour to meet perceived expectations, reducing the naturalness of the data. |
| Covert observations minimise demand characteristics, as unaware participants are more likely to act naturally, leading to more valid behavioural insights. | Covert observations raise ethical concerns, such as lack of consent and inability for participants to withdraw, potentially violating privacy rights. |
Participant and non-participant observations
Here, the focus is on the observer's role within the group being studied, which impacts how deeply they understand the behaviours and their level of objectivity.
Participant observation
The observer joins the group or community as an active member, immersing themselves in the setting to gain insider perspectives. This can be combined with overt or covert approaches.
Non-participant observation
The observer remains detached, watching from afar without interacting, which helps maintain distance but might limit access to subtle details.
Evaluating participant and non-participant observations
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Participant observations provide deeper insights into behaviours, as the observer experiences the context firsthand, leading to richer, more nuanced data. | Participant observations risk losing objectivity, as the observer might become too emotionally involved or biased towards the group's norms. |
| Non-participant observations promote objectivity, with the observer staying removed from personal influences, allowing for impartial recording of events. | Non-participant observations may overlook important behaviours or contexts, as the distance can make it hard to notice subtle interactions or details. |
Structured and unstructured observations
This aspect deals with how data is planned and recorded, affecting the reliability and comprehensiveness of the observations.
Structured observation
Researchers prepare a predefined checklist of specific behaviours before starting, using tallies to count occurrences.
Unstructured observation
No prior plan exists; the observer notes any relevant behaviours as they happen, offering flexibility to capture unexpected events.
Evaluating structured and unstructured observations
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Unstructured observations offer a broad overview of behaviours, making them useful for pilot studies to identify patterns before more focused research. | Unstructured observations can be overwhelming, as recording every behaviour without a plan may lead to missed details or incomplete data. |
| Structured observations enhance reliability, with predefined categories allowing for consistent recording and checks like inter-rater reliability (agreement between multiple observers). | Structured observations might exclude important behaviours if the checklist is too narrow, potentially missing key aspects relevant to the research aim. |
Naturalistic and controlled observations
The setting of the observation is crucial, as it determines how realistic or controlled the environment is, influencing the validity of the findings.
Naturalistic observation
Conducted in everyday, real-world environments where behaviours occur naturally, without researcher interference.
Controlled observation
Takes place in a lab or manipulated setting, where variables can be standardised to focus on specific behaviours.
Evaluating naturalistic and controlled observations
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Naturalistic observations capture authentic behaviours in familiar settings, boosting ecological validity (how well findings apply to real life). | Naturalistic observations struggle with extraneous variables, like unexpected events, which can influence behaviours and reduce internal validity. |
| Controlled observations allow for replication, as standardised conditions and behaviour schedules enable other researchers to repeat the study accurately. | Controlled observations may feel artificial, causing participants to behave unnaturally if they sense the contrived environment, lowering validity. |
Applications in psychological studies
Observations are widely used in psychology, often combining features for specific research needs. Here, we explore two classic studies to illustrate these techniques in action.
Bandura et al.'s study on aggression
- Aim - This research examined how children imitate aggressive behaviours from adult models.
- Method - Used a covert, non-participant approach in a controlled lab setting with a one-way mirror to observe children without their knowledge. It was structured, employing a checklist for behaviours like imitative physical aggression. Standardised elements included identical toys and timings for all participants.
- Evaluation - The controlled setting allowed replication but reduced ecological validity, as the lab was artificial. Covert observation avoided demand characteristics but raised ethical issues around deception.
Piliavin et al.'s subway Samaritans study
- Aim - This field experiment investigated bystander helping behaviours in a real-world crisis.
- Method - Employed a covert, participant approach in a naturalistic subway setting. Observers and a "model" acted as passengers, recording data like helper demographics (e.g., sex, race, location) using a pre-determined checklist, making it structured.
- Evaluation - The naturalistic environment enhanced ecological validity, capturing genuine responses, but lacked control over variables like passenger numbers. Covert elements preserved natural behaviour but limited participant consent.