observations Flashcards
naturalistic observation
- observing ppts in natural environment
- researcher does not interfere
- observed behaviour is systematically classified using categories
- often used when it would be unethical to manipulate variables
structured/controlled observation
- involves a situation created by the researcher
- usually conducted in lab settings
- observed behaviour is systematically classified using categories
strengths of naturalistic observations
- ppts are in their normal environment so results on behaviour will be more valid
- useful for obtaining observations in situations where any intervention would be unethical
- in comparison to experiments, a much greater range of behaviours can be explored which can give us a useful insight into human behaviour
weaknesses of naturalistic observations
- extraneous variable can rarely be controlled so reduces validity (C+E cannot be established)
- if observers are identified validity is compromised
- ethical issues such as invasion of privacy if they are unaware of the study (can be reduced by conducting in a public place)
- lack of reliability as not standardised
strengths of structured observations
- extraneous variables can be controlled with means increased validity (C+E can be established)
- in comparison to experiments, a much greater range of behaviours can be explored which can give us a useful insight into human behaviour
weaknesses of structured observations
- difficult to accurately represent the reality of a complex social setting so lacks ecological validity
- if observers are identified then validity may be compromised
- higher risk of demand characteristics as ppts will be aware of the fact they are in an artificial situation
covert
- the identity of the researcher, the nature of the project and the facts ppts are being observed all remain concealed
- observing natural, unmanipulated behaviour (unaware of being observed)
- three contexts: public and open setting, closed setting where researcher is already a member and closed setting where researcher pretends to be a member
overt
- when a researcher is open about their intentions and all ppts are aware of what’s happening and why
- ppts are aware they’re being observed
strengths of covert
- demand characteristics are less likely to occur, so there is increased validity as they will likely behave naturally
- it can be used when people may not be prepared to co-operate with the researcher
weaknesses of covert
- ethics can be problematic as fully informed consent cannot be granted
- replication may be difficult as it is less likely to be standardised, especially in more sensitive situations
strengths of overt
ethical issues are adhered to, can gain fully informed consent, there is no deception, ppts are reminded of RTW, etc.
weaknesses of overt
- social desirability more likely to occur as ppts are aware of the fact they’re being observed, decreases validity
- ‘Hawthorne effect’ may occur, this is when behaviour alters as a result of the observation
participant
- observations can be made by someone who is also participating in the activity being observed
- can be overt or covert
- researcher is immerses themselves into setting in order to observe behaviour more closely
- bias may occur/results may be less objective
non-participant
the researcher usually watches from afar or may use a one-way mirror to observe ppts
has less of an influence on ppts
strengths of participant
- more in depth observation of behaviour, higher validity
- high ethics if overt as ppts are aware of the fact they are being observed
- if covert then behaviour will be more natural, increasing validity
weaknesses of participant
- if overt then behaviour may be altered (demand characteristics/social desirability)
- observer bias is more likely to occur/results will be less objective as they would’ve spent time and possibly have formed relationships with ppts
- harder to replicate as experiences will vary more
strengths of non-participant
- if ppts are unaware they are being observed (e.g. one way mirror) their behaviour will be more natural which increases validity
- results will be more objective as the researcher hasn’t immersed themselves, this increases validity
weaknesses of non-participant
- low ethics as ppts are less likely to be aware of the fact that they are being observed and so fully informed consent can not be granted
- researchers are more likely to miss behaviours as they are observing from a distance
collecting observational data
(qualitative and quantitative)
- tally counts: the observer writes down when and how many times a certain behaviour has occurred
- observer narratives: the observer may take notes during the session which they then later use to discern behaviour patterns
- audio/voice recordings: the researches may make actual audio or video-taped recordings of each observation session
behavioural categories
used when designing a structured observation in order to record operationalised (clearly defined) behaviours, this may be done in ways such as using a checklist
strengths of behavioural categories
- operationalised and therefore more easily observable
- categories can be reused in order to test for consistency
- quantitative data (easier to analyse and is objective)
weaknesses of behavioural categories
- limited details, e.g. a tally chart will only tell you how often a behaviour occurred not when or why it did
- if behaviours aren’t included in the pre-determined checklist then they may be missed
event sampling
every time a behaviour included in the pre-determined checklist occurs it is recorded (within a specific amount of time)
time sampling
observe and record behaviours included in the pre-determined checklist at specific time intervals (e.g. every 5 minutes for 10 seconds)
strengths of event sampling
less likely to miss behaviours included in checklist as you are observing at all times, this gives a more valid view
weaknesses of event sampling
- behaviours not included on the checklist will be missed
- if multiple behaviours occur at the same time they may not notice them all
strengths of time sampling
- more representative over time
- can be easily repeated in order to check for consistency (increases reliability)
weaknesses of time sampling
- likely to miss behaviour as not recording observations at all times
- behaviours that aren’t on the checklist are likely to be missed
inter-rater reliability
researchers observing behaviour and coding the behaviour in the same way agree on results
improving inter-rater reliability
- use clearly defined and operationalised coding systems (counteracts any observer bias inconsistency with the recordings if other observers)
- train observers by doing practice observations
- observe the same event
