non- experimental methods

naturalistic observations

An observation carried out in an unaltered setting in which the observer does not interfere in any way and merely observed the behaviour in question as it happens normally.

naturalistic observations pros

• Higher level of ecological validity can be achieved. The researcher records naturally occurring behaviour in the original environment in which it ordinarily occurs. The behaviour recorded is likely to be more representative of everyday activities and reflect spontaneous actions that sometimes occur incidentally.

naturalistic observations cons

• Issues of ascertaining reliability with naturalistic observations. Since observations of this kind record behaviours which are occurring naturally as they unfold it is difficult for the exact same conditions to be replicated. Consequently the test-retest method of checking reliability cannot be used as the researcher is not in control of variables. Lacks replicability.

controlled observations

Conducted under strict conditions, such as an observation room or lab, where extraneous variables (such as time of day, noise and temperature) can be controlled to avoid interference with the behaviour being observed. Sometimes one way mirrors can be uses, if the participants know they are being observed this in an overt method

controlled observations pros

• They can be replicated to check for reliability. The variables are highly controlled in this type of observational design. This means that standardised procedures, manipulation of the independent variable and control over extraneous variables can be repeated by the same, or different researchers to assess reliability.

 

controlled observations cons 

• Lower level of external validity. The researcher records behaviour in an artificial environment with variables subject to strict manipulation. This means that the setting can feel unnatural and the behaviour may alter in response and so the observation no longer represents real life.

 

 overt observations

An observational technique where the observations are open and the participants are aware that they are being observed.

 overt observations pros 

• More ethical since participants are aware that the behaviour is being observed for the purposes of a psychological investigation , it is possible to inform them in advance of the aims and thus obtain informed consent. This method allows participants to exercise their right to withdraw themselves or their data from the investigation.

 overt observations cons

• Possibility of investigator effects. It is possible for a bias to occur whereby what the investigator does influences the behaviour of the participants in a way that was not intended. As a result the participants may change their behaviour throughdemand characteristics and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims. Therefore, authentic and natural behaviour is not being observes and the internal validity is reduced.

covert observations

Consists of observing people without their knowledge, for example using a one way mirror or joining a group as a member. Participants may be informed of their involvement in the study after the observation has taken place.

 

covert observations pros 

• Less likely to have investigator effects as they are hidden and their direct or indirect behaviour will be less likely to have an impact. Less likely to result in demand characteristics . Their behaviour will be more natural and representative of every day behaviour.

covert observations cons

• Ethical issues as participants are not aware they are taking part in an investigation and so cannot give fully informed consent or exercise the right to withdraw.

 participant observations

The person who is conducting the observation also takes part in the activity being observed. It can either be covert or overt

 participant observations pros

• Researcher can obtain in-depth and unique data due to close proximity. They are unlikely to overlook behaviour that an external observer may miss due to nuances only seen by becoming a participant in the activity.

 participant observations

• Possibility of investigator effects, the mere presence of the investigator as a member may influence the participants behaviour to change ( demand characteristics) and the internal validity is reduced.

structured observations cons

• Problems with high internal validity. This is because the researcher may miss some crucial behaviours during the observation which is pertinent to the aim of the investigation. As a result the findings may not provide the full picture. This could mean what was intended to measure was not achieved in its entirety.

structured observations

Researcher uses coded schedules according to a previously agreed formula to document the behaviour and organise data into behavioural categories. A behaviour category is when psychologists must decide which specific behaviours should be examined. This involves breaking the target behaviour (e.g. aggression) into components that can be observed and measured.

structured observations pros

• The researcher can compare behaviour between participants across groups. The use of operationalised behavioural categories makes the coding of data more systematic. When there is more than one observer, the standardised behaviour schedule results in greater inter-observer reliability. It is important for research methodologies to be consistent so that accurate comparisons can be made.

 unstructured observations

Every instance of the observed behaviour is recorded and described in detail. This is useful if the behaviour the researchers are interests in does not occur very often and is more usual with naturalistic observation.

 unstructured observations pros

• Richness of data obtained and researchers are able to obtain a comprehensive view of human behaviour. This adds to internal validity of the observational technique.

 unstructured observations pros

• Prone to observer bias due to the lack of objective behaviour categories. This is a problem because the observer may then only record behaviour which is of subjunctive vale to them. Issues with inter-observer reliability and lack of consistency.

event sampling

Where an observer records the number of times that the target behaviour occurs e.g using a tally

event sampling pros

• Every behaviour of interest to the researcher, in theory, will be counted from the beginning through to the end of the observation.

event sampling cons

• There is a possibility that some behaviours could be missed if there is too much happening at the same time, resulting ins some not being coded.

time sampling

Where an observer records behaviour at prescribed intervals

time sampling pros

• Time sampling allows for a better use of time snice fewer observations are made.

time sampling

• Not every behaviour of relevance to the investigation will be counted if it occurs in between the time frames allocated.

non-participant observations

The person who is conducting the observation does not participate in the activity being observed. This type of observation is common in educational settings (teacher evaluations). The aim is for the observer to be as unobtrusive as possible and to not engage with any activities happening.

 

non-participant observations pros

• Investigator effects less likely as the researcher is observing from a distance. Behaviour observed is more likely to be representative and unaltered human conducted.

non-participant observations cons

• A lack of proximity means that the researcher may miss human behaviour being observed and will overlook things.