Observational methods in psychology: Difference between revisions
Ilona.bass (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Ilona.bass (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
===Reactivity=== |
===Reactivity=== |
||
===Observer Bias=== |
===Observer Bias=== |
||
Inherent in conducting observational research is the risk of observer bias influencing your study’s results. The main observer biases to be wary of are ''expectancy effects''. When the observer has an expectation as to what they will observe, they are more likely to report that they saw what they expected. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Cordaro|first= |
Inherent in conducting observational research is the risk of observer bias influencing your study’s results. The main observer biases to be wary of are ''expectancy effects''. When the observer has an expectation as to what they will observe, they are more likely to report that they saw what they expected. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Cordaro, L.|first=& Ison, J.R.|title=Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian|journal=Psychological Reports|volume=13|pages=787-789}}</ref> |
||
Cordaro & Ison, 1963: College student observers recorded the number of head turns and body contractions bade by flatworms. Observers in one group were led to expect a high rate of movement, whereas observers in a second group expected a low rate. The two groups of flatworms were identical; however, results showed that when observers expected to see lots of movement, they recorded twice as many head turns and three times as many body contractions compared to observers who expected to see a low rate of movement (from SZZ) |
Cordaro & Ison, 1963: College student observers recorded the number of head turns and body contractions bade by flatworms. Observers in one group were led to expect a high rate of movement, whereas observers in a second group expected a low rate. The two groups of flatworms were identical; however, results showed that when observers expected to see lots of movement, they recorded twice as many head turns and three times as many body contractions compared to observers who expected to see a low rate of movement (from SZZ) |
||
One of the best ways to deal with observer biases is to acknowledge their existence and actively combat their effects |
One of the best ways to deal with observer biases is to acknowledge their existence and actively combat their effects |
||
Revision as of 01:40, 15 November 2012
Observational Methods in psychological research entail the observation and description of people's behavior.
Sampling Behavior
Time Sampling
Time sampling is a sampling method that involves the acquisition of representative samples by observing subjects at different time intervals. These time intervals can be chosen randomly or systematically. If a researcher chooses to use systematic time sampling, the information obtained would only generalize to the one time period in which the observation took place. In contrast, the goal of random time sampling would be to be able to generalize across all times of observation. Depending on the type of study being conducted, either type of time sampling can be appropriate.
An advantage to using time sampling is that you gain the ability to control the contexts to which you’ll eventually be able to generalize. However, time sampling is not useful if the event pertaining to your research question occurs infrequently or unpredictably, because you will often miss the event in the short time period of observation. In this scenario, event sampling is more useful. In this style of sampling, the researcher lets the event determine when the observations will take place. For example, if the research question involves observing behavior during a specific holiday, one would use event sampling instead of time sampling.
Situation Sampling
Situation sampling involves the study of behavior in many different locations, and under different circumstances and conditions.[1] By sampling different situations, researchers reduce the chance that the results they obtain will be particular to a certain set of circumstances or conditions. For this reason, situation sampling significantly increases the external validity of observational findings.[2] Furthermore, situation sampling significantly increases the generality of findings. Compared to when researchers only observe particular types of individuals, researchers using situation sampling can increase the diversity of subjects within their observed sample.
Researchers may determine which subjects to observe by either selecting subjects systematically (every 10th student in a cafeteria, for example) or randomly, with the goal of obtaining a representative sample of all subjects.[2]
For a good example of situation sampling, see this study by LaFrance and Mayo concerning the differences in the use of gaze direction as a regulatory mechanism in conversation. In this study, pairs of individuals were observed in college cafeterias, restaurants, airport and hospital waiting rooms, and business-district fast-food outlets. By using situation sampling, the investigators were able to observe a wide range of people who differed in age, sex, race, and socioeconomic class, thus increasing the external validity of their research findings.
Direct Observational Methods
Observation Without Intervention
Observation With Intervention
Indirect Observational Methods
Indirect observation can be used if one wishes to be entirely unobtrusive in their observation method. This can often be useful if a researcher is approaching a particularly sensitive topic that would be likely to elicit reactivity in the subject. There are also potential ethical concerns that are avoided by using the indirect observational method.
Physical Trace Evidence
The investigation of physical trace evidence involves examining the remnants of the subject’s past behavior. These remnants could be any number of items, and are usually broken down into two main categories. Use traces indicate the use or non-use of an item (e.g. fingerprints, empty candy wrappers). In contrast, products are the creations or artifacts of behavior (e.g. paintings, music). Whereas use traces tell us more about the behavior of an individual, products speak more to contemporary cultural themes.
Examining physical trace evidence is an invaluable tool to psychologists, for they can gain information in this manner that they might not normally be able to obtain through other observational techniques. One issue with this method of research is the matter of validity. It may not always be the case that physical traces accurately inform us about people’s behavior, and supplementary evidence is needed when acquiring physical trace evidence in order to substantiate your findings.
Archival Records
Archival records are the documents that describe the activities of people at a certain time point or time period. Running records are continuously updated. Episodic records, on the other hand, describe specific events that only happened once.
Archival records are especially useful since they can be used as supplementary evidence for physical trace evidence. This keeps the whole data collection process of the observational study entirely unobtrusive. However, one must also be wary of the risk of selective deposit, which is the selective addition and omission of information to an archival record. There could be easily overlooked biases inherent in many archival records.
Recording Behavior
Biases and Observer Influences
Reactivity
Observer Bias
Inherent in conducting observational research is the risk of observer bias influencing your study’s results. The main observer biases to be wary of are expectancy effects. When the observer has an expectation as to what they will observe, they are more likely to report that they saw what they expected. [3] Cordaro & Ison, 1963: College student observers recorded the number of head turns and body contractions bade by flatworms. Observers in one group were led to expect a high rate of movement, whereas observers in a second group expected a low rate. The two groups of flatworms were identical; however, results showed that when observers expected to see lots of movement, they recorded twice as many head turns and three times as many body contractions compared to observers who expected to see a low rate of movement (from SZZ) One of the best ways to deal with observer biases is to acknowledge their existence and actively combat their effects Using blind observers is an excellent technique, since they will not have a research question to guide their expectations in any way
- ^ Zechmeister, John J. Shaughnessy, Eugene B. Zechmeister, Jeanne S. (2009). Research methods in psychology (8th ed. ed.). Boston [etc.]: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780071283519.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Zechmeister, John J. Shaughnessy, Eugene B. Zechmeister, Jeanne S. (2009). Research methods in psychology (8th ed. ed.). Boston [etc.]: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780071283519.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Cordaro, L., & Ison, J.R. "Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian". Psychological Reports. 13: 787–789.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)