Types of Observation (AQA AS Psychology)

Naturalistic & controlled observation

• An observation is a non-experimental method which involves observing and recording behaviours in either naturalistic or controlled settings

• Observers can only investigate observable behaviours i.e. what they can see e.g.

  • a child hits a Bobo doll with a mallet

  • a doctor ignores a patient asking them a question

  • members of a 'doomsday' cult discuss the impending apocalypse

• Observers cannot infer motive, intention, feeling or thought from an observation e.g.

  • a child hits a Bobo doll because they are naturally violent

  • a doctor ignores a patient because the doctor is in a bad mood

  • the cult discuss the impending apocalypse because they have all been brainwashed

• All that can be recorded is the action/behaviour which is then linked to the topic of the investigation with no assumption of cause-effect

Naturalistic observation

• A naturalistic observation is one in which the researcher observes and records behaviours in a natural setting, away from the lab, with no manipulation or a complete absence of an independent variable (IV)) e.g.

  • children are observed interacting in the school playground 

  • shoppers are observed choosing items in a supermarket 

  • the home crowd is observed at a football match

• Naturalistic observations are used when it would be inappropriate/unfeasible to run an experiment to investigate the topic e.g.

  • attempting to implement an IV and run a controlled conditions experiment to study how children interact in the playground is rife with logistical problems and would essentially invalidate itself

• Participants in a naturalistic observation may be unaware that they are being observed as they are simply going about their regular, everyday activities

  • Festinger (1956) and confederates infiltrated a 'doomsday' cult which believed that the world would end and that cult members would be saved by escaping on flying saucers

  • This was a naturalistic observation as the researchers mingled amongst the cult members and secretly recorded their observations in note form

Evaluation of naturalistic observation

Strengths

• Participants are observed going about their daily activities, unaware of being observed

  • This means that their behaviour is natural and unforced

  • Thus this technique is high in ecological validity

• As participants are unaware that they are being observed they are unlikely to succumb to the 'Hawthorne effect'

Limitations

• As participants are unaware that they are being observed this raises ethical concerns

  • Participants cannot give informed consent or the right to withdraw and it may not be possible to debrief them

  • This means that naturalistic observations may lack ethical validity

• Naturalistic observations cannot be replicated due to the nature of the method

  • This makes it difficult to apply scientific rigour to them as no variables are controlled

  • This means that the method may be overly subjective

Controlled observation

• A controlled observation is one in which the researcher implements a level of control, implementing replicable procedures and (sometimes) an IV

• The procedures and phases of a controlled observation must be carefully designed by the researcher along with the predetermined behavioural categories to be measured e.g.

  • Bandura’s (1961) Bobo doll study used a standardised procedure in lab conditions across three distinct phases

    • phase 1 was exposure to an aggressive model or non-aggressive model

    • phase 2 was the 'arousal' phase

    • phase 3 was the observation of the child alone in a room full of toys plus the Bobo doll

  • Ainsworth's (1970) 'Strange Situation' study used seven different phases of the procedure with distinct categories pre-determined as key indicators of the baby's attachment style e.g.

    • separation anxiety

    • stranger anxiety

    • reunion behaviours

• Participants in a controlled observation are aware that they are being observed (unless they are babies or very young children) e.g.

  • Zimbardo’s (1973) prison study randomly allocated participants to the role of prisoner/guard

  • The roles were artificial and the participants knew that they were being observed, sometimes on camera

• Participants know that they are taking part in a controlled observation as they must be recruited for the study and then set a specific task which is likely to be quite removed from their everyday activities/experience

Evaluation of controlled observation

Strengths

• Replicable procedures can be set up which adhere more to a scientific method

  • The researcher may manipulate an IV

  • Participants are tested using the same standards and materials

  • Thus this method has good reliability, particularly if more than one observer is used throughout (known as inter-observer reliability)

• The researcher can be more confident of a cause-effect relationship with a controlled observation

  • In Bandura's study only the children who had observed the aggressive model performed imitative acts on the Bobo doll

  • This supports the validity of the researcher's hypothesis

Limitations

• The use of controlled conditions and artificial tasks means that controlled observations are low in ecological validity

  • Ainsworth's study placed a mother and baby pair in an unfamiliar environment including a stranger

  • This means that both mother and baby may have been responding in ways which did not truly represent their attachment style

• Demand characteristics may impair a controlled observation

  • The children in Bandura's study may simply have been aggressive because they thought that this was expected of them (as they had seen an adult behaving aggressively)

  • This would lower the validity of the findings as it would not be a true effect of the IV on the DV

Covert & overt observation

Covert observation

• In a covert observation

  • participants are not aware that they are being observed and will not have been informed of this in advance

  • participants may not be able to see the researcher observing them

• The only ethical way to conduct a covert observation is to observe behaviour in the public context that would be happening anyway, regardless of the observation taking place e.g.

  • shoppers in a mall

  • a crowd at a football match

  • office workers in the workplace

• Covert observations are more likely to occur with naturalistic observations as the researcher is keen to preserve the natural and unforced quality of the behaviour

  • E.g. Rosenhan (1973) and confederates covertly observed staff and patients of several mental hospitals in the USA by faking symptoms and being admitted as patients themselves

Evaluation of covert observation

Strengths

• As the researcher is hidden from the participants this means that the behaviour being observed is more likely to be real and uncontrived

  • This means that this type of observation is high in ecological validity

• As the participants are unaware of the researcher they may behave in ways which would not necessarily emerge if they knew they were 'on display'

  • Piliavin et al. (1969) staged an emergency on a New York subway train and observed the reactions of passengers

  • The covert nature of the observation meant that passengers were unguarded and open in their responses

  • This increases the validity of the findings

Limitations

• There are ethical issues with covert observations

  • In Piliavin's New York subway study, the passengers were deceived into thinking that someone had collapsed in their carriage which could have caused them great distress

  • Thus, covert observations lack ethical validity

• It is problematic for a researcher if they wish to replicate a covert observational study

  • Rosenhan's covert observation of mental hospital staff could not be replicated due to the intrusive and unethical nature of the study

  • Piliavin's study could not be replicated not only due to ethics but for the very sound reason that anyone acting suspiciously on public transport in the 21st century would attract the attention of the security forces!

Overt observation

• In an overt observation participants

  • are aware that they are being observed and may have been informed of this in advance

  • might be able to see the researcher observing them

• Overt observations are more likely to occur in controlled lab conditions as the researcher is keen to test the effect of the IV on the DV e.g.

  • Bandura tested the effect of observing an aggressive adult model on acts of imitative aggression in children

  • Ainsworth tested the effect of separation anxiety and stranger anxiety on young babies

• As each of the above studies were controlled observations it would not have benefited the study to use covert methods

Evaluation of overt observation

Strengths

• Ethics can be preserved as the researcher makes themselves known to the participants, who are aware that they are being observed

  • Zimbardo's prison experiment was an overt observation

  • Participants knew that they were being observed

  • Knowledge of the overt nature of the observation meant that the participants could more easily exercise their right to withdraw as there was no pretence that this was 'real life'

Limitations

• Participants are aware that they are being observed and that their behaviour is being measured which could give rise to participant reactivity

  • This is a type of demand characteristic which involves participants responding too actively to the research process i.e. trying too hard/not trying hard enough

  • This in turn damages the validity of the findings

• Overt observations may suffer from researcher bias

  • The researcher may set up the observation schedule and tasks to align too closely with their hypothesis

  • If so, the researcher has succumbed to confirmation bias as they are striving to look for behaviours which support their hypothesis rather than keeping an open mind

Participant & non-participant observation

Participant observation

• In a participant observation:

  • The researcher (and possibly confederates of the researcher) join the group they are observing, becoming part of them

  • Participants may not be aware that the researcher is an 'outsider' (in fact it is highly likely that the observation is covert) e.g.

    • Rosenhan and confederates had themselves falsely admitted to mental hospitals and kept a record of what they observed during their time there

    • Festinger and confederates infiltrated a 'doomsday' cult and kept a record of their conversations and behaviours

    • Piliavin and confederates blended in with New York subway passengers in their study of bystander behaviour

Evaluation of participant observation

Strengths

• Participant observations mean that the researcher (and confederates) can get fully involved with the group that they are observing

  • This increases the validity of the study as access to real thoughts, feelings, and conversations is possible (as the participants believe the researcher to be 'one of us')

• As the researcher is so immersed in the situation they may become aware of other topics or theories that could be investigated in the future

  • In Piliavin's New York subway study, the observers noted that many of the female passengers did not help in the emergency which could give rise to further research on gender roles

Limitations

• Participant observations could result in the researcher having a restricted view of what they wish to observe and thus missing some important behaviours

  • In Rosenhan's study, the researcher and confederates did not have full access to every part of the hospital and all of the staff

  • This limits the usefulness of participant observations

• As the researcher is so immersed in the situation they could begin to lose objectivity

  • They may begin to identify with those they are observing, particularly with long-term studies

  • This would damage the validity of the findings

Non-participant observation

• In a non-participant observation:

  • The researcher stays separate and apart from the group they are observing

  • Participants may or may not be aware that they are being observed

    • This type of observation can be overt or covert

  • The researcher takes no part at all in the procedure(s)

    • Bandura's study involved the researcher observing the children’s behaviour from another room via a one-way mirror

    • Ainsworth observed baby-mother interactions via a one-way mirror

Evaluation of non-participant observation

Strengths

• The researcher can keep an objective distance from what is being observed

  • This means that they are unlikely to become biased or subjective in their recording of behaviour

  • Thus the validity of the study stays intact

• The researcher is more likely to have a good vantage point from which to observe behaviour as they are not restricted to particular times, rooms, areas or locations which could occur with a participant observation

  • This increases the scope of the observation so that more data can be gathered

Limitations

• Being removed and at a distance from the 'action' means that a non-participant observation may lack key detail and insight only made possible through the use of participant observational methods

  • This means that a non-participant observation may lack explanatory power

• As the researcher is apart from what they are observing it is possible that they could misinterpret some behaviours

  • They would not be able to ask the participants for clarification as a researcher in a participant observation could

  • This means that non-participant observations may lack some validity