Types of Observation (College Board AP® Psychology): Revision Note

Naturalistic & controlled observations

• An observation is a non-experimental methodology in which the researcher observes and records behavior in either naturalistic or controlled settings

• Observers can only record observable behavior — what they can directly see and measure, e.g.

  • A child hits a Bobo doll with a mallet

  • A doctor ignores a patient asking them a question

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

  • A child hits a Bobo doll because they are naturally violent — this cannot be concluded from observation alone

• All that can be recorded is the behavior itself

  • The behavior is then linked to the topic of the investigation with no assumption of cause and effect

Naturalistic observation

• A naturalistic observation is one in which the researcher observes and records behavior in a natural, real-world setting with no manipulation of variables and no IV, e.g.

  • Children interacting in a school playground

  • Shoppers choosing items in a superstore

  • Crowds at a sporting event

• Naturalistic observations are used when it would be inappropriate or impractical to run a controlled experiment to investigate the topic

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

Evaluation of naturalistic observations

Strengths

• Naturalistic observations are high in ecological validity

  • This is because behavior is observed in a real-world setting as participants are going about their daily activities

  • This means that their behavior is natural and unforced

• If the naturalistic observation is covert, participants are unaware they are being observed and are therefore unlikely to experience the Hawthorne effect

  • This is the tendency to change behavior simply because one knows they are being studied

  • Therefore data collect has high validity

Limitations

• Naturalistic observations cannot be easily replicated due to the uncontrolled nature of the setting

  • No variables are controlled, which makes it difficult to apply scientific rigor

  • This reduces the reliability of the findings

• If the naturalistic observation is covert, serious ethical concerns arise

  • Participants cannot give informed consent, cannot exercise their right to withdraw, and it may not be possible to debrief them afterward

  • If the observation is overt, these ethical concerns are reduced but the risk of the Hawthorne effect increases

Controlled observation

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

  • Participants are aware they are taking part in a study and are given a specific task to complete

• The procedures and behavioral categories to be measured are carefully predetermined by the researcher, e.g.

  • Bandura's (1961) Bobo doll study used a standardized procedure across three distinct phases to observe imitative aggression in children

  • Ainsworth's (1970) Strange Situation used seven predetermined phases with specific behavioral categories (e.g. separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviors) to assess attachment style in infants

Evaluation of controlled observations

Strengths

• Replicable procedures mean the study can be repeated under the same conditions

  • This increases reliability, particularly when more than one observer is used

• Greater control over the procedure allows the researcher to be more confident that observed differences in behavior are linked to the variables being studied,

  • This increases internal validity

Limitations

• The use of controlled conditions and artificial tasks reduces ecological validity

  • Participants may not behave as they would in real-life settings

  • This limits the generalizability of the findings

• Demand characteristics may act as a confounding variable

  • Participants who are aware they are being observed may alter their behavior based on what they think is expected of them

  • This reduces the validity of the findings

Covert & overt observations

Covert observations

• 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 ethically justifiable way to conduct a covert observation is to observe behavior in a public context that would be occurring regardless of the observation, e.g.

  • shoppers in a mall

  • crowds at a public event

  • workers in an open-plan office

• Covert observations are most commonly used in naturalistic observations, where the researcher aims to preserve the natural quality of the behavior being observed

Evaluation of covert observation

Strengths

• Because participants are unaware they are being observed, their behavior is more likely to be genuine and unforced

  • Covert observations are therefore high in ecological validity

• Participants cannot experience demand characteristics or the Hawthorne effect, which increases the validity of the findings

Limitations

• Covert observations raise serious ethical concerns

  • Participants cannot give informed consent, exercise their right to withdraw and debriefing may not be possible

  • If the observation involves staged events, participants may be exposed to distress or harm without their knowledge

• Covert observations are difficult to replicate due to their intrusive and often ethically problematic nature, which reduces reliability

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 most commonly used in controlled observations, where the researcher needs to set up specific conditions and tasks, e.g.

  • In Bandura's Bobo doll study children knew they were participating in a study

  • In Ainsworth's Strange Situation mothers and infants were recruited and aware of the procedure

Evaluation of overt observation

Strengths

• Ethical guidelines can be upheld as participants are aware of being observed

  • Participants can give informed consent, exercise their right to withdraw, and be properly debriefed afterward

• Overt observations can be more easily replicated than covert observations

  • This is because participants are aware of the procedure, the researcher can use standardized instructions and predetermined behavioral categories consistently across participants

  • This increases the reliability of the findings

Limitations

• Participants are aware that they are being observed, which increases the risk of demand characteristics and the Hawthorne effect

  • This reduces the validity of the findings

• Researcher bias may influence the findings as the researcher may set up the observation schedule to align too closely with their hypothesis

  • This could lead to recording only behaviors that support their predictions rather than maintaining objectivity

  • This is a form of confirmation bias

Participant & non-participant observation

Participant observation

• In a participant observation, the researcher joins the group being observed and becomes part of it

• Participants may not be aware that the researcher is an outsider

• Participant observations are therefore most commonly covert, e.g.

  • Rosenhan (1973) and confederates had themselves falsely admitted to psychiatric hospitals and recorded their observations from within

  • Piliavin (1969) and confederates posed as ordinary passengers on New York subway trains, staging emergency scenarios to observe bystander behavior from within the group

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 is because researcher can gain full access to the group's real thoughts, feelings, and conversations

  • Therefore the data collected is high in ecological validity

• Deep immersion in the group may reveal new topics or behaviors worthy of further investigation

  • E.g. In Piliavin's New York subway study, the observers noted that many of the female passengers did not help in the emergency

  • This could give rise to further research on gender in bystander behavior

Limitations

• Participant observations could result in the researcher having a restricted view of what they wish to observe, missing important behaviors that occur outside their immediate access

  • E.g. 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

• Deep immersion increases the risk that the researcher loses objectivity

  • They may begin to identify with those they are observing, introducing bias into their recording and interpretation of behaviour

  • This would damage the validity of the findings

Non-participant observation

• In a non-participant observation, the researcher remains separate 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, e.g.

  • Bandura observed children's behavior from an adjacent room via a one-way mirror

  • Ainsworth observed mother-infant 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 reduces the risk of bias and preserves the validity of the findings

• The researcher is more likely to have a good vantage point from which to observe behavior as they are not restricted to particular particular locations or interactions

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

Limitations

• Being removed from the group means the researcher may miss key detail and insight that would only be accessible through direct participation

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

• The researcher may misinterpret behaviors from a distance

  • Unlike a participant observer, they cannot seek clarification from participants

  • This may reduce the validity of their interpretations