Observation is a method of carrying out research in psychology and can fall under three distinctions – controlled observations, naturalistic observations and participant observations. Observations are generally cheap and require few resources and materials but can be time consuming depending on what you are observing. Observations can also be considered as overt (participants are aware of the fact that they are being studied and have granted their permission) or covert (researcher keeps their real identity hidden from the participants, acting as a participant too).
Controlled observations are usually overt as the researcher explains the research aim to the group, so the participants know they are being observed. Usually carried out in psychology laboratories, the researcher is in charge of factors such as where the observation takes place, when, with whom and in what circumstances. Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group and the researcher usually avoids any direct contact with the participants but can still observe through a two way window (eg. ‘Bobo Doll Experiment’, Bandura, 1962. His findings also support his Social Learning Theory (1977)). The advantages of controlled observations are that they make testing for reliability straightforward as they can be replicated by other researchers easily by using the same observation schedule. Also, the quantitative data retrieved is easier and faster to analyse and less time consuming than analysing data retrieved from naturalistic observations. They are also relatively quick to conduct so a large number of observations can take place in little time and the large sample can thus be used to represent and generalise a large population. A disadvantage is the lack of validity in controlled observations due to the Hawthorne Effect (participants modify their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed).
Naturalistic observation involves studying the spontaneous behaviour of participants in natural surroundings. Advantages are that data collected from naturalistic observations can be used to generate new ideas. The data also has greater ecological validity because subjects are in their own natural setting and behaviour can be a lot more genuine. Their behaviourism and reactions to things are perceived as not manipulated, unlike many other types of research methods (such as controlled observations) where the subject is aware that they are being examined. Disadvantages are that other researchers may find it challenging to repeat the study in the exact way as it was conducted before due to variables which cannot be controlled thus making this type of observation less reliable. Furthermore, the observations are conducted on a micro-scale and may be biased in terms of factors such as gender, age etc which means findings lack the ability to be generalised.
Participant observation can be overt or covert and is similar to naturalistic observation but the researcher becomes an active member of the group of participants to gain a clearer insight. Leon Festinger (1956) conducted this type of observation in which he became a member of a religious apocalyptic cult who believed that the end of the world was coming and studied the members’ reactions when the prophecy did not come true. Advantages of this observation are that the researcher is provided with opportunities for viewing or participating in unscheduled events. The quality of data collection and interpretation are also improved and facilitates the development of new research questions or hypotheses. Disadvantages are that it can be challenging to record findings privately or have the time to do so, especially in covert observations where the researcher will have to recall events from memory with the possibility of forgetting details and misquoting. Also, the validity of results may be reduced if the researcher loses objectivity and becomes biased with their own expectations and assumptions.
annabelpsychology 