6.5 Observational Research – Research Methods in Psychology

Naturalistic observation is an observational method that involves observing people's behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic ... ="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"viewBox="00512512"> Skiptocontent 6.5ObservationalResearch LearningObjectives Listthevarioustypesofobservationalresearchmethodsanddistinguishbetweeneach Describethestrengthsandweaknessofeachobservationalresearchmethod.  WhatIsObservationalResearch? Thetermobservationalresearchisusedtorefertoseveraldifferenttypesofnon-experimentalstudiesinwhichbehaviorissystematicallyobservedandrecorded.Thegoalofobservationalresearchistodescribeavariableorsetofvariables.Moregenerally,thegoalistoobtainasnapshotofspecificcharacteristicsofanindividual,group,orsetting.Asdescribedpreviously,observationalresearchisnon-experimentalbecausenothingismanipulatedorcontrolled,andassuchwecannotarriveatcausalconclusionsusingthisapproach.Thedatathatarecollectedinobservationalresearchstudiesareoftenqualitativeinnaturebuttheymayalsobequantitativeorboth(mixed-methods).Thereareseveraldifferenttypesofobservationalresearchdesignsthatwillbedescribedbelow. NaturalisticObservation Naturalistic observation isanobservationalmethodthatinvolvesobservingpeople’sbehaviorintheenvironmentinwhichittypicallyoccurs.Thusnaturalisticobservationisatypeoffieldresearch(asopposedtoatypeoflaboratoryresearch).JaneGoodall’sfamousresearchonchimpanzeesisaclassicexampleofnaturalisticobservation. Dr. GoodallspentthreedecadesobservingchimpanzeesintheirnaturalenvironmentinEastAfrica.Sheexaminedsuchthingsaschimpanzee’ssocialstructure,matingpatterns,genderroles,familystructure,andcareofoffspringbyobservingtheminthewild.However,naturalisticobservation couldmoresimplyinvolveobservingshoppersinagrocerystore,childrenonaschoolplayground,orpsychiatricinpatientsintheirwards.Researchersengagedinnaturalisticobservationusuallymaketheirobservationsasunobtrusivelyaspossiblesothatparticipantsarenotawarethattheyarebeingstudied.Suchanapproachiscalleddisguisednaturalisticobservation. Ethically,thismethodisconsideredtobeacceptableiftheparticipantsremainanonymousandthebehavioroccursinapublicsettingwherepeoplewouldnotnormallyhaveanexpectationofprivacy.Groceryshoppersputtingitemsintotheirshoppingcarts,forexample,areengagedinpublicbehaviorthatiseasilyobservablebystoreemployeesandothershoppers.Forthisreason,mostresearcherswouldconsideritethicallyacceptabletoobservethemforastudy.Ontheotherhand,oneoftheargumentsagainsttheethicalityofthenaturalisticobservationof“bathroombehavior”discussedearlierinthebookisthatpeoplehaveareasonableexpectationofprivacyeveninapublicrestroomandthatthisexpectationwasviolated.  Incaseswhereitisnotethicalorpracticaltoconductdisguisednaturalisticobservation,researcherscanconduct undisguisednaturalisticobservationwheretheparticipantsaremadeawareoftheresearcherpresenceandmonitoringoftheirbehavior.However,oneconcernwithundisguisednaturalisticobservationis reactivity.Reactivity referstowhenameasurechangesparticipants’behavior.Inthecaseofundisguisednaturalisticobservation,theconcernwithreactivityisthatwhenpeopleknowtheyarebeingobservedandstudied,theymayactdifferentlythantheynormallywould.Forinstance,youmayactmuchdifferentlyinabarifyouknowthatsomeoneisobservingyouandrecordingyourbehaviorsandthiswouldinvalidatethestudy.Sodisguisedobservationislessreactiveandthereforecanhavehighervaliditybecausepeoplearenotawarethattheirbehaviorsarebeingobservedandrecorded.However,wenowknowthatpeopleoftenbecomeusedtobeingobservedandwithtimetheybegintobehavenaturallyintheresearcher’spresence.Inotherwords,overtimepeoplehabituatetobeingobserved.ThinkaboutrealityshowslikeBigBrotherorSurvivorwherepeopleareconstantlybeingobservedandrecorded.Whiletheymaybeontheirbestbehavioratfirst,inafairlyshortamountoftimetheyare,flirting,havingsex,wearingnexttonothing,screamingateachother,andattimesactinglikecompletefoolsinfrontoftheentirenation. ParticipantObservation Anotherapproachtodatacollectioninobservationalresearchisparticipantobservation.In participant observation,researchersbecomeactiveparticipantsinthegrouporsituationtheyarestudying.Participantobservationisverysimilartonaturalisticobservationinthatitinvolvesobservingpeople’sbehaviorintheenvironmentinwhichittypicallyoccurs.Aswithnaturalisticobservation,thedatathatiscollectedcanincludeinterviews(usuallyunstructured),notesbasedontheirobservationsandinteractions,documents,photographs,andotherartifacts.Theonlydifferencebetweennaturalisticobservationandparticipantobservationisthatresearchersengagedinparticipantobservationbecomeactivemembersofthegrouporsituationstheyarestudying.Thebasicrationaleforparticipantobservationisthattheremaybeimportantinformationthatisonlyaccessibleto,orcanbeinterpretedonlyby,someonewhoisanactiveparticipantinthegrouporsituation.Likenaturalisticobservation,participantobservationcanbeeither disguisedorundisguised.Indisguisedparticipantobservation,theresearcherspretendtobemembersofthesocialgrouptheyareobservingandconcealtheirtrueidentityasresearchers.Incontrastwithundisguisedparticipantobservation, theresearchersbecomeapartofthegrouptheyarestudyingandtheydisclosetheirtrueidentityasresearcherstothegroupunderinvestigation.Onceagainthereareimportantethicalissuestoconsiderwithdisguisedparticipantobservation. Firstnoinformedconsentcanbeobtainedandsecondpassivedeceptionisbeingused.Theresearcherispassivelydeceivingtheparticipantsbyintentionallywithholdinginformationabouttheirmotivationsforbeingapartofthesocialgrouptheyarestudying.Butsometimesdisguisedparticipationistheonlywaytoaccessaprotectivegroup(likeacult).Further, disguisedparticipantobservationislesspronetoreactivitythanundisguisedparticipantobservation.  Rosenhan’sstudy(1973)[1] oftheexperienceofpeopleinapsychiatricwardwouldbeconsidereddisguisedparticipantobservationbecauseRosenhanandhispseudopatientswereadmittedintopsychiatrichospitalsonthepretenseofbeingpatientssothattheycouldobservethewaythatpsychiatricpatientsaretreatedbystaff.Thestaffandotherpatientswereunawareoftheirtrueidentitiesasresearchers. AnotherexampleofparticipantobservationcomesfromastudybysociologistAmyWilkins(publishedin SocialPsychologyQuarterly)onauniversity-basedreligiousorganizationthatemphasizedhowhappyitsmemberswere(Wilkins,2008)[2].Wilkinsspent12monthsattendingandparticipatinginthegroup’smeetingsandsocialevents,andsheinterviewedseveralgroupmembers.Inherstudy,Wilkinsidentifiedseveralwaysinwhichthegroup“enforced”happiness—forexample,bycontinuallytalkingabouthappiness,discouragingtheexpressionofnegativeemotions,andusinghappinessasawaytodistinguishthemselvesfromothergroups. Oneoftheprimarybenefitsofparticipantobservationisthattheresearcherisinamuchbetterpositiontounderstandtheviewpointandexperiencesofthepeopletheyarestudyingwhentheyareapartofthesocialgroup. Theprimarylimitationwiththisapproachisthatthemerepresenceoftheobservercouldaffectthebehaviorofthepeoplebeingobserved.Whilethisisalsoaconcernwithnaturalisticobservationwhenresearchersbecauseactivemembersofthesocialgrouptheyarestudying,additionalconcernsarisethattheymaychangethesocialdynamicsand/orinfluencethebehaviorofthepeopletheyarestudying.Similarly,iftheresearcheractsasaparticipantobservertherecanbeconcernswithbiasesresultingfromdevelopingrelationshipswiththeparticipants.Concretely,theresearchermaybecomelessobjectiveresultinginmoreexperimenterbias. StructuredObservation Anotherobservationalmethodisstructuredobservation.Heretheinvestigatormakescarefulobservationsofoneormorespecificbehaviorsinaparticularsettingthatismorestructuredthanthesettingsusedinnaturalisticandparticipantobservation.Oftenthesettinginwhichtheobservationsaremadeisnotthenaturalsetting,rathertheresearchermayobservepeopleinthelaboratoryenvironment.Alternatively,theresearchermayobservepeopleinanaturalsetting(likeaclassroomsetting)thattheyhavestructuredsomeway,forinstancebyintroducingsomespecifictaskparticipantsaretoengageinorbyintroducingaspecificsocialsituationormanipulation. Structuredobservationisverysimilartonaturalisticobservationandparticipantobservationinthatinallcasesresearchersareobservingnaturallyoccurringbehavior,however,theemphasisinstructuredobservationisongatheringquantitativeratherthanqualitativedata.Researchersusingthisapproachareinterestedinalimitedsetofbehaviors.Thisallowsthemtoquantifythebehaviorstheyareobserving.Inotherwords,structuredobservationislessglobalthannaturalisticandparticipantobservationbecausetheresearcherengagedinstructuredobservationsisinterestedinasmallnumberofspecificbehaviors.Therefore,ratherthanrecordingeverythingthathappens,theresearcheronlyfocusesonveryspecificbehaviorsofinterest. Structuredobservationisverysimilartonaturalisticobservationandparticipantobservationinthatinallcasesresearchersareobservingnaturallyoccurringbehavior,however,theemphasisinstructuredobservationisongatheringquantitativeratherthanqualitativedata.Researchersusingthisapproachareinterestedinalimitedsetofbehaviors.Thisallowsthemtoquantifythebehaviorstheyareobserving.Inotherwords,structuredobservationislessglobalthannaturalisticandparticipantobservationbecausetheresearcherengagedinstructuredobservationsisinterestedinasmallnumberofspecificbehaviors.Therefore,ratherthanrecordingeverythingthathappens,theresearcheronlyfocusesonveryspecificbehaviorsofinterest. ResearchersRobertLevineandAraNorenzayanusedstructuredobservationtostudydifferencesinthe“paceoflife”acrosscountries(Levine&Norenzayan,1999)[3].Oneoftheirmeasuresinvolvedobservingpedestriansinalargecitytoseehowlongittookthemtowalk60feet.Theyfoundthatpeopleinsomecountrieswalkedreliablyfasterthanpeopleinothercountries.Forexample,peopleinCanadaandSwedencovered60feetinjustunder13secondsonaverage,whilepeopleinBrazilandRomaniatookcloseto17seconds.Whenstructuredobservation takesplaceinthecomplexandevenchaotic“realworld,”thequestionsofwhen,where,andunderwhatconditionstheobservationswillbemade,andwhoexactlywillbeobservedareimportanttoconsider.LevineandNorenzayandescribedtheirsamplingprocessasfollows: “Maleandfemalewalkingspeedoveradistanceof60feetwasmeasuredinatleasttwolocationsinmaindowntownareasineachcity.Measurementsweretakenduringmainbusinesshoursonclearsummerdays.Alllocationswereflat,unobstructed,hadbroadsidewalks,andweresufficientlyuncrowdedtoallowpedestrianstomoveatpotentiallymaximumspeeds.Tocontrolfortheeffectsofsocializing,onlypedestrianswalkingalonewereused.Children,individualswithobviousphysicalhandicaps,andwindow-shopperswerenottimed.Thirty-fivemenand35womenweretimedinmostcities.”(p.186). Precisespecificationofthesamplingprocessinthiswaymakesdatacollectionmanageablefortheobservers,anditalsoprovidessomecontroloverimportantextraneousvariables.Forexample,bymakingtheirobservationsonclearsummerdaysinallcountries,LevineandNorenzayancontrolledforeffectsoftheweatheronpeople’swalkingspeeds. InLevineandNorenzayan’sstudy,measurementwasrelativelystraightforward.Theysimplymeasuredouta60-footdistancealongacitysidewalkandthenusedastopwatchtotimeparticipantsastheywalkedoverthatdistance. Asanotherexample,researchersRobertKrautandRobertJohnstonwantedtostudybowlers’reactionstotheirshots,bothwhentheywerefacingthepinsandthenwhentheyturnedtowardtheircompanions(Kraut&Johnston,1979)[4].Butwhat“reactions”shouldtheyobserve?Basedonpreviousresearchandtheirownpilottesting,KrautandJohnstoncreatedalistofreactionsthatincluded“closedsmile,”“opensmile,”“laugh,”“neutralface,”“lookdown,”“lookaway,”and“facecover”(coveringone’sfacewithone’shands).Theobserverscommittedthislisttomemoryandthenpracticedbycodingthereactionsofbowlerswhohadbeenvideotaped.Duringtheactualstudy,theobserversspokeintoanaudiorecorder,describingthereactionstheyobserved.Amongthemostinterestingresultsofthisstudywasthatbowlersrarelysmiledwhiletheystillfacedthepins.Theyweremuchmorelikelytosmileaftertheyturnedtowardtheircompanions,suggestingthatsmilingisnotpurelyanexpressionofhappinessbutalsoaformofsocialcommunication. Whentheobservationsrequireajudgmentonthepartoftheobservers—asinKrautandJohnston’sstudy—thisprocessisoftendescribedas coding.Codinggenerallyrequiresclearlydefiningasetoftargetbehaviors.Theobserversthencategorizeparticipantsindividuallyintermsofwhichbehaviortheyhaveengagedinandthenumberoftimestheyengagedineachbehavior.Theobserversmightevenrecordthedurationofeachbehavior.Thetargetbehaviorsmustbedefinedinsuchawaythatdifferentobserverscodetheminthesameway.Thisdifficultywithcodingistheissueofinterraterreliability,asmentionedinChapter4.Researchersareexpectedtodemonstratetheinterraterreliabilityoftheircodingprocedurebyhavingmultipleraterscodethesamebehaviorsindependentlyandthenshowingthatthedifferentobserversareincloseagreement.KrautandJohnston,forexample,videorecordedasubsetoftheirparticipants’reactionsandhadtwoobserversindependentlycodethem.Thetwoobserversshowedthattheyagreedonthereactionsthatwereexhibited97%ofthetime,indicatinggoodinterraterreliability. Oneoftheprimarybenefitsofstructuredobservationisthatitisfarmoreefficientthannaturalisticandparticipantobservation.Sincetheresearchersarefocusedonspecificbehaviorsthisreducestimeandexpense.Also,oftentimestheenvironmentisstructuredtoencouragethebehaviorsofinterestedwhichagainmeansthatresearchersdonothavetoinvestasmuchtimeinwaitingforthebehaviorsofinteresttonaturallyoccur.Finally,researchersusingthisapproachcanclearlyexertgreatercontrolovertheenvironment.However,whenresearchersexertmorecontrolovertheenvironmentitmaymaketheenvironmentlessnaturalwhichdecreasesexternalvalidity.Itislessclearforinstancewhetherstructuredobservationsmadeinalaboratoryenvironmentwillgeneralizetoarealworldenvironment. Furthermore,sinceresearchersengagedinstructuredobservationareoftennotdisguisedtheremaybemoreconcernswithreactivity. CaseStudies A casestudy isanin-depthexaminationofanindividual.Sometimescasestudiesarealsocompletedonsocialunits(e.g.,acult)andevents(e.g.,anaturaldisaster).Mostcommonlyinpsychology,however,casestudiesprovideadetaileddescriptionandanalysisofanindividual.Oftentheindividualhasarareorunusualconditionordisorderorhasdamagetoa specificregionofthebrain. Likemanyobservationalresearchmethods,casestudiestendtobemorequalitativeinnature.Casestudymethodsinvolveanin-depth,andoftenalongitudinalexaminationofanindividual.Dependingonthefocusofthecasestudy,individualsmayormaynotbeobservedintheirnaturalsetting.Ifthenaturalsettingisnotwhatisofinterest,thentheindividualmaybebroughtintoatherapist’sofficeoraresearcher’slabforstudy.Also,thebulkofthecasestudyreportwillfocusonin-depthdescriptionsofthepersonratherthanonstatisticalanalyses.Withthatsaidsomequantitativedatamayalsobeincludedinthewrite-upofacasestudy.Forinstance,anindividuals’depressionscoremaybecomparedtonormativescoresortheirscorebeforeandaftertreatmentmaybecompared.Aswithotherqualitativemethods,avarietyofdifferentmethodsandtoolscanbeusedtocollectinformationonthecase.Forinstance,interviews,naturalisticobservation,structuredobservation,psychologicaltesting(e.g.,IQtest),and/orphysiologicalmeasurements(e.g.,brainscans)maybeusedtocollectinformationontheindividual. HMisoneofthemostnotoriouscasestudiesinpsychology.HMsufferedfromintractableandverysevereepilepsy.AsurgeonlocalizedHM’sepilepsytohismedialtemporallobeandin1953heremovedlargesectionsofhishippocampusinanattempttostoptheseizures.Thetreatmentwasasuccess,inthatitresolvedhisepilepsyandhisIQandpersonalitywereunaffected.However,thedoctorssoonrealizedthatHMexhibitedastrangeformofamnesia,calledanterogradeamnesia.HMwasabletocarryoutaconversationandhecouldremembershortstringsofletters,digits,andwords.Basically,hisshorttermmemorywaspreserved.However,HMcouldnotcommitneweventstomemory.Helosttheabilitytotransferinformationfromhisshort-termmemorytohislongtermmemory,somethingmemoryresearcherscallconsolidation.Sowhilehecouldcarryonaconversationwithsomeone,hewouldcompletelyforgettheconversationafteritended.Thiswasanextremelyimportantcasestudyformemoryresearchersbecauseitsuggestedthatthere’sadissociationbetweenshort-termmemoryandlong-termmemory,itsuggestedthattheseweretwodifferentabilitiessub-servedbydifferentareasofthebrain.Italsosuggestedthatthetemporallobesareparticularlyimportantforconsolidatingnewinformation(i.e.,fortransferringinformationfromshort-termmemorytolong-termmemory). www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkaXNvzE4pk Thehistoryofpsychologyisfilledwithinfluentialcasesstudies,suchasSigmundFreud’sdescriptionof“AnnaO.”(seeNote6.1“TheCaseof“AnnaO.””)andJohnWatsonandRosalieRayner’sdescriptionofLittleAlbert(Watson&Rayner,1920)[5],wholearnedtofearawhiterat—alongwithotherfurryobjects—whentheresearchersmadealoudnoisewhilehewasplayingwiththerat. TheCaseof“AnnaO.” SigmundFreudusedthecaseofayoungwomanhecalled“AnnaO.”toillustratemanyprinciplesofhistheoryofpsychoanalysis(Freud,1961)[6].(HerrealnamewasBerthaPappenheim,andshewasanearlyfeministwhowentontomakeimportantcontributionstothefieldofsocialwork.)AnnahadcometoFreud’scolleagueJosefBreueraround1880withavarietyofoddphysicalandpsychologicalsymptoms.Oneofthemwasthatforseveralweeksshewasunabletodrinkanyfluids.AccordingtoFreud, Shewouldtakeuptheglassofwaterthatshelongedfor,butassoonasittouchedherlipsshewouldpushitawaylikesomeonesufferingfromhydrophobia.…Shelivedonlyonfruit,suchasmelons,etc.,soastolessenhertormentingthirst.(p.9) ButaccordingtoFreud,abreakthroughcameonedaywhileAnnawasunderhypnosis. [S]hegrumbledaboutherEnglish“lady-companion,”whomshedidnotcarefor,andwentontodescribe,witheverysignofdisgust,howshehadoncegoneintothislady’sroomandhowherlittledog—horridcreature!—haddrunkoutofaglassthere.Thepatienthadsaidnothing,asshehadwantedtobepolite.Aftergivingfurtherenergeticexpressiontotheangershehadheldback,sheaskedforsomethingtodrink,drankalargequantityofwaterwithoutanydifficulty,andawokefromherhypnosiswiththeglassatherlips;andthereuponthedisturbancevanished,nevertoreturn.(p.9) Freud’sinterpretationwasthatAnnahadrepressedthememoryofthisincidentalongwiththeemotionthatittriggeredandthatthiswaswhathadcausedherinabilitytodrink.Furthermore,herrecollectionoftheincident,alongwithherexpressionoftheemotionshehadrepressed,causedthesymptomtogoaway. AsanillustrationofFreud’stheory,thecasestudyofAnnaO.isquiteeffective.Asevidenceforthetheory,however,itisessentiallyworthless.ThedescriptionprovidesnowayofknowingwhetherAnnahadreallyrepressedthememoryofthedogdrinkingfromtheglass,whetherthisrepressionhadcausedherinabilitytodrink,orwhetherrecallingthis“trauma”relievedthesymptom.ItisalsounclearfromthiscasestudyhowtypicaloratypicalAnna’sexperiencewas. Figure10.1AnnaO.“AnnaO.”wasthesubjectofafamouscasestudyusedbyFreudtoillustratetheprinciplesofpsychoanalysis.Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pappenheim_1882.jpg Casestudiesareusefulbecausetheyprovidealevelofdetailedanalysisnotfoundinmanyotherresearchmethodsandgreaterinsightsmaybegainedfromthismoredetailedanalysis.Asaresult ofthecasestudy,theresearchermaygainasharpenedunderstandingofwhatmightbecomeimportanttolookatmoreextensivelyinfuturemorecontrolledresearch.Casestudiesarealsooftentheonlywaytostudyrareconditionsbecauseitmaybeimpossibletofindalargeenoughsampletoindividualswiththeconditiontousequantitativemethods.Althoughatfirstglanceacasestudyofarareindividualmightseemtotelluslittleaboutourselves,theyoftendoprovideinsightsintonormalbehavior.ThecaseofHMprovidedimportantinsightsintotheroleofthehippocampusinmemoryconsolidation.However,itisimportanttonotethatwhilecasestudiescanprovideinsightsintocertainareasandvariablestostudy,andcanbeusefulinhelpingdeveloptheories,theyshouldneverbeusedasevidencefortheories.Inotherwords,casestudiescanbeusedasinspirationtoformulatetheoriesandhypotheses,butthosehypothesesandtheoriesthenneedtobeformallytestedusingmorerigorousquantitativemethods. Thereasoncasestudiesshouldn’tbeusedtoprovidesupportfortheoriesisthattheysufferfromproblemswithinternalandexternalvalidity.Casestudieslackthepropercontrolsthattrueexperimentscontain.Assuchtheysufferfromproblemswithinternalvalidity,sotheycannotbeusedtodeterminecausation.Forinstance,duringHM’ssurgery,thesurgeonmayhaveaccidentallylesionedanotherareaofHM’sbrain(indeedquestioningintothepossibilityofaseparatebrainlesionbeganafterHM’sdeathanddissectionofhisbrain)andthatlesionmayhavecontributedtohisinabilitytoconsolidatenewinformation. Thefactis,withcasestudieswecannotruleoutthesesortsofalternativeexplanations.Soaswithallobservationalmethodscasestudiesdonotpermitdeterminationofcausation.Inaddition,becausecasestudiesareoftenofasingleindividual,andtypicallyaveryabnormalindividual,researcherscannotgeneralizetheirconclusionstootherindividuals.Recallthatwithmostresearchdesignsthereisatrade-offbetweeninternalandexternalvalidity,withcasestudies,however,thereareproblemswithbothinternalvalidityandexternalvalidity.Sotherearelimitsbothtotheabilitytodeterminecausationandtogeneralizetheresults.Afinallimitationofcasestudiesisthatampleopportunityexistsforthetheoreticalbiasesoftheresearchertocolororbiasthecasedescription.Indeed,therehavebeenaccusationsthatthewomanwhostudiedHMdestroyedalotofherdatathatwerenotpublishedandshehasbeencalledintoquestionfordestroyingcontradictorydatathatdidn’tsupporthertheoryabouthowmemoriesareconsolidated.ThereisafascinatingNewYorkTimesarticlethatdescribessomeofthecontroversiesthatensuedafterHM’sdeathandanalysisofhisbrainthatcanbefoundat:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0 Archival Research Anotherapproachthatisoftenconsideredobservationalresearchistheuseof archivalresearch whichinvolvesanalyzingdatathathavealreadybeencollectedforsomeotherpurpose.AnexampleisastudybyBrettPelhamandhiscolleagueson“implicitegotism”—thetendencyforpeopletopreferpeople,places,andthingsthataresimilartothemselves(Pelham,Carvallo,&Jones,2005)[7].Inonestudy,theyexaminedSocialSecurityrecordstoshowthatwomenwiththenamesVirginia,Georgia,Louise,andFlorencewereespeciallylikelytohavemovedtothestatesofVirginia,Georgia,Louisiana,andFlorida,respectively. Aswithnaturalisticobservation,measurementcanbemoreorlessstraightforwardwhenworkingwitharchivaldata.Forexample,countingthenumberofpeoplenamedVirginiawholiveinvariousstatesbasedonSocialSecurityrecordsisrelativelystraightforward.ButconsiderastudybyChristopherPetersonandhiscolleaguesontherelationshipbetweenoptimismandhealthusingdatathathadbeencollectedmanyyearsbeforeforastudyonadultdevelopment(Peterson,Seligman,&Vaillant,1988)[8].Inthe1940s,healthymalecollegestudentshadcompletedanopen-endedquestionnaireaboutdifficultwartimeexperiences.Inthelate1980s,Petersonandhiscolleaguesreviewedthemen’squestionnaireresponsestoobtainameasureofexplanatorystyle—theirhabitualwaysofexplainingbadeventsthathappentothem.Morepessimisticpeopletendtoblamethemselvesandexpectlong-termnegativeconsequencesthataffectmanyaspectsoftheirlives,whilemoreoptimisticpeopletendtoblameoutsideforcesandexpectlimitednegativeconsequences.Toobtainameasureofexplanatorystyleforeachparticipant,theresearchersusedaprocedureinwhichallnegativeeventsmentionedinthequestionnaireresponses,andanycausalexplanationsforthemwereidentifiedandwrittenonindexcards.Theseweregiventoaseparategroupofraterswhoratedeachexplanationintermsofthreeseparatedimensionsofoptimism-pessimism.Theseratingswerethenaveragedtoproduceanexplanatorystylescoreforeachparticipant.Theresearchersthenassessedthestatisticalrelationshipbetweenthemen’sexplanatorystyleasundergraduatestudentsandarchivalmeasuresoftheirhealthatapproximately60yearsofage.Theprimaryresultwasthatthemoreoptimisticthemenwereasundergraduatestudents,thehealthiertheywereasoldermen.Pearson’s r was+.25. Thismethodisanexampleof content analysis—afamilyofsystematicapproachestomeasurementusingcomplexarchivaldata.Justasstructuredobservationrequiresspecifyingthebehaviorsofinterestandthennotingthemastheyoccur,contentanalysisrequiresspecifyingkeywords,phrases,orideasandthenfindingalloccurrencesoftheminthedata.Theseoccurrencescanthenbecounted,timed(e.g.,theamountoftimedevotedtoentertainmenttopicsonthenightlynewsshow),oranalyzedinavarietyofotherways. KeyTakeaways Thereareseveraldifferentapproachestoobservationalresearchincludingnaturalisticobservation,participantobservation,structuredobservation,casestudies,andarchivalresearch. Naturalisticobservationisusedtoobservepeopleintheirnaturalsetting,participantobservationinvolvesbecominganactivememberofthegroupbeingobserved,structuredobservationinvolvescodingasmallnumberofbehaviorsinaquantitativemanner,casestudiesaretypicallyusedtocollectin-depthinformationonasingleindividual,andarchivalresearchinvolvesanalysingexistingdata. Exercises Practice:Findandreadapublishedcasestudyinpsychology.(Usecasestudy asakeyterminaPsycINFOsearch.)Thendothefollowing: Describeoneproblemrelatedtointernalvalidity. Describeoneproblemrelatedtoexternalvalidity. Generateonehypothesissuggestedbythecasestudythatmightbeinterestingtotestinasystematicsingle-subjectorgroupstudy. Rosenhan,D.L.(1973).Onbeingsaneininsaneplaces.Science,179,250–258.↵Wilkins,A.(2008).“HappierthanNon-Christians”:CollectiveemotionsandsymbolicboundariesamongevangelicalChristians.SocialPsychologyQuarterly,71,281–301.↵Levine,R.V.,&Norenzayan,A.(1999).Thepaceoflifein31countries.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,30,178–205.↵Kraut,R.E.,&Johnston,R.E.(1979).Socialandemotionalmessagesofsmiling:Anethologicalapproach.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,1539–1553.↵Watson,J.B.,&Rayner,R.(1920).Conditionedemotionalreactions.JournalofExperimentalPsychology,3,1–14.↵Freud,S.(1961). Fivelecturesonpsycho-analysis.NewYork,NY:Norton.↵Pelham,B.W.,Carvallo,M.,&Jones,J.T.(2005).Implicitegotism.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,14,106–110.↵Peterson,C.,Seligman,M.E.P.,&Vaillant,G.E.(1988).Pessimisticexplanatorystyleisariskfactorforphysicalillness:Athirty-fiveyearlongitudinalstudy.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,55,23–27.↵ PreviousSection NextSection Backtotop License 6.5ObservationalResearchbyPaulC.Price,RajivJhangiani,I-ChantA.Chiang,DanaC.Leighton,&CarrieCuttlerislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense,exceptwhereotherwisenoted. ShareThisBook IncreaseFontSize