Observational techniques

Specification: Observational techniques. Types of observation: naturalistic and controlled observation; covert and overt observation; participant and non‐participant observation. Observational design: behavioural categories; event sampling; time sampling.

When conducting an observation, the researcher has the choice between:

It is important to note that these techniques are not mutually exclusive: it is quite possible for an observation to be naturalistic, unstructured, participant and covert all at the same time, as these terms refer to different aspects of the methods.

Covert observations

A covert observation is also known as ‘undisclosed’ observation and consists of observing people without their knowledge; for example, using a one‐way mirror (covert non‐participant) or joining a group as a member (covert participant). Participants may be informed of their involvement in the study after the observation has taken place.

Evaluating covert observations

A strength of covert observation compared to overt observation is that investigator effects are less likely. Since the investigator is hidden in this type of observation there is less chance that their direct or indirect behaviour will have an impact on the performance of the participants. As a result, there is less chance of demand characteristics occurring whereby the participant tries to guess the aim of the investigation and act accordingly, since they are unaware that they are being observed. This means that the participants’ behaviour seen will be more natural and representative of their everyday behaviour.

 

There are ethical issues associated with the covert method of observation inherent within its design. As participants are not aware they are taking part in an investigation, they cannot give fully informed consent nor exercise their right to withdraw. That being said, it is perfectly acceptable to observe human behaviour in a public place such as a shopping centre. This means that an assessment is made by the investigator before the observation begins to ensure that no privacy laws are being violated.

Overt observations

An overt observation is an observational technique where the observations are ‘open’ and the participants know/are aware that they are being observed. For example, filming publicly (overt non‐participant) or joining a class and informing the other students that you are carrying out an observation (overt participant).

Evaluating overt observations

A strength of the overt method is that it is often more ethical than the covert method. Since the participants are aware that their behaviour is being observed for the purposes of a psychological investigation, it is possible to inform them in advance of the aims and thus obtain informed consent. This awareness of participation also allows participants to exercise their right to withdraw themselves or their data from the investigation, before, during or after the observation is conducted. As a result, the reputation of psychological research as being ethical is protected.

 

A drawback of using an overt style of observation is the possibility of investigator effects. It is possible for a bias to occur whereby what the investigator does influences the behaviour of the participants in a way which was not intended (e.g. body language or facial expressions). As a result, the participants may change their behaviour through demand characteristics and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims. Therefore, authentic and natural behaviour is not being observed, thus reducing the internal validity of the observation because it is overt.

Participant observations

In a participant observation, the person who is conducting the observation also takes part in the activity being observed. It can be either covert (a group member quietly observing others without their knowledge) or overt (a group member using a camera to record the behaviour of other members with their full knowledge).

Evaluating participant observations

A strength of using participant observations in psychological research is that the researcher can obtain in‐depth data. Since the observer is in close proximity to the participants, they are able to gain a unique insight into the phenomenon in question. In addition, through participating they are unlikely to overlook any behaviour that, as an external observer, would be missed due to nuances only seen by becoming a participant of the activity itself. This means that a comprehensive understanding of human behaviour can be achieved using this method of observation.

 

A disadvantage of using the participant observation method is the possibility of investigator effects and the impact of the researcher on the other participants’ behaviour. The mere presence of the investigator as a member within the group might influence the participants’ behaviour in a way which was not intended. Consequently, the participants may change their behaviour through demand characteristics and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims. Consequently, natural behaviour is not being observed, thus reducing the internal validity of the observation because the investigator is a participant.

Non-participant observations

In a non‐participant observation, the person who is conducting the observation does not participate in the activity being observed. This type of observation is quite common in educational settings, as in teacher evaluations, for example, when an observer sits in the corner of the room and watches the lesson. The aim is for the observer to be as unobtrusive as possible and not engage with any of the activities happening.

Evaluating non-participant observations

An advantage of using a non‐participant observation method is that investigator effects are less likely compared to a participant observation. The researcher is often observing at a distance from the participant(s) and in some situations, not visible to them at all. As a result, the behaviour of the investigator is unlikely to have a negative impact on the behaviour of the participants. This means that behaviour observed is more likely to be representative of natural and unaltered human conduct.

 

There are disadvantages associated with the non‐participant method of observation. Due to a lack of proximity to the participant behaviour being studied, the researcher might miss behaviours of interest. This means that unique insights which contribute to the understanding of the human behaviour being observed will be overlooked because of not being involved personally.

Naturalistic observations

A naturalistic observation is an observation carried out in an unaltered setting in which the observer does not interfere in any way and merely observes the behaviour in question as it happens normally. An example of this would be an observation carried out in a shopping centre as people go about their daily business.

Evaluating naturalistic observations

A strength of using naturalistic observations is that a higher level of ecological validity can be achieved. In an observation of this design, the researcher records naturally occurring behaviour in the original environment in which it ordinarily occurs. This means that the behaviour being recorded is likely to be more representative of everyday activities and reflect spontaneous actions that sometimes occur incidentally.

 

There are issues of ascertaining reliability with naturalistic observations. Since observations of this kind record behaviours which are occurring naturally as they unfold it is difficult, if not impossible, for the exact same conditions to be replicated. Consequently, the test‐retest method of checking reliability cannot be used with this type of observational design, as the researcher is not in control of variables. This means that research attempting to understand human behaviour using naturalistic observations often lacks replicability.

Controlled observations

A controlled observation is conducted under strict conditions, such as in an observation room or laboratory setting where extraneous variables (such as time of day, noise, temperature and visual distractions) can be controlled to avoid interference with the behaviour being observed. Sometimes one-way mirrors can be used for these types of observations. If the participants know they are being observed, this is an overt method which is most commonly the case for controlled observations.

Evaluating controlled observations

A strength of controlled observations is that they can be replicated to check for reliability. By their very nature, the variables are highly controlled in this type of observational design. This means that standardised procedures, the manipulation of the independent variable and control over extraneous variables can be repeated by the same, or different, researchers to assess the reliability.

 

A criticism of controlled observation is that they have a lower level of external validity. The researcher records behaviour in an artificial environment with variables subject to strict manipulation. This high level of control comes at a cost with the setting of the observation feeling quite unnatural as a result. Therefore, the participants’ behaviour may alter in response meaning that the observation no longer represents real‐life occurrences causing the ecological validity of the findings to be questionable.

Structured observations

In structured observations, the researcher uses coded ‘schedules’ according to a previously agreed formula to document the behaviour and organise data into behavioural categories. A behavioural category is when psychologists must decide which specific behaviours should be examined. This involves breaking the target behaviour (e.g. aggression) into components that can be observed and measured (e.g. hitting or kicking).

Evaluating structured observations

A strength of structured observations is that the researcher can compare behaviour between participants and across groups. The use of operationalised behavioural categories makes the coding of the data more systematic. When there is more than one observer, the standardised behaviour schedule results in greater inter‐observer reliability. It is important for research methodologies to be consistent so that accurate comparisons can be made.

 

However, there may be problems with ascertaining high internal validity in a structured observation. This is because the researcher may miss some crucial behaviours during the observation which is pertinent to the aim of the investigation. As a result, the findings portrayed may not provide the full picture about the behaviour in question, as they could lack the finer details. This is a problem because what was intended to be measured was not achieved in its entirety.

Unstructured observations

An unstructured observation involves every instance of the observed behaviour being recorded and described in as much detail as possible. This is useful if the behaviour that researchers are interested in does not occur very often and is more usual with naturalistic observation.

Evaluating unstructured observations

A strength of unstructured observation is the richness of data obtained. Since behaviour is recorded in great detail, researchers are able to obtain a comprehensive view of human behaviour. This adds to the internal validity of the observational technique.

 

Additionally, this type of observation is also prone to observer bias due to the lack of objective behaviour categories. This is a problem because the observer may then only record behaviour which is of subjective value to them, and not a valid representation of what is being displayed. As a result, there may be a problem with inter‐observer reliability as there will be a lack of consistency in the observations recorded.

Comparison of observational techniques

Exam Hint: Although there are many strengths/limitations of observations, you will notice that for each pair of observations (i.e. covert and overt) the strength of one type (i.e. covert observations have a lower chance of investigator effects) is the limitation of the opposite type (i.e. overt observations have a higher chance of investigator effects).

Observational design

In observations, the observer generally has the choice of two methods: time sampling or event sampling.

Possible exam questions

Suggest two operationalised behavioural categories that the developmental psychologist could use in her observation of aggressive behaviour in children and explain how the psychologist could have carried out this observation. (4 marks)

Design an observational study for Dr Fox to be able investigate differences between males and females in non‐verbal communication when they are giving a presentation to a large audience. (12 marks)

In your answer, you must refer to: