The artificial setting of the lab experiment may produce unnatural behaviour which will lack ecological validity true to real life. Well, I think I will end my brief ramblings about naturalistic studies and lab studies there.
It is very clear — just what I need in order to understand what you are doing. I like your tone and style, you make me want to read what you are saying and that is a good thing. Keep going — stats blogs may not be pleasant to do but they DO show that you know what you are talking about. I suspect that there is much more to this than you can cover in this format but what you do have room for is clear and concise — good stuff.
Just a couple of points to pick up on — you sometimes make absolute statements where you could be a little less hard and fast. This gives the same sense of the difficulty but leaves room for the improbable to occur.
I would also suggest that if sample size is increased the effect of variations would decrease so there is may be a control mechanism available to the naturalistic experimenter there. I love the clarification you have brought to this topic and well done for have such a focused structure on a rather large topic.
I take my hat off to you. You cover the topic really well and it is a very common arguement of which type of research is better. I think observational studies can be incredibly beneficial as they provide indepth data.
Also these observations in a natural evironment would not occur in a lab environment. It is difficult to decide which is the best method as both types have produced amazing research and have benefited society in some way.
This debate is very much like the qualitative Vs quantitative research one which is also a difficult one to find an answer. I hope these help if your interested and I found your blog really easy to read and not too formal which is great for a blog.
Natural observations are good but I think that controlled observations in lab can produce more reliable data. Natural observation can sometime be too out in the environment unless what your studying is an event that can only occur in nature, such as natural disasters. The problem lies in actually identifying a cause and effect because there are so many variables 1. Filed under Uncategorized Leave a comment […]. I really enjoyed reading your blog as it was very clear and concise in what you were aiming to get across.
The lab experiments, for example, are a good way of being able to establish cause and effect and allows for a lot of control, however, limitations involve artificiality and can be subject to demand characteristics.
In conclusion, I would say that it is important not to discount either research method for its disadvantages but perhaps rather incorporate elements of both methods to ensure thorough and accurate studies. Another strength of lab experiments is that cause and effect can easily be established. However, another weakness associated with lab experiments is that they often lack mundane realism. The study by Loftus and Palmer definitely lacks mundane realism, since seeing a car crash on a video would not have the same emotional impact on participants than if they saw the crash in real life.
I also agree with you that lab experiments can often produce unnatural behaviour. This is especially true when the participants are showing demand characteristics, which can greatly alter their results. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior —9. I think the issue of unnatural behaviour in a lab and the possibility of participants not taking experiments seriously is something that is not combatted enough.
We all bumble in and sit for an hour or more completing monotonous tasks for a minute credit in a sub section of a module that equates to nothing in the real world. Perhaps it is time to return to a more hands of way of carrying out psychological experiments… it might even keep the undergrads somewhat interested in experiment participation. This entry was posted in Uncategorized.
Bookmark the permalink. In your blog you list a few advantages of using the laboratory experiment in research. You argue that lab experiments have a high level on internal control however, it is important to note that due this high level of internal control, lab experiments have a low level of external and ecological validity. These low levels of ecological and external validity are a result of the artificial setting used in lab experiments and mean that the results may not generalise to the population.
Many lab experiments lack what is known as mundame realism. An example is Loftus and Palmer lab experiment investigating the eye witness testimony. I knew she was going to feel uncomfortable since she would be sleeping in a new environment but I kept reinforcing her that they only want to find out what is wrong with her.
Although she was very scared and nervous for the testing to be done, she knew that it needed to be done for them to figure out what is wrong with her when she is sleeping. I thought it was very interesting that she had mentioned this right after we had learned about it. Everyday people are undergoing observational studies in order to figure out what could possibly be wrong with them, if anything is wrong.
A laboratory observation does have many advantages however, for some people it can be very unpleasing and very nerve-racking. At the end of the day, the process of being observed is worth it because researchers and specialists gather the information needed to help figure out what is wrong with someone. I can only imagine how nervous she was to be tested.
Do you know if they give the patients any form of sleeping drug to allow them to fall asleep more easily? You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sites at Penn State. This technique involves observing involves studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in natural surroundings.
The researcher simply records what they see in whatever way they can. In unstructured observations, the researcher records all relevant behavior without system. There may be too much to record and the behaviors recorded may not necessarily be the most important so the approach is usually used as a pilot study to see what type of behaviors would be recorded.
Compared with controlled observations it is like the difference between studying wild animals in a zoo and studying them in their natural habitat. With regard to human subjects, Margaret Mead used this method to research the way of life of different tribes living on islands in the South Pacific. Kathy Sylva used it to study children at play by observing their behavior in a playgroup in Oxfordshire. Like case studies , naturalistic observation is often used to generate new ideas.
Because it gives the researcher the opportunity to study the total situation it often suggests avenues of inquiry not thought of before. These observations are often conducted on a micro small scale and may lack a representative sample biased in relation to age, gender, social class or ethnicity.
This may result in the findings lacking the ability to be generalized to wider society. Natural observations are less reliable as other variables cannot be controlled. This makes it difficult for another researcher to repeat the study in exactly the same way. A further disadvantage is that the researcher needs to be trained to be able to recognize aspects of a situation that are psychologically significant and worth further attention.
With observations, we do not have manipulations of variables or control over extraneous variables which means cause and effect relationships cannot be established. Participant observation is a variant of the above natural observations but here the researcher joins in and becomes part of the group they are studying to get a deeper insight into their lives. If it were research on animals we would now not only be studying them in their natural habitat but be living alongside them as well!
This approach was used by Leon Festinger in a famous study into a religious cult who believed that the end of the world was about to occur. He joined the cult and studied how they reacted when the prophecy did not come true. On the other hand, overt is where the researcher reveals his or her true identity and purpose to the group and asks permission to observe. This means they have to wait until they are alone and rely on their memory.
0コメント