Observational Research
Methods without Intervention
• Naturalistic Observation: the study of ongoing behavior in the natural environment
• No intervention by the observer
• Uninterrupted stream of behavior
• The observer is “unobtrusive”
• Eliminates “reactive behavior”
• Reactive behavior is behavior that is different
than normal because of an awareness of being
watched
• “natural environment” is the environment in
which the behavior normally occurs
• This could be a city sidewalk or a preschool or a
desert
• To be unobtrusive, the observer (O) must “blend
in” with the environment.
• In a forest you might build a blind of tree
branches. In a city you might sit on a bench with
a newspaper with holes cut out so you can watch
people
Ethologists (ethology)
• a European branch of biology/psychology
devoted to the study of the behavior of
organisms in relation to their natural
environment
• the “quest for the roots of intelligence”
• comparative study of species looking for the
evolutionary path (phylogeny) of behavior
Example: Ethology Study
• Example: Crossing behavior of people in
mixed-gender groups. Done in a city
environment
From the field to the lab
• Observational study is often a first step in
studying a new topic before you begin lab
research
• Example: Tinbergen, herring gull chicks
feeding behavior
Famous observational researchers
• Jane Goodall: Chimpanzees
• Dian Fossey: Mountain Gorillas (Gorillas in
the Mist)
• Were they truly using a method of naturalistic
observation?
Methods with Intervention
• Participant observation- the researcher both
observes and participates in the action
• Two types: Undisguised and Disguised
Undisguised
• the subject of the observation is aware that
they are being observed
• Often a method used by anthropologists
• Ed Tronick, Gilda Morelli both from UMASS
• Studied child rearing practices in rural African
villages
• Lived in the village while collecting data for
months at a time
• Reactive behavior can be a problem
Disguised Participant Observation
• researcher both observes & participates but is
disguised so that the subject is not aware of the
observation
• This eliminates the problem of reactive
behavior…provided the disguise works
• Rosenhan (1973) On Being Sane in Insane
Places
Example #1: Rosenhan (1973)
On Being Sane in Insane Places
• 3 women, 5 men, false names, tried for
admission to different psychiatric hospitals
• Symptom: voice saying “empty, hollow, thud”
same sex, unfamiliar
• All were admitted as suffering from
schizophrenia
• Once admitted, acted as normally as possible
• Never recognized as “normal”, released
between 7-52 days
Example #2: Festinger, Reiken, and
Schacter (1956)
• Even though you eliminate reactive behavior,
by participating in the action, you may change
the behavior you observe
• Infiltrated a group in Texas who claimed to be
in communication with beings from outer
space
• Predicted a disastrous flood on a particular
date
• Welcomed to group and one in particular was
seen as a space being binging a message
• Festinger et al felt they had changed the
behavior they observed by their stories
(inadvertently reinforced the group’s beliefs)
and felt their observations were invalid as a
result
Structured Observation
• observe behavior in a structured environment
but do not interfere and observe unobtrusively
• Often used when studying family relationships
in family therapy situations
• One-way mirror, “living room” environment
(structured), Mom, Dad, children
• Observe thru mirror, watch interactions
Second Example: Calhoun (1962)
Population Density and Social Pathology
• Set up a living space for rats (Structured
environment)
• Adequate food, H2O, and nesting materials
• Four separate rooms with ramps
• Two rooms have only one ramp, two have two
ramps
• Put a set of rats in and then observed without
intervening (except to supply
food/water/nesting materials)
• Rats quickly over-populated (to about 80 rats)
• many pathological behaviors developed,
especially in the rooms with two entrances
(Behavioral Sink)
Field studies
• a cross-over to quasi-experiments
• there is a true IV, at least two levels
• uses method of observation
• done in a non-lab, natural environment
• often social psychology studies
Zimbardo (1973) on vandalism
• Vandalism is hard to study in a lab environment
• Looked at the effects of anonymity on vandalism
• darkness & crowded environments would
increase feelings of anonymity & foster more
vandalism
• Hypothesized that vandals would be more likely
to be young people, not adults
• Used concealed observers
• Took two used cars in good condition,
abandoned, no license plates, hood up
• Left one car one block from NYU (very
urban)
• Left one car one block from Stanford
University (rural/suburban)
New York City Vehicle (NYU)
• first vandals within 10 minutes in broad
daylight
• adult man and woman, one child, stripped car
• As many adult vandals as youths
• As much vandalism during day as at night
• 23 vandals in 3 days, nothing left after a week
California Vehicle (Stanford)
• never touched at all after one week
• some neighbors reported the car to police
• one person lowered hood when it started to
rain
• Moral: don’t park your car 1 block from NYU.
Park at Stanford and take a plane 
Recording behavior in Observational
Research
Narrative Record
• record ALL behavior
• Use video tape, audio tape, or written records
• used by ethologists, ethograms, long lists of all
behaviors for a species
• More often you record “units” of behavior,
specific types of behavior of interest
Recording units of behavior
• Frequency of behavior (how often it occurs)
• Duration of behavior (total amount of time
behavior occurs)
• Rate (frequency per time unit, number of times
per minute, for example)
• Most often several observers gathering data for
any one piece of research
• In order to combine the information from
multiple observers, you must establish “interobserver reliability”
• Inter-observer reliability: the percentage of
agreement amongst observers
Inter-Observer Reliability
*Must multiple by 100 to get
“percent agreement”*
Example: Aggression in a pre-school
environment
• Must first have an “operational definition” of
“aggression”
• Observers discuss and agree on a definition
• All observers observe the same classroom
(events) and record separately any acts of
aggression
• Measure inter-observer reliability (Percent
agreement)
• Two observers stationed at a one-way mirror
into a preschool classroom space
• Watch children for 50 minutes
• At the end of each 5 minute period, put a check
mark if an act of aggression has occurred
5-min sections O1
1
O2
X
2
3
X
X
4
5
X
6
X
7
8
9
10
X
X
Agree??
5-min sections
1
O1
O2
X
2
3
Agree?
Agree
X
X
4
Agree
Agree
5
X
6
X
7
Agree
8
Agree
9
10
X
X
Agree
Agree
• Seven “agrees” out 10 observations
• 7/10 = .7
• .7 (100) = 70% agreement
• Need 85% or above before you can combine
data
• Would discuss the “operational definition” of
aggression and try again for inter-observer
reliability until the observer’s reach at least
85% agreement
Advantages of Observational Research
• Increased external validity
• Allows you to see behavior as complex, the
result of many antecedents
• Some behaviors can only be observed in a
natural setting (such as vandalism)
Disadvantages of Observational Research
• Because you are in the “real world” you lose
control over many variables
• noise, weather, lighting etc
• for example, in the Zimbardo study, was the
weather the same in NY as in California? This
could have caused a “threat to internal
validity”