For any psychological investigation the need to allow for the chance of future replication is of great importance. At a later date other psychologists may want to repeat the experiment in order support, or even debunk previous findings. This particular method of investigation allows for the experimenter to control virtually everything, i.e. the confounding variables, apart from the measured (dependent) variable. The more the researcher can control, the easier it is to replicate the experiment at a later date making this one of the main advantages of the methodology. Problems with using laboratory experiments can arise when issues of ecological validity or mundane realism are reviewed; when the experiment does not simulate the real world event it is copying. There is little chance of the presence of natural behaviour if the experimental situation does not correctly simulate the real world. As a result, another concern arises: demand characteristics. If a participant is under a controlled and restricted situation there is the possibility of guessing what it is the experimenter is looking for. This can lead to the participant performing to what they believe is wanted of them, therefore hindering the legitimacy of the results.
In the nineteenth century Ivan Pavlov, during investigations into classical conditioning, exposed dogs to his experimental conditions while the dogs stood in sound-proof rooms. Shielding the room in this way allowed Pavlov to investigate the impact of the experimental stimuli free from any interfering sounds. Doing so provided Pavlov with a high level of control over any extraneous variables, thus emphasizing one advantage of using a laboratory experiment as a method of psychological investigation; more control over extraneous variables can strengthen findings.
Often, psychologists may try and generalise from their results by applying the findings to a group as a whole i.e. applying the results of a test on 40 males to the male gender as a whole. This can prove problematic for a number of reasons but primarily because a laboratory setting is not, and will never be, the same as the real world. The controlled settings of a laboratory experiment, the probable lack of ecological validity and thus the possibility of demand characteristics increase the likelihood that subjects will not perform as they would in the real world i.e. in their natural environment.
A way in which this problem can be overcome is through using field research or field experiments and in particular, observational studies. This method of investigation allows for psychologists to study or observe naturally occurring behaviour. The field experiment procedure still allows for experimenters to manipulate an independent variable whilst having participants behave in an everyday context. When wanting to apply findings to a larger group, conducting research in the field increases the chance of being able to generalise as it is natural behaviour that it is being observed.
The most obvious advantage of using field experiments or observations in general is the heightened level of ecological validity. An example of this can be found in a field experiment by Piliavin (1969) who looked into the existence of altruism by watching behaviour in a specific situation. The study was carried out in the New York Subway and used unknowing members of the public as the participants. Using this type of subject base allowed Piliavin to record natural behaviour, minimizing, if not removing, the possibility of demand characteristics interfering with the results. With observational work situations can be studied which are not possible with laboratory experiments or other techniques such as the use of questioning.
In times where people are unaware of being observed, behaviour is genuine, without the effects of demand characteristics or from the interaction between researcher and participant. However, there are disadvantages to using observations as a method of psychological investigation; behaviour may be difficult to record accurately or different observers may disagree about what they have recorded. Should, at any time, participants realize they are being observed, the results may be hindered.
Ultimately, observational studies almost always have problems with ethical considerations as the participants are unaware that they are being observed and this may be viewed as infringement especially as consent has not been sought. An observational study by Bandura (1961) into the transmission of aggression to children displayed the ethical problems that can arise from the observational method of investigation. The study involved exposing young children to violent behaviour or making them upset without the consent of the parents. Purposely exposing children to violent behaviour alone is a serious ethical concern and can lead to problems with the overall findings of the study.
One of the most prominent drawbacks of using an observation as an investigation method is the lack of experimenter control over variables. Unlike laboratory experiments, observational studies rely on the absence of experimenter inference in order to watch natural behaviour. If variables are poorly controlled there is a greater chance for observers to be biased in what they record. The greater the variability during the observing situation the harder it will be to replicate the study at a later date.
The ability to replicate investigations at a later date is not always possible with some methods of psychological research. Case studies are a relatively unique method as they tend to involve analyzing a single individual or small group in considerable detail often over an extended period of time. Sub-methods of case studies can involve interviews, tests or a combination of other research techniques such as observations. One of the advantages of using case studies is the quality of the data that is obtained; rich and genuine qualitative data that may produce new findings or disprove common beliefs. It might be possible to obtain, from case studies, findings that could not be obtained from studies on larger numbers of ‘normal’ people.
A case study by Freud (1909) showed the vast amount of data that can be collected with this type of investigation using techniques such as interviews. Through his correspondence with the family of a boy called Little Hans, Freud was able to collect data about the cause of phobias and psychosexual development. However, such a detailed study can have its disadvantages; it cannot be replicated in it entirety and, as with most case studies, there is no one to check the observations, interpretations and choices of the lone researcher who worked on the case. It is also possible with case studies that the researcher may become so involved in the investigation or those being studied that they have an effect on what the individuals experience or report.
The main methods of investigation available to psychologists are split between those conducted in the field, in the participants’ environment, and those conducted in a setting of the experimenters choosing e.g. a laboratory. Each method has its advantages over others and often the method used is determined by what is being researched as opposed to being able to use any or the same method for all investigations. In general, all methods of psychological research can provide rich and useful data; it is not necessarily the actual method of investigation that can affect findings, but the way in which the researchers operate.
References:
Gleitman, H. (2000). Psychology (Fifth Edition). Norton
Coolican, H. (1999). Research methods and statistics. Hodder & Stoughton
Banyard, P. (2000). Introducing psychological research
Word Count: 1491
