The term observational method or observation is used to refer to several different

types of non-experimental studies in which behavior is systematically observed

and recorded. The goal of observational research is to describe a variable or set of
variables. More generally, the goal is to obtain a snapshot of specific
characteristics of an individual, group, or setting. Observational research is non-
experimental because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and as such we
cannot arrive at causal conclusions using this approach.

Naturalistic observation is a research method that involves observing subjects in

their natural environment. This approach is often used by psychologists and other
social scientists. It is a form of qualitative research, which focuses on collecting,
evaluating, and describing non-numerical data.
Example- Imagine that you want to observe or study risk-taking behavior in
teenagers. You might choose to observe behavior in different settings, such as a
sledding hill, a rock-climbing wall, an ice-skating rink, and a bumper car ride. After
you operationally define "risk-taking behavior," you would observe your teen
subjects in these settings and record every incidence of what you have defined as
risky behavior.

Controlled observation is a research method where researchers watch

participants in a contained environment, such as a laboratory. In a controlled
study, the researcher pre-determines and controls the study variables and
determines the location, the time, the participants, and the tools used to
complete the study.
Example- smoke being introduced in a room to see the reactions of the
participants, whether they tend to report the smoke when alone or in the
presence of others.

Participant observation is a research method where the researcher immerses

themself in a particular social setting or group, observing the behaviors,
interactions, and practices of the participants. This can be a valuable method for
any research project that seeks to understand the experiences of individuals or
groups in a particular social context.
Example- You are studying the social dynamics of a small rural community located
near where you grew up. To gain an in-depth understanding of the community
and its residents, you decide to conduct participant observation. You rent a house
in the community and begin to participate in community events, such as church
services, town meetings, and social gatherings. You also engage in everyday
activities, such as shopping at the local market, attending school plays and
recitals, and being seen about town.

When the observer observes the group passively from a distance without
participating in the group activities, it is known as non-participant observation.
Here he does not try to influence them or take part in the group activities.
Example- observing the activities of students in self-study periods by sitting in a
corner of the class without interfering or participating in the students’ activities.

Advantages of observation method:

 The simplest method of data collection is the method of observation. Very
minimal technical knowledge is required, and even though scientifically
controlled observations require some technical skills, it is still more
accessible and more straightforward than other methods.
 The observation method of data collection describes the observed
phenomenon precisely and does not introduce any artificiality like other
methods. They describe the phenomenon precisely as it occurs in the
natural research environment.
 In the observation method, the information accuracy can be checked by
various testing. So, the data collected by observation is much more reliable.
Disadvantages of observation method:
 Observation is a prolonged and time-consuming method. If one wants their
observation to be precise and accurate, they must give it enough time and
not hurry the process. P.V. Young also remarked that observation is a
method that cannot be hurried. It is tough to complete an investigation in a
limited period through observation.
 Observation is a very costly affair. It requires plenty of time, strict and
detailed work, and high cost. Observation consists of traveling to various
places, staying at the place where the phenomenon occurred, and buying
sophisticated and high-quality tools for research.
 The personal bias of the researchers affects their observation in many
ways. This also creates issues for making valid generalizations. The observer
or researcher may have their insight of right and wrong regarding specific
events. They may also have different preconceptions related to a particular
event which jeopardizes the objectivity of social research.

An experiment is an investigation in which a hypothesis is scientifically tested. An

independent variable (the cause) is manipulated in an experiment, and the
dependent variable (the effect) is measured; any extraneous variables are
controlled.
An advantage is that experiments should be objective. The researcher’s views and
opinions should not affect a study’s results. This is good as it makes the data more
valid and less biased.

Advantages of Experimental method:

 It can provide a cause-effect relationship between two or more variables.
  Each variable can be controlled on its own or in different combinations to
study what possible outcomes are available for a product, theory, or idea as
well. This provides a tremendous advantage in an ability to find accurate
results.
 Experimental research is not limited to a specific industry or type of idea. It
can be used in a wide variety of situations. Teachers might use
experimental research to determine if a new method of teaching or a new
curriculum is better than an older system. Pharmaceutical companies use
experimental research to determine the viability of a new product.
 Because experimental research provides such a high level of control, it can
produce results that are specific and relevant with consistency.

Disadvantages of the Experimental method:

 For it to be done properly, experimental research must isolate each
variable and conduct testing on it. Then combinations of variables must
also be considered. This process can be lengthy and require a large amount
of financial and personnel resources.
 It might seem like a good idea to test new pharmaceuticals on animals
before humans to see if they will work, but what happens if the animal dies
because of the experimental research? Or what about human trials that fail
and cause injury or death? Experimental research might be effective, but
sometimes the approach has ethical or practical complications that cannot
be ignored.
 Experiments may produce results that do not generalize well or apply to
real situations, i.e. they have low external validity.
 It is difficult to know and control all relevant variables.

Control group
The control group is composed of participants who do not receive the
experimental treatment. When conducting an experiment, these people are
randomly assigned to be in this group. They also closely resemble the participants
who are in the experimental group or the individuals who receive the treatment.
While they do not receive the treatment, they do play a vital role in the research
process. Experimenters compare the experimental group to the control group to
determine if the treatment had an effect. By serving as a comparison group,
researchers are able to isolate the independent variable and look at the impact it
had.

Why a Control Group Is Important

While the control group does not receive treatment, it does play a critical role in
the experimental process. This group serves as a benchmark, allowing researchers
to compare the experimental group to the control group to see what sort of
impact changes to the independent variable produced.1
Because participants have been randomly assigned to either the control group or
the experimental group, it can be assumed that the groups are comparable.

Any differences between the two groups are therefore the result of the
manipulations of the independent variable. The experimenters carry out the exact
same procedures with both groups with the exception of the manipulation of the
independent variable in the experimental group.

Example of a Control Group

Imagine that a researcher is interested in determining how distractions during an
exam influence test results. The researcher might begin by operationally defining
what they mean by distractions as well as forming a hypothesis.
In this case, he might define distractions as changes in room temperature and
noise levels. His hypothesis might be that students in a slightly warmer and
noisier room will perform more poorly than students in a room that is normal in
terms of both temperature and noise.
To test his hypothesis, the researcher selects a pool of participants who are all
taking the same college math class. All students have been given the same
instruction and resources over the course of the semester. He then randomly
assigns participants to either the control group or the experimental group.
Students in the control group take a math exam in their normal classroom. The
room is quiet for the duration of the test and the room temperature is set as a
comfortable 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
In the experimental group, students take the exact same test in the exact same
classroom, but this time the independent variables are manipulated by the
experimenter. A series of loud, banging noises are produced in the classroom next
door, creating the impression that some type of construction work is taking place.
At the same time, the thermostat is kicked up to a balmy 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
As you can see, the procedures and materials used in both the control and
experimental group are the same.

The researcher has used the same room, same test administration procedures,
and the same test in both groups. The only thing that differs is the amount of
distraction created by noise levels and room temperature in the experimental
group.
After the experiment is complete, the researcher can then look at the test results
and start making comparisons between the control group and the experimental
group. What he discovers is that the test scores on the math exam were
significantly lower in the experimental group than they were in the control group.
The results support his hypothesis that distractions such as excess noise and
temperature can affect test scores.

Experimental group
An experimental group (sometimes called a treatment group) is a group that
receives a treatment in an experiment. The “group” is made up of test subjects
(people, animals, plants, cells etc.) and the “treatment” is the variable you are
studying. For example, a human experimental group could receive a new
medication, a different form of counseling, or some vitamin supplements. A plant
treatment group could receive a new plant fertilizer, more sunlight, or distilled
water. The group that does not receive the treatment is called the control group.

You are testing to see if a new plant fertilizer increases sunflower size. You put 20
plants of the same height and strain into a location where all the plants get the
same amount of water and sunlight. One half of the plants–the control group–get
the regular fertilizer. The other half of the plants–the experimental group–get the
fertilizer you are testing.
You are testing to see if a new drug works for asthma. You divide 100 volunteers
into two groups of 50. One group of 50 gets the drug; they are the experimental
group. The other 50 people get a sugar pill (a placebo); they are the control
group.
You want to prove that covering meat prevents maggots from hatching. You put
meat into two different jars: one with a lid and one left open. The jar with the lid
is the experimental group; the jar left open is the control group. (This is the
famous Redi experiment).
The only difference between the control group and the experimental group must
be the hypothesis you are testing. In the first example above, the people must be
of similar age, health status, socioeconomic background etc. That way you know
that if the drug improves asthma for the experimental group, it’s not due to other
factors like better health status or a younger age.
Variable:
A variable is any kind of attribute or characteristic that you are trying to measure,
manipulate and control in statistics and research. All studies analyze a variable,
which can describe a person, place, thing or idea. A variable's value can change
between groups or over time.
For example, if the variable in an experiment is a person's eye color, its value can
change from brown to blue to green from person to person.

Independent Variable
The variable that is used to describe or measure the factor that is assumed to
cause or at least to influence the problem or outcome is called an independent
variable.
The definition implies that the experimenter uses the independent variable to
describe or explain its influence or effect of it on the dependent variable.
Variability in the dependent variable is presumed to depend on variability in the
independent variable. For example, allocating participants to drug or placebo
conditions (independent variable) to measure any changes in the intensity of their
anxiety.

Dependent Variable
The variable used to describe or measure the problem or outcome under study is
called a dependent variable.
In a causal relationship, the cause is the independent variable, and the effect is
the dependent variable. If we hypothesize that smoking causes lung cancer,
‘smoking’ is the independent variable and cancer the dependent variable. An
example of a dependent variable is depression symptoms, which depend on the
independent variable (type of therapy).
Extraneous Variable
Most studies concern the identification of a single independent variable and
measuring its effect on the dependent variable. But still, several variables might
conceivably affect our hypothesized independent-dependent variable
relationship, thereby distorting the study. These variables are referred to as
extraneous variables.
Extraneous variables are not necessarily part of the study. They exert a
confounding effect on the dependent-independent relationship and thus need to
be eliminated or controlled for.
For example, if a participant is taking a test in a chilly room, the temperature
would be considered an extraneous variable. Some participants may not be
affected by the cold, but others might be distracted or annoyed by the
temperature of the room.

Correlational research:
Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the
researcher measures two variables and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e.,
the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous
variables.
There are three possible outcomes of a correlation study: a positive correlation, a
negative correlation, or no correlation. Researchers can present the results using
a numerical value called the correlation coefficient, a measure of the correlation
strength. It can range from –1.00 (negative) to +1.00 (positive). A correlation
coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

 Positive correlations: Both variables increase or decrease at the same time.

A correlation coefficient close to +1.00 indicates a strong positive
 correlation. For example The more you walk on a treadmill, the more
calories you burn.
 Negative correlations: As the amount of one variable increases, the other
decreases (and vice versa). A correlation coefficient close to -1.00 indicates
a strong negative correlation. For example, being educated might
negatively correlate with the crime rate when an increase in one variable
leads to a decrease in another and vice versa. If a country’s education level
is improved, it can lower crime rates.
 No correlation: There is no relationship between the two variables. A
correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation. For example, being a
millionaire and happiness are not correlated. An increase in money doesn’t
lead to happiness.
Difference between Correlational and Experimental Research?
Correlational and experimental research are two important methods of scientific
research; however, these two types of research are often confused with each
other.( Correlational research is the observation of two variables to see if there is
a relation between them, being positive or negative. Experimental research is the
observation between an introduced variable—the independent variable—under
controlled environments and its resulting factor—the dependent variable.) There
are multiple distinguishing features that contrast between these two types of
research. (One difference is there is manipulation in experimental design, and in
correlational design, there is only observation: no interference.) (Another
difference is that in correlational studies, the environment is not controlled or
sometimes cannot be controllable. The reason behind this is due to confounding
variables, meaning more than one variable can contribute to the results. Unlike
experimental studies, where the end result is highly probable due to the exposure
of the independent variable, correlational studies have many factors at play. As a
result, the last difference between the two types of research is the conclusion of
causation.)

(Experimental research allows scientists to draw conclusions about the cause-and-

effect relation between the variables. Correlational research does not allow this
because of the previously mentioned confounding variables. The environment is
not and cannot be controlled in correlational research, which is why there is no
indication of causation. )There are so many other environmental, biological,
psychological, etc. factors in play that contribute to the end results, and because
of the myriad of them, one cannot simply imply that there is ever one variable
that causes the other. That is why correlational studies can only be expressed
with a positive relationship—when one variable increases, the other increases—
or a negative relationship—when one variable increases, the other decreases.

Unfortunately, there are many cases when correlational studies are mistakenly
assumed to imply causation. For example, there is a study conducted that
reported a correlation between eating cereal on a regular basis and having a
healthier weight (Spielman, R. M. et. Al., 2017, p. 51). Many take this correlation,
especially cereal companies in this case, as a serious claim that eating cereal every
day promotes a healthier weight and lifestyle. Correlational studies are normally
taken advantage of to support advertisement of companies among other
propaganda medias. Another example of inconclusive assumptions is of illusory
correlations, which are false correlations. In these correlations, there is no
relationship between the variables, yet many people believe there to be.
Examples of this type could be zodiac signs and people’s attributes as well as a full
moon and the strange behavior of humans. People believe those events cause the
other events, which is an incorrect attribution of correlational research.

Even though correlational research cannot indicate causation, this type of

research is still widely used due to the lacking availability of control one has over
the variables being studied. Such reasons for this lack of availability may include:
the variables are unethical to apply to humans or animals in experimental design
or the variables cannot be measured to the extent that they should be. Despite
the fact that the results cannot determine causation, correlational research
provides a broader range of areas to study than is possible in other types of
research and also opens doors for more connections to be studied in the future.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only

show associations between variables.
In an experimental design, you manipulate an independent variable and measure
its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t
impact the results.
In a correlational design, you measure variables without manipulating any of
them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure
that one variable caused a change in another.
Methodology
The major difference between correlational research and experimental research is
methodology. In correlational research, the researcher looks for a statistical
pattern linking 2 naturally-occurring variables while in experimental research, the
researcher introduces a catalyst and monitors its effects on the variables.

Observation
In correlational research, the researcher passively observes the phenomena and
measures whatever relationship that occurs between them. However, in
experimental research, the researcher actively observes phenomena after
triggering a change in the behavior of the variables.

Causality
In experimental research, the researcher introduces a catalyst and monitors its
effects on the variables, that is, cause and effect. In correlational research, the
researcher is not interested in cause and effect as it applies; rather, he or she
identifies recurring statistical patterns connecting the variables in research.

Number of Variables
Research caters to an unlimited number of variables. Correlational research, on
the other hand, caters to only 2 variables.

Experimental research is causative while correlational research is relational.

Correlational research is preliminary and almost always precedes experimental
research.
Unlike correlational research, experimental research allows the researcher to
control the variables.
Reliability in psychology is the consistency of the findings or results of a
psychology research study. If findings or results remain the same or similar over
multiple attempts, a researcher often considers it reliable.

In statistics, internal consistency is a reliability measurement in which items on a

test are correlated in order to determine how well they measure the same
construct or concept. Reliability shows how consistent a test or measurement is;
"Is it accurately measuring a concept after repeated testing?"
Internal consistency is a check to ensure all of the test items are measuring the
concept they are supposed to be measuring.
For example, to test the internal consistency of a test a teacher may include two
different questions that measure the same concept. If the student gets both
questions correct or both wrong then the internal consistency of the test could be
said to be good - the student understands the concept if they got both questions
right and doesn't understand the concept if they got both wrong. If the student
gets one question right and one wrong then the internal consistency is in
question.

In split-half reliability, a test for a single knowledge area is split into two parts and
then both parts given to one group of students at the same time. The scores from
both parts of the test are correlated. A reliable test will have high correlation,
indicating that a student would perform equally well (or as poorly) on both halves
of the test. Split-half testing is a measure of internal consistency.

Test-retest reliability is a measure of consistency for tests and other instruments.

Individuals are asked to take the test of interest and then take the same test again
at a later date. The scores are then compared. The closer the scores are, the more
reliable the test.
Validity in research, statistics, psychology, and testing evaluates how well test
scores reflect what they’re supposed to measure. Does the instrument measure
what it claims to measure? Do the measurements reflect the underlying reality?
Or do they quantify something else. For example, does an intelligence test assess
intelligence or another characteristic, such as education or the ability to recall
facts?

Internal validity refers to whether the effects observed in a study are due to the
manipulation of the independent variable and not some other factor.
In other words, there is a causal relationship between the independent and
dependent variables.
Internal validity can be improved by controlling extraneous variables, using
standardized instructions, counterbalancing, and eliminating demand
characteristics and investigator effects.

External validity is the extent to which you can generalize the findings of a study
to other situations, people, settings, and measures. In other words, can you apply
the findings of your study to a broader context.
The aim of scientific research is to produce generalizable knowledge about the
real world. Without high external validity, you cannot apply results from the
laboratory to other people or the real world.

Ecological validity measures how generalizable experimental findings are to the

real world, such as situations or settings typical of everyday life. It is a subtype of
external validity.
If a test has high ecological validity, it can be generalized to other real-life
situations, while tests with low ecological validity cannot.
Norm, a statistical concept in psychological research representing the aggregate
responses of a standardized and representative group is established for a test,
against which a subject is compared.
Norms consist of data that make it possible to determine the relative standing of
an individual who has taken a test. By itself, a subject’s raw score (e.g., the
number of answers that agree with the scoring key) has little meaning. Almost
always, a test score must be interpreted as indicating the subject’s position
relative to others in some group. Norms provide a basis for comparing the
individual with a group.

For example- Numerical values called centiles (or percentiles) serve as the basis
for one widely applicable system of norms. From a distribution of a group’s raw
scores the percentage of subjects falling below any given raw score can be found.