NON-EXPERIMENTS
SPECIFICATION: NON EXPERIMENTS
Observational techniques. Types of observation: naturalistic and controlled observation, covert and overt observation, and participant and non-participant observation. Observational design: behavioural categories, event sampling, time sampling
Self-report techniques, questionnaires, and interviews, both structured and unstructured. Questionnaire construction, including open and closed questions; interview design.
Correlations. Analysis of the relationship between co-variables. The difference between correlations and experiments.
Discourse analysis
Thematic analysis: analysis and coding.
Content analysis: Content analysis and coding.
Case studies:
WHY DOES PSYCHOLOGY NEED RESEARCH METHODS?
Research forms the bedrock of both the social sciences and sciences, providing a framework for testing and validating theories and hypotheses. In psychology, relying solely on personal arguments, beliefs, and observations is inadequate due to their inherent bias, subjectivity, and reliance on unrepresentative samples. Moreover, personal opinions often reflect individual desires to uphold pre-existing political, religious, or moral agendas. Psychologists are thus urged to approach their work impartially, embracing insights and conclusions from empirical research. This objective approach allows the discipline to progress through evidence-based inquiry rather than personal predispositions.
THE EXPERIMENT IS THE BEST BEST RESEARCH METHOD
Research is split into two camps: Experimental and non-experimental, but experimentation is the most robust method.
.
THE PROBLEM WITH EXPERIMENTS
HOW DO YOU UNRAVEL A HUMAN?
Experiments in psychology strive to establish causal relationships between variables, aiming to demonstrate that X causes Y. However, unlike the physical sciences, where the focus is on matter, psychology deals with human variables, making it challenging to eliminate the influence of extraneous variables completely. Furthermore, can we ever be certain that X wouldn't influence a sample under different circumstances?
Consider a scenario where a psychologist is intrigued by the concept that exposure to violence on television leads to vicarious reinforcement. Subsequently, they decided to investigate by hypothesizing that participants exposed to violent TV content would score higher on an anger test compared to those exposed to non-violent TV content.
Q. How would you design an experiment to test this hypothesis?
Usually, students suggest something like this:
Advertise for participants to take part in a study about the effects of watching violence on TV
Randomly allocate 1/2 the group into a violent TV condition and get them to watch (for example) four hours of violent TV per day for one month. The remaining 50% of participants (the control group) should watch non-violent TV for the same period.
But how is it possible to control all the individual differences (variables) between the participants in such an experiment and work out a particular cause?
People are a unique combination of:
Genes
Upbringing
Diet
Social class
Income
Ethnicity
Culture
Sexual orientation
Gender
Number of siblings
IQ
Birth order
Age
Religion
(Dis)ability
Type of family (nuclear, step, single parent, etc.)
The complexity of human behaviour presents a significant challenge in attributing any change directly to a single cause, such as exposure to violent television. Unlike inanimate objects, human beings do not respond uniformly under similar conditions due to the myriad of personal characteristics and experiences that shape their reactions. For example, Imagine two pieces of iron, one kept in a humid environment and the other in a dry environment. Regardless of these conditions, if both pieces are exposed to oxygen, they will rust. This scenario demonstrates how two inanimate objects, subjected to different treatments (humid vs dry conditions), will undergo the exact chemical change (rusting) due to their inherent chemical properties, illustrating the consistent behaviour of inanimate matter under specific conditions.
Now, consider the scenario where a group of individuals listens to the same piece of music, such as a universally acclaimed symphony. Despite the identical stimulus – the music – each person's emotional and psychological response can vary dramatically. One individual might feel uplifted and inspired, another may become nostalgic or melancholic, while another might remain indifferent or even experience irritation. This variance in response is rooted in the unique blend of each person's past experiences, cultural background, personal preferences, and perhaps even their current mood. Unlike inanimate objects that react predictably under given conditions, the human reaction to the same stimulus underscores the complexity and unpredictability of human behaviour, highlighting how personal history, genetics, and psychological state contribute to the diversity of human responses.
This complexity suggests that straightforward cause-and-effect relationships, easily demonstrable in physical sciences, are more challenging to establish in human psychology. The interactive nature of living systems means that actions and reactions are interconnected and influenced by feedback loops, making outcomes unpredictable.
This raises significant challenges for psychologists aiming to conduct experiments that meaningfully isolate variables, adhere to ethical standards, and capture natural participant behaviour. Achieving the level of control necessary for establishing clear cause-and-effect relationships in psychology often seems unattainable. Ideally, to ascertain the specific impact of one variable, researchers would need to employ highly controlled scenarios, such as using identical twins raised in identical environments but differing in just the variable of interest. However, such experimental designs are impractical.
In summary, Many psychological and sociological phenomena are too complex to be neatly isolated and manipulated in an experiment. Non-experimental methods can accommodate the multifaceted nature of these phenomena, allowing for the study of variables in a more holistic context.
Psychologists and sociologists face other challenges when conducting experiments, such as:
Ethical Considerations: Many research questions involve variables that cannot be ethically manipulated. For example, studying the effects of traumatic events on mental health cannot involve harming participants. Non-experimental methods allow researchers to study these phenomena without intervening unethically.
Given these constraints, psychologists frequently turn to alternative research methodologies that, while perhaps not as definitive in demonstrating causality, still offer valuable insights. Methods like correlational studies, surveys, interviews, and case analyses allow researchers to explore and understand human behaviour within the bounds of ethical practice and real-world applicability. Despite their limitations in pinpointing causality with absolute certainty, these approaches are crucial in advancing psychological knowledge and accommodating the complexities and ethical considerations of studying human behaviour.
ADVANTAGES OF NON EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTS
Real-world Relevance: Non-experimental studies often use real-world settings, which can provide insights into behaviour and social phenomena as they naturally occur. This can make findings more applicable and relevant to everyday life, as they reflect the complexity and nuance of real-world interactions.
Practical Constraints: Sometimes, it's simply not practical to experiment. The necessary conditions might be impossible to create in a laboratory or controlled environment, or the scope of the study might be too broad. Non-experimental methods can be more flexible and adaptable to these constraints.
Initial Exploration: Non-experimental methods are beneficial for exploring new areas of research where hypotheses have not yet been clearly defined. These approaches can help to identify patterns, correlations, and potential causal relationships that can be further investigated through experimental research.
Studying Rare or Unique Cases: Case studies, a type of non-experimental research, are valuable for examining rare or unique phenomena that might not be encountered frequently enough to study through experimental methods. This can provide deep insights into exceptional cases, contributing to the understanding of broader psychological and sociological principles.
Longitudinal Studies: Non-experimental methods are often used in longitudinal research, where the same subjects are observed over a long period. This approach can reveal how individuals or groups change over time, providing insights into developmental trends, ageing effects, and the impact of societal changes.
