A. PSYCHOLOGY
AS EMPIRICAL SCIENCE: METHODS OF STUDYING PSYCHOLOGY
Since
the establishment of psychological laboratory to conduct the experimental study
of human nature in 1879 psychology became an empirical science. The scientific exercise in psychology is both
academic and applied. It uses varieties of method both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ to
collect the data. Experimental method is regarded as ‘hard’ method in which rigorous
control is maintained which is not found in many ‘soft’ methods such as case
study method or participant observation method.
Empirical
or scientific method is a set of directions that is designed to lead to the
answers to questions. Psychology as an empirical science use scientific method
to generate scientific knowledge of human behavior. Such knowledge can create a
new theory or examine the existing theory. Scientific method is the major tool
in empirical science. As an empirical science methods of psychological inquiry
are objective, systematic,
accurate, critical, controlled, reliable and valid.
A method is a process of collecting
data through systematic approach. Scientific method is an approach used by
psychologists to systematically acquire knowledge and understanding about
behavior and other phenomena of interest (Hazen & Trefil, 1991; Leong &
Austin, 1996). In empirical method the researcher is not prejudiced towards
objects, persons, events, ideas and so on. The study is controlled and the
researcher is critical.
The process
of empirical study begins with scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry starts
with a question. Researcher than propose a conceptual or theoretical frame to
describe and explain behavior. Based on theoretical framework hypotheses are
formed of relationships between variables. But it is not necessary to form a
hypothesis in all types of research. Psychologists also conduct the research
outside the laboratory setting. But in both situations psychologists try to maintain
that the data (information) collected meet the standard set in empirical
research – objectivity, dependability, accuracy and verifiability. What determines the scientific approach is
its method. Both inside and outside the laboratory psychologists always follow
the successive steps of empirical method. Such steps are the foundation of
scientific inquiry. Following is a general steps (the step can vary slightly
according to the nature of method used in scientific investigation).
1.
Problems
are identified, reviewed and stated accurately so that it would be simple,
comprehensible and testable.
2.
Hypothesis
is generated. A tentative answer to the problem at hand is developed. Such
tentative answer is based on researcher's hours of study of relevant book and
research articles that have dealt with the problems. In some researches
hypothesis are not developed.
3.
Method is
selected. In order to find out the answer (if hypothesis is mentioned then
to test the hypothesis) an appropriate, accurate and reliable method and tools
are selected.
4.
Data are
collected, organized and analyzed. With the selection of tools (and the
sample size, type etc.) data are collected, organized, statistically analyzed
and interpreted.
5.
Result
is derived. Result interpretation finally proves whether the hypothesis is
correct or not. The relationship between x and y is established.
6.
Conclusion
is drawn. Before concluding the
result is repeatedly examined. The factors are identified and conditions
leading to sources or solutions is stated clearly.
7.
The
result becomes law. The phenomenon (problem) is explained, interpreted and
solved through the finding of the result.
In
psychology, as in other sciences, different methods and tools of collecting and
evaluating data are available. Observational
techniques are among the easiest and most common methods in psychology.
Some of the methods of used in psychology are:
Introspective method, Case study, Experimental method,
Quasi-experimental method, Observational method, Archival method, Natural
experimental study, Survey method, Naturalistic observation, Psychometric
method, Self report method (interview and questionnaire method)
1.
Experimental method
Experimental
method is a highly systematic, objective observational method. In this method
phenomenon is artificially created in the laboratory setting for the detail
study and precise measurement of the behavior or event. An experiment is a
method of scientific investigation that seeks to discover cause-and-effect
relationships by introducing independent variables and observing their effects
on dependent variables (Rathus, 1984). Four main parts of the psychological
experiment are (1) Experimenter (2) Subject (3) Controlled laboratory, and (4)
instruments. Experiments are usually undertaken to test a hypothesis (an
assumption about behavior that is often derived from theory.
Psychologists
prefer to use experiments whenever possible because this approach allows them
to determine whether a stimulus or an event actually causes something to
happen. In an experimental approach, researchers randomly assign participants
to different conditions. These conditions should be identical except for one
variable that the researcher is interested in. For example, psychologists have
asked whether people learn more if they study for one long period or several
short periods. To study this experimentally, the psychologist would assign
people into one of two groups - one group that studies for an extended period
of time or to another group that studies for the same total amount of time, but
in short segments. The researcher would make sure that all the participants
studied the same material, for the same total time, and were in the same study
environment; the only thing that would differentiate the two groups is whether
the learners studied for short or long segments. Thus, any difference in the
amount of learning should be due only to the length of the study periods. (This
kind of research has revealed that people learn better with several shorter
study periods.) The experimental approach is useful when the research can
establish control over the environment; this work is often done in a simple
laboratory setting. Now let us see the major steps of experimental method and
their importance.
Steps
in experimental study
1.
Statement
of the problem: (simple, solvable, not
ambiguous and relevant)
2.
Statement
of hypothesis: (tentative answer of the research question)
3.
Identification
and definition of variables (independent and dependent)
4.
Design
of the experiment: (to control relevant variables, introduce independent
variable and measure dependent variable)
5.
Data
collection (instruction and application of proper procedure)
6.
Statistical
procedure, result interpretation, Discussion, replication, verification
7.
Conclusion.
Problem: All research study starts with
a problem. Experimental method is used to find the solution or answer of the
problem. Problem should be simple, solvable and relevant. For example, problem
of alcohol and aggressive behavior is a solvable and relevant problem. Problem
is the first step in the chain of experimental study.
Hypothesis: Hypothesis is also called a
tentative answer/solution to the question/problem. It is an assumption about
behavior that is derived from theory and tested through research. For example,
a psychologist assumes that alcohol leads to aggression by reducing fear of
consequences or generally energizing the activity levels of drinkers. He or she
then hypothesizes that the treatment of drinking alcohol will lead to
measurable increases in aggression among provoked individuals. Hypothesis is a
Greek work meaning "groundwork" or "foundation". It is said
that once hypothesis is stated half of the problem is solved.
Identification
and definition of variables:
Variables are anything that varies and evokes the sense organs. In other words,
stimulus can be regarded as variable. In an experiment, the experimenter wants
to see the effect of one variable (called independent variable - IV) to another
(dependable variable - DV). Thus, experimenter is concerned with IV and DV. In
the above example, alcohol would be considered an IV, a variable whose presence
is manipulated by the experimenter so that its effect may be determined. The
measured results or outcomes in an experiment are called DV. It is called
dependent variable because the presence of intensity and durability of DV
depends on IV. In the above experiment, the aggressive behavior would be a
dependent variable.
Design
of the experiment:
In order to control the other variables that can influence the DV, design of
the experiment is necessary. In the above experiment, we all know that
aggression can be evoked by other different causes. Further, alcohol can also
lead to sexual arousal, visual-motor coordination, performance on an
intellectual task and so on. Design of the experiment controls all these
variables (called extraneous or relevant variables) so that experimenter can
only introduce IV and observe and measure its effect (DV). Design helps to
control these relevant variables. Further, design also helps us to select control
and experimental subjects. Ideal experimental and control subjects or
experimental and control groups. Experimental subjects receive the treatment
while control subjects do not. Every effort is made to ensure that all other
conditions are held constant both for experimental and control subjects so that
we can have confidence that the experimental outcomes reflect the treatments,
and not chance factors or variation. In the above example, experimental groups
would be given alcohol and controlled subjects would not. Experimental method
is rigorous but it helps to establish a precise relationship between 'cause'
(alcohol) and 'effect' (aggression) with the help of experimental control. Such
rigorous control is only possible in the laboratory setting.
Data
collection: The
process of data collection will be according to design of the experiment. The
experimenter will use the precise quantity of alcohol (as decided in the
design) and apply to the experimenter group. Thereafter, s/he will measure or
observe the dependent variable with certain accuracy.
Result
interpretation, discussion and conclusion: Replication means repeat or duplicate. In science, research
must be reported in sufficient detail to permit other investigators to
replicate it. If one doubtful of whether alcohol leads to aggressive behavior
as found in the above example, one can adopt the procedure and replicate the
experiment and test whether the finding is really true or not.
Merits
of experimental method
1.
The
data and result are objective, verifiable and replicable. The experimenter
report the process of data collection, tools used, experimental control, and
statistical procedures.
2.
Stimulus
variable can be precisely identified and the resulting response is measured.
This is the only method through which relationship between cause and effect can
be established.
3.
Result
can be repeated with creating the same situation in the laboratory. This will
increase the reliability and validity of the result.
4.
This
method can refute the theory.
Demerits
of experimental method
1.
Experimenter's
bias, evaluation error can occur. Experimenter's effect can influence the data.
Subject can react according to the expectation of the experimenter.
2.
If
the sample of the study does not represent the population will influence the
generalization of the finding.
3.
Inadequate
control of the relevant variable can influence the result. And all variables
cannot be controlled.
4.
Experiments
are largely conducted on animals. It is debatable whether such results are
applicable to human beings (external validity).
5.
All
human phenomenon cannot be studied by experimental method.
6.
Furthermore,
it is costly and time consuming. Demands specific knowledge and training on
experimenter.
2.
Observation
method
Correlation approaches are most
useful when the researchers cannot control the environment or when the
phenomena they want to study are complex. Instead of trying to simplify the
situation, the researchers observe the complex behaviors as they naturally
occur. A third approach is called naturalistic observation. This kind of
research often is not highly quantitative (as in the objective, systematic
observation such as the experimental method. Experimental method is regarded as
systematic observation method); that is, observations are likely to be descriptive.
The researcher decides on some class of behavior to observe and records the
situations in which that behavior occurs and how it develops. A classic example
of observational research was done by Jane Goodall in her work with chimpanzees
in the wild. She spent years observing their social interactions and how the
chimp "society" changed over time.
Observation is a purposive or
intentional examination of something, particularly for the purpose of gathering
facts. Observation becomes scientific when
the data are gathered systematically and are related to other data also
systematically gathered for the purpose of uncovering general principle of
human behavior (Kidder and Judd, 1986). Observation becomes scientific when it
(1) serves a formulated research purpose, (2) when it is planned deliberately,
(3) when it is recorded systematically, and (4) when it is subjected to checks
and controls on validity and reliability. Scientific observation, thus, is made
under precisely defined conditions, in a systematic and objective manner, and
with careful record keeping.
Classification
of observational methods: Observational
methods can be classified according to the degree to which an observer
intervenes in an observational setting as well as according to the way in which
that behavior is recorded. Observations can be classified as:
1.
observation
without intervention
2.
observation
with intervention
Observation
without intervention: Observation
of behavior in a more or less natural setting, without any attempt by the
observer to intervene, is frequently called naturalistic observation, a
naturalistic field study, or, more formally, systematic observation in a
natural setting.
The observer in such method is
passive recorder of the event.
S/he cannot manipulate or
control the situation and the event occurs in natural setting. (Laboratory
situation is an artificial situation and the experimenter controls the
setting.) Systematic observation in a natural setting helps to establish the
external validity of laboratory finding.
Observation
with intervention:
Intervention rather than non-intervention characterize most psychological
research. Kinds of intervention vary widely in psychological studies, depending
on such things as the purpose of investigating behavior, the nature of the
behavior under observation, and the ingenuity of the researcher. Under this
category, observation can be
a)
participant
observation
b)
structured
observation, and
c)
the
field experiment.
a) Participant
observation
Undisguised
participant observation
is one in which people who are being observed know that the observer is present
for observation. Anthropologists frequently use this method.
Disguised
participant observation
is one in which people who are being observed do not know that they are being
observed. This method is used because many times people behave differently when
they know that they are being observed. Participant observation allows an
observer to gain access to a situation that is not usually open to scientific
observation. In addition, the participant observer is often in a position to
have the same experiences as the subjects under study. Such position provides
important insights and understanding of individuals or groups. But sometimes
the same advantage hinders the observer to be objective and accurate in
recording the behavior.
b) Structured
observation
Sometimes according to the
nature of study the observer intervenes in order to cause an event to occur or
to “set up” a situation so that events can be more easily recorded than they
would be without intervention.
Structured observations may
occur in a natural setting or in a laboratory setting where observer creates
quite elaborate procedures to investigate a particular behavior more fully.
Clinical psychologists, educational psychologists, developmental psychologists
often make structured observation.
c)
Field experiment
An experiment carried out in a
natural setting rather than in the laboratory is called a field experiment.
In other words, it can
said that when an observer manipulates one or more independent variables in a
natural setting in order to determine their effect on behavior, the procedure
is called a field experiment.
In conducting a field
experiment, the observer (experimenter) seeks to control the antecedents of an
event in order to measure systematically the effect of a variable on behavior.
The observer can assign the subjects to conditions. It is one of the most
frequently used field-observation techniques in social psychology.
The observer (experimenter) use
confederate (a person who is instructed [by experimenter] to behave in such a
way to produce an experimental situation). Latane and Darley have done some
good field experiments on helping behavior.
Merits
of observational method
1. Simplicity is the characteristic
of this method.
2. This method is objective and
impersonal
3. Science begins with observation
and must, ultimately return to observation for its final validation.
4. With this method psychology can
study - social groups like mob, crowd, family, mentally disturbed.
5. This method helps to develop
hypothesis. It is best for pilot study.
6. Observation method is both
quantitative and qualitative in nature
7. This method can be objective and
impersonal. The data are not based on guess (introspection) but on perception.
8. Reliability can be tested through
statistical method (e.g., in objective observation).
9. Objective observation method can
be applied to different situations – animal behaviors, mob behaviors etc. which
cannot be studied through other methods.
10. No of data can be increased
within a short period as compared to experimental or introspective method. This
can increase the reliability.
11. Since observation method is
conducted in natural setting, the validity is high as compared to other
methods.
Demerits
of observation method
1. This method does rarely generate
the knowledge about the cause and effect. This is because all variables cannot
be controlled and situation is natural. Only controlled systematic observation
method (e.g., experimental method) is successful to control intervening
variables.
2. There are chances of personal
biases of the observers i.e., influence of attitudes, prejudices, needs,
ambitions, expectations etc.
3. Psychology not only describes
the behavior but also finds causes of behavior. Chances of error are high in
explaining the cause by simply observing the behavior. Verbal report is
important to find the cause of behavior.
4. There is a chance of Hawthorne effect. The
presence of observer can bring unnatural behavior from people who are being
observed. One-way screen window can reduce the effect but such
observation/study is not always possible..
5. All social phenomenon cannot be
studied by observation.
6. Cognitive processes (attitude,
need, prejudices, aspiration, expectation, feelings, emotions, thinking,
memory, imagination, dreams etc.) cannot be observed.
7. Some of the observation types
lack reliability.
8. No control of extraneous
variables (e.g., Latane and Darley (1970) helping behavior).
9. Losses control over the
environment (e.g., Latane and Darley's study).
3.
Correlation
method
A second
approach involves the correlational technique. This approach does not include
control of the environment by the researcher. Instead, measurements are made as
they naturally occur. For example, a group of high school students took two
tests that required them to solve analogies and to recognize antonyms. The
researchers discovered a correlation between students' abilities to complete
analogies correctly and to identify antonyms. In general, students who were
good at one task were also good at the other; students weak in one task were
weak in the other. In correlational research, no attempt is made to state that
one thing causes another, only that one thing is predictable from the other.
E.g., Survey research with the use of questionnaire, interview or psychological
test (paper/pencil).
4.
Case
study method
In-depth analyses or intensive
study of a single individual or event is called case study. Case study is
vivid, illustrating unusual or dramatic events in detail. It is observation technique in which
one person (or group) is studied in depth in the hopes of revealing universal
principles (David G. Myers, 1996). Sigmund Freud constructed his theory of
personality from a handful of case studies. Intensive case study is very
revealing.
Case study method: The previous
techniques all involve observing a group of individuals. Sometimes,
psychologists are interested in studying a single person in depth. This is
called a case study. This approach is common when clinical psychologists work
with a person over a long period of time. The final product in a case study is
an in-depth description of a great number of different aspects of the
individual's life and development. The strength of this approach is that detail
is abundant; the weakness is that the psychologist cannot generalize to other
people from the single individual being analyzed because that person may differ
in important ways from the average person.
Advantage
·
Case
studies can suggest hypothesis for further study but sometimes it has problems:
Disadvantages
·
Good
for research stimulation but not always for arriving at conclusion
·
Individual
are atypical not representative thus, case sometimes misleads.
·
Relies
on people’s memories and interpretation of the event (which can be inaccurate)
·
The
result cannot be logically generalized from one case to another.
5.
Archival
method
In archival method researcher
use records that already exist in order to find the most likely explanation for
an event. Examples of records used are those kept by libraries, government, and
private institution. Archival research data is a source of evidence that is
based upon records or documents relating alternative to or in conjunction with
other research methods.
Psychologists can use archival
information to answer questions. Archival research differs considerably from
the other approaches because it does not rely on direct observation or
interaction with the people being studied. Rather, psychologists use records or
other already existing information. For example, some psychologists were
interested in whether the percentage of left-handed people in the population
has remained constant throughout history. They obviously could not observe
people who have died, so they decided to use existing information about the
past. They recorded the percentage of left-handed people in paintings and other
such renderings. After poring over paintings, they concluded that the
percentage of left-handed people has not changed over the last few centuries.
More commonly, archival information comes from birth and death records and
other official statistics.
Evaluation
·
One
of the advantages is that the data are already gathered
·
Interviewer’s
social biases of people, event are avoided
·
Disadvantages
of this method include:
data off target, incomplete, distorted, bias etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment