1. Meltzer H., Brugha TS. Ethical concerns in carrying out surveys of psychiatric morbidity. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N, eels. Ethics in Psychiatry. Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer. 2010; 2010:437–458.
2. Emanuel EJ., Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials - a middle ground. N Engl J Med.2001;345:915–919.[PubMed]
3. Carpenter WT Jr., Appelbaum PS., Levine RJ. The Declaration of Helsinki and clinical trials: a focus on placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry.2003;160:356–362.[PubMed]
4. Addington D., Williams R., Lapierre Y., el-Guebaly N. Placebos in clinical trials of psychotropic medication. Can J Psychiatry.1997;42:6.[PubMed]
5. Benkert O., Maier W. The necessity of placebo application in psychotropic drug trials. Pharmacopsychiatry.1990;23:203–205.[PubMed]
6. Baldwin D., Broich K., Fritze J., Kasper S., Westenberg H., Môller HJ. Placebo-controlled studies in depression: necessary, ethical and feasible. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.2003;253:22–28.[PubMed]
7. EMEA . Note for Guidance on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Treatment of Depression.25:4–2002.
8. Fournier JC., DeRubeis RJ., Hollon SD., et al Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis. JAMA.2010;303:47–53.[PMC free article][PubMed]
9. Bauer M. Placeboeffekte bei Arzneimittelprûfungen von Antidepressiva: Interpretation und Bedeutung. Paper presented at: The annual congress of the German Society for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Clincal Neuroscience. 2009 November
10. Garattini S., Bertelé V. Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients' interests. Lancet.2007;370:1875–1877.[PubMed]
11. Helmchen H. Ethische Implikationen placebokontrollierter Prûfungen von Psychopharmaka. Nervenarzt.2005;76:1319–1329.[PubMed]
12. Garattini S., Bertele V., Bassi LL. How can research ethics committees protect patients better?. BMJ.2003;326:1199–1201.[PMC free article][PubMed]
13. Miller FG., Joffe S. Evaluating the therapeutic misconception. Kennedy Inst Ethics J.2006;16:353–366.[PubMed]
14. Appelbaum PS., Roth LH., Lidz CW. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. IntJ Law Psychiatry.1982;5:319–29.[PubMed]
15. Kimmelman J. The therapeutic misconception at 25: treatment, research, and confusion. Hastings Cent Rep.2007;37:36–42.[PubMed]
16. Appelbaum PS., Lidz CW. Re-evaluating the therapeutic misconception: response to Miller and Joffe. Kennedy inst Ethics J.2008;16:367–373.[PubMed]
17. Lidz CW., Appelbaum PS., Grisso T., Renaud M. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Int J Law Psychiatry.2004;58:1689–1697.[PubMed]
18. Empfehlungen des Bundesinstituts fur Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte und des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts zur Planung, Durchfûhrung und Auswertung von Anwendungsbeobachtungen vom 7. Jull 2010. Available at: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=bjprcpsych/1 88/6/504. 2010. Accessed 4.11.2010
19. Benson K., Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. In: Pimple KD, eds. Research Ethics. Aldershot: Ashgate. 2008:213–221.
20. Illes J., Borgelt E. Brain imaging. Incidental findings: in practice and in person. Nat Rev Neurol.2009;5:643–644.[PMC free article][PubMed]
21. Morris Z. Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ.2009;339:b3016.[PMC free article][PubMed]
22. Wolf SM., Lawrenz FP., Nelson CA., et al Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics.2008;36:219–248.[PMC free article][PubMed]
23. Tovino SA. Incidental findings: a common law approach. Account Res.2008;15:242–261.[PubMed]
24. Shaw RL., Senior C., Peel E., Cooke R., Donnelly LS. Ethical issues in neuroimaging health research. J Health Psychol.2008;13:1051–1059.[PubMed]
25. Nuthmann R., Wahl HW. Methodische Aspkte der Erhebungen. In: Lindenberger U, Smith J, Mayer KL), Baltes PB, eds. Die Berliner Altersstudie. 3 ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 2010:59–87.
26. Illes J., Chin VN. Bridging philosophical and practical implications of incidental findings in brain research. J Law Med Ethics.2008;36:298–304.[PMC free article][PubMed]
27. Illes J. Empowering brain science with neuroethics. Lancet.2010;376:1294–1295.[PubMed]
28. Illes J., Kirschen MP., Edwards E., et al Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research. Neurology.2008;70:384–390.[PMC free article][PubMed]
29. Went L. Ethical issues policy statement on Huntington's disease molecular genetics predictive test. International Huntington Association. World Federation of Neurology. J Med Genetics.1990;27:34–38.[PMC free article][PubMed]
30. Propping P. Genetics - Ethical implications of research, diagnostics and counseling. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N, eds. Ethics in Psychiatry. DordrechtHeidelberg-London-New York: Springer. 2010:459–485.
31. McClelland R. Confidentiality. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N, eds. Ethics in Psychiatry. Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer. 2010:161–180.
32. Simonsen S. Acceptable risk and the requirement of proportionality in European Biomedical Research Law. What does the requirement that biomedical research shall not involve risks and burdens disproportionate to its potential benefits mean? Jurisprudential doctoral thesis 2009. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.
33. Rajczi A. Making risk-benefit assessments of medical research protocols. J Law Med Ethics.2004;32:338–348.[PubMed]
34. Wendler D., Miller FG. Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test. J Med Ethics.2007;33:481–486.[PMC free article][PubMed]
35. Wendler D., Krohmal B., Eanuel EJ., Grady C., ESPRIT Group. Why patients continue to participate in clinical research. Arch Intern Med.2008;168:1294–1299.[PubMed]
36. Sofaer N., Jafarey A., Lei RP., Zhang X., Wikler D. Unconditional compensation: reducing the costs of disagreement about compensation for research subjects. East Mediterr Health J.2007;13:6–16.[PubMed]
37. Connell CM., Shaw B., Holmes SB., Forster NL. Caregivers' attitudes toward their family members' participation in Alzheimer disease research: implications for recruitment and retention. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.2001;15:137–145.[PubMed]
38. Mastwyk M., Ritchie CW., LoGiudice D., Sullivan KA., Macfarlane S. Carers' impressions of participation in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: what are their hopes? And is it worth it?. International Psychogeriatrics.2002;14:39–45.[PubMed]
39. Helmchen H. Clinical research in the mentally ill. Ethical considerations. In: Thiele F, Fegert JM, Stock G, eds. Clinical Research in Minors and the Mentally III. Bad Neuenahr-Âhrweiler: Europâische Akademie zur Erforschung von der Folgen wissenschaftlich-technischer Entwicklungen. 2008:7–32.
40. Helmchen H. Ethical guidelines in psychiatric research. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.2010;260:142–146.[PubMed]
41. Helmchen H. Biomedizinische Forschung mit einwilligungsunfâhigen Erwachsenen. In: Taupitz J, ed. Das Menschenrechtsubereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europarates - taugiiches Vorbiid fur eine weitweit geitende Regeiung? Berlin - Heidelberg - New York: Springer. 2002:83–115.
42. Wendler D., Jenkins T. Children's and their parents' views on facing research risks for the benefit of others. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2008;162:914–xx.[PubMed]
43. Wendler D. Is it possible to protect pediatric research subjects without blocking appropriate research?. J Pediatr.2008;152:467–470.[PMC free article][PubMed]
44. Weijer C., Miller PB. Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's “Assessing research risks systematically.”. J Med Ethics.2007;33:487–490.[PMC free article][PubMed]
45. Wendler D., Miller FG. Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test. J Med Ethics.2007;33:481–486.[PMC free article][PubMed]
46. Dunn LB., Nowrangi MA., Palmer BW., Jeste DV., Saks ER. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: a review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry.2006;163:1323–1334.[PubMed]
47. Okai D., Owen G., McGuire H., Singh S., Churchill R., Hotopf M. Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry.2007;191:291–297.[PubMed]
48. Roberts LW., Warner TD., Nguyen KP., Geppert CM., Rogers MK., Roberts BB. Schizophrenia patients' and psychiatrists' perspectives on ethical aspects of symptom re-emergence during psychopharmacological research participation. Psychopharmacology (Berl).2003;171:58–67.[PubMed]
49. Maclean A. . Autonomy Informed Consent and Medical Law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2009
50. Editorial. Teaching responsible conduct of research. Lancet.2009;374:1568.[PubMed]
Saul McLeod published 2015
Observation (watching what people do) would seem to be an obvious method of carrying out research in psychology. However, there are different types of observational methods and distinctions need to be made between:
1. Controlled Observations
2. Natural Observations
3. Participant Observations
In addition to the above categories observations can also be either overt/disclosed (the participants know they are being studied) or covert/undisclosed (the research keeps their real identity a secret from the research subjects, acting as a genuine member of the group).
In general observations, are relatively cheap to carry out and few resources are needed by the researcher. However, they can often be very time consuming and longitudinal.
Controlled observations (usually a structured observation) are likely to be carried out in a psychology laboratory. The researcher decides where the observation will take place, at what time, with which participants, in what circumstances and uses a standardised procedure. Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group.
Rather than writing a detailed description of all behavior observed, it is often easier to code behavior according to a previously agreed scale using a behavior schedule (i.e. conducting a structured observation).
The researcher systematically classifies the behavior they observe into distinct categories. Coding might involve numbers or letters to describe a characteristics, or use of a scale to measure behavior intensity. The categories on the schedule are coded so that the data collected can be easily counted and turned into statistics.
For example, Mary Ainsworth used a behavior schedule to study how infants responded to brief periods of separation from their mothers. During the Strange Situation procedure infant's interaction behaviors directed toward the mother were measured, e.g.
- Proximity and contacting seeking
- Contact maintaining
- Avoidance of proximity and contact
- Resistance to contact and comforting
The observer noted down the behavior displayed during 15 second intervals and scored the behavior for intensity on a scale of 1 to 7.
Sometimes the behavior of participants is observed through a two-way mirror or they are secretly filmed. This method was used by Albert Bandura to study aggression in children (the Bobo doll studies).
A lot of research has been carried out in sleep laboratories as well. Here electrodes are attached to the scalp of participants and what is observed are the changes in electrical activity in the brain during sleep (the machine is called an electroencephalogram – an EEG).
Controlled observations are usually overt as the researcher explains the research aim to the group, so the participants know they are being observed. Controlled observations are also usually non-participant as the researcher avoids any direct contact with the group, keeping a distance (e.g. observing behind a two-way mirror).
1. Controlled observations can be easily replicated by other researchers by using the same observation schedule. This means it is easy to test for reliability.
2. The data obtained from structured observations is easier and quicker to analyze as it is quantitative (i.e. numerical) - making this a less time consuming method compared to naturalistic observations.
3. Controlled observations are fairly quick to conduct which means that many observations can take place within a short amount of time. This means a large sample can be obtained resulting in the findings being representative and having the ability to be generalized to a large population..
1. Controlled observations can lack validity due to the Hawthorne effect/demand characteristics. When participants know they are being watched they may act differently.
Naturalistic observation (i.e. unstructured observation) involves studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in natural surroundings. The researcher simply records what they see in whatever way they can.
Compared with controlled/structured methods it is like the difference between studying wild animals in a zoo and studying them in their natural habitat.
With regard to human subjects Margaret Mead used this method to research the way of life of different tribes living on islands in the South Pacific. Kathy Sylva used it to study children at play by observing their behavior in a playgroup in Oxfordshire.
1 By being able to observe the flow of behavior in its own setting studies have greater ecological validity.
2. Like case studies naturalistic observation is often used to generate new ideas. Because it gives the researcher the opportunity to study the total situation it often suggests avenues of enquiry not thought of before.
1. These observations are often conducted on a micro (small) scale and may lack a representative sample (biased in relation to age, gender, social class or ethnicity). This may result in the findings lacking the ability to be generalized to wider society.
2. Natural observations are less reliable as other variables cannot be controlled. This makes it difficult for another researcher to repeat the study in exactly the same way.
3. A further disadvantage is that the researcher needs to be trained to be able to recognise aspects of a situation that are psychologically significant and worth further attention.
4. With observations we do not have manipulations of variables (or control over extraneous variables) which means cause and effect relationships cannot be established.
Participant observation is a variant of the above (natural observations) but here the researcher joins in and becomes part of the group they are studying to get a deeper insight into their lives. If it were research on animals we would now not only be studying them in their natural habitat but be living alongside them as well!
This approach was used by Leon Festinger in a famous study into a religious cult who believed that the end of the world was about to occur. He joined the cult and studied how they reacted when the prophecy did not come true.Participant observations can be either cover or overt. Covert is where the study is carried out 'under cover'. The researcher's real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied.
The researcher takes a false identity and role, usually posing as a genuine member of the group. On the other hand, overt is where the researcher reveals his or her true identity and purpose to the group and asks permission to observe.
1. It can be difficult to get time / privacy for recording. For example, with covert observations researchers can’t take notes openly as this would blow their cover. This means they have to wait until they are alone and reply on their memory. This is a problem as they may forget details and are unlikely to remember direct quotations.
2. If the researcher becomes too involved they may lose objectivity and become bias. There is always the danger that we will “see” what we expect (or want) to see. This is a problem as they could selectively report information instead of noting everything they observe. Thus reducing the validity of their data.
Recording of Data
With all observation studies an important decision the researcher has to make is how to classify and record the data. Usually this will involve a method of sampling. The three main sampling methods are:
Event sampling. The observer decides in advance what types of behavior (events) she is interested in and records all occurrences. All other types of behavior are ignored.
Time sampling. The observer decides in advance that observation will take place only during specified time periods (e.g. 10 minutes every hour, 1 hour per day) and records the occurrence of the specified behavior during that period only.
Instantaneous (target time) sampling. The observer decides in advance the pre-selected moments when observation will take place and records what is happening at that instant. Everything happening before or after is ignored.
How to reference this article:
McLeod, S. A. (2015). Observation methods. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/observation.html