Naturalistic Observation

[Ready for Fall 2026]

Modified: 2026-07-27 9:26 PM CDST

• ---

  Naturalistic observation is probably the basis for all other psychological research methods.
  • Scientists must first observe the world before they can formulate hypotheses.
  • Yet, even the simple process of observing is not that simple when it is used as a method of study.

• In principle, one can conduct naturalistic observation nearly anywhere.
  • There are some exceptions, however, for example, the naturalistic observation of human sexual behavior, or the observation of juries.
  • You cannot observe a jury unless you happen to be one of the jurors.
  • So, to study sex and juries, we need other methods.
• Animals make natural subjects for naturalistic observation.
  • A good example is Schaller's work with the mountain gorilla.
    • When Schaller first started wondering about the behavior of gorillas, very little was known about them outside of their behavior in zoos.
    • So, Schaller arranged to go to Africa to study gorillas. He soon discovered that gorillas were hard to find.
    • Slowly, and with much effort, he began to see signs of their presence.
    • He began to see where they had been eating and sleeping a few nights before.
    • Then he was closer; their beds were hours old.
    • One day, while sitting in a clearing, a group emerged all around him.
    • From then on, he was able to watch them closely.
    • He gradually discovered a great deal about gorilla behavior, including the fact they did not like cameras pointed at them.
  • Other investigators followed Schaller after his pioneering work, including Diane Fossey.
    • She was later killed by local gorilla poachers; her story is told in the 1988 movie, "Gorillas in the Mist."
• Humans also make good subjects for naturalistic observation.
  • The behavior of second graders makes a good example.
    • The answer to questions about what second graders are like can be found by naturalistic observation.
    • To observe them, a scientist would arrange to go to a second-grade classroom.
    • Some schools are set up with one-way mirrors or cameras, so in those cases, observation would be fairly easy.
    • Most schools are not set up that way, so the second graders would know that they were being observed.
    • That would, quite naturally, change their behavior, at least for awhile.
    • It might take a week or two of observation before the second graders settled down and reverted to their usual behavior. Then, naturalistic observation could start.
• Naturalistic observation is probably the best method around for the process of formulating new hypotheses.
  • By becoming intimately familiar with subjects and their behavior, one can start to make hypotheses about them and their behavior.
  • Those hypotheses can then be tested by other methods.
  • We will cover those other methods soon.
  • So, the notion that naturalistic observation is a good first step in science derives from its utility in formulating hypotheses.
• There are problems with the use of this method.
• The main one is the issue of bias.
  • Researchers are always going to bring preconceived ideas to a naturalistic-observation episode.
  • Then, unwittingly, those preconceptions will shape the observations themselves.
  • For example, you may think that second-grade boys are more vocal than girls.
  • So, you may pay more attention when you hear boys talking and shouting, but less when you hear girls doing the same.
  • How can you deal with this problem?
• One way to deal with the problem of bias is to have multiple observers.
  • If you are the only observer who consistently observes some behavior, then, maybe you are adding it to the situation, or, maybe the others just cannot see it.
  • However, now you and the other observers could look for it more closely.
    • Think of Olympic boxing matches. Three judges must decide whether a punch landed. If only one judge says a punch landed but the other two disagree, then the judges agree the punch did not land.
• Another way to deal with bias is to record the situation.
  • Then, it can be analyzed repeatedly.
• Still another way is to have naive observers.
  • You train observers, but you do not tell them why they are observing (you do not reveal your hypothesis).
  • Then, those observers will be less likely to see the situation in the light of the hypothesis.
• Another problem is reactivity.
  • Imagine what would happen right after you sat down in that second grade classroom.
  • The students would not behave as they did before you entered.
  • But, after a few days or weeks you would become part of the 'woodwork' of the classroom and the students would revert to their usual behavior.
  • Your naturalistic observations could begin then.
  • Note, that classrooms equipped with one-way mirrors or cameras would not have the problem of reactivity.
• So, naturalistic observation is a good first step in research; it is good for formulating hypotheses, but care needs to be used to control for bias and reactivity.