research carried out in a controlled environment where the IV is manipulated by the experimenter.
+ Its good because there is controll over EV's (extraneous variables) which gives the experiment validity.
+ you can replicate them as they are standerdised to check results, this gives them reliablility.
- they lack ecological validity. ( you cannot apply the results to the real world)
- they are at risk of demand characteristics. (the participants might say what the experimenter wants to hear)
- they are at risk to the "screw you effect"
OBSERVATION (collecting data)
Experimenters watch participants in either a controlled environment or natural environment and note specific behaivours.
+ if its in a natural environment you see normal behaivour and its ecologically valid.
+ there is a higher inter-rata reliability if its an observer.
- if it is natural behaivour you cannot replicate it easily.
- there are lots of extraneous variables
- if the participants are aware then the obsevation is at risk of demand characteristics. If they are unaware then you are at risk of having no informed consent and therefore its ethically wrong.
looking for trends/behaivour in either a real environment or a secondary source (newspaper, video) You tally off behaivour as they occur.
+ easy to do and you can re-watch it.…