PS300 Unit 2 Research Methods Comparison Example

Four Designs for One Crosswalk Question: A PS300 Unit 2 Research Methods Comparison

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS300: Research Methods I

Unit 2 Research Methods Comparison

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The research question and intersection are composite; the methods and studies described are real.

The Question

At a busy intersection near a university campus in Spokane, many pedestrians cross while looking at their phones. The research question is whether phone use while crossing is associated with less safe behavior, such as not looking before stepping into the street or crossing against the signal, and, if possible, whether phone use causes it.

Naturalistic Observation

Observers stand near the intersection and record each pedestrian's behavior without interacting: whether the person is using a phone and whether they look left and right or cross against the signal. Observation captures real behavior in its natural setting, which is its main strength; people do not change how they cross because they know they are being studied, if observers are unobtrusive. Its weaknesses are that it records behavior but not reasons or experiences, observers must agree on what counts as phone use, and it cannot rule out other explanations. Thompson et al. (2013) used this design at 20 Seattle intersections and found that about three in ten pedestrians were doing something distracting while crossing.

Survey

A survey asks people about their own phone use while walking and any near misses. It can reach many people and ask about experiences an observer cannot see, such as how often someone has nearly been hit. Its weaknesses are self-report bias, since people may underreport behavior they know is risky, and memory errors. A survey also depends on who chooses to respond (Cozby & Bates, 2020).

Observation sees what people do at the curb; a survey hears what they say they do, and the two can disagree.

Correlational Analysis

Either the observation or the survey can be analyzed correlationally, measuring whether phone use and unsafe crossing go together. A correlation can show association and its strength. It cannot show which causes which, and a third variable, such as being in a hurry, might produce both.

Experiment

An experiment would randomly assign participants to cross while texting or not and measure their behavior. Random assignment balances other differences between groups, so a difference in behavior could be attributed to texting. Running this at a real intersection would expose participants to danger, which the APA Ethics Code's requirement to avoid harm rules out (American Psychological Association, 2017). Researchers have instead used simulated environments, such as virtual street crossings, which trade realism for safety.

Choosing Designs

For a course project, combining naturalistic observation with a survey is the best fit. Observation will measure how common phone use is and whether it is associated with unsafe behavior; the survey will add self-reported near misses and reasons. Neither will establish cause, and the project's conclusions will say so.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2020). Methods in behavioral research (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Thompson, L. L., Rivara, F. P., Ayyagari, R. C., & Ebel, B. E. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: An observational study. Injury Prevention, 19(4), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040601