Final Naturalistic Observation Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Final Naturalistic Observation Paper. Social Interaction. Psyc 8. ...

Description

Running head: NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

Social Interaction of Social Interaction California State University, Sacramento

Naturalistic Observation of Social Interaction

1

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

2

The purpose of the naturalistic observation is to witness California State University of Sacramento students at the library quad and to observe how much interaction occurs. The real importance of the problem is the low social interaction students have especially having technology. As technology continued to grow, face-to-face and social interaction began to decrease because of the growing technology and electronics that are available to everyone. Observing students at Sacramento State will support the findings and help examine those that socially interact with one another. Affiliation, Flirting, and Fun: Mock Aggression Behavior in College Students The first article I read was Affiliation, Flirting, and Fun: Mock Aggression Behavior in College Students.  The experimenter observed mock aggression-behavior that appears aggressive, but lacks intent to harm- among emerging adults, was a common positive, and integral part of the lives of their sample across social, familial, romantic, and sports context. The experimenter completed the observation by asking emerging adults about their mock aggressive interaction and the social and emotional outcomes of these interactions. Participants reported the following about each mock aggressive behavior: frequency (three to five times weekly/monthly/never) target (friend/romantic partner/co-worker/family member) and context (sports/social/romance/work). Mock aggression was common among the participants. Participants reported engaging in all kinds of mock aggression behaviors several times per week. General social settings and romantic settings were the most common context for mock aggression. The results conclude that the most mock aggression in teenages and young adults is commonly shown towards the flirting spectrum. For those that are older adults and above twenty-five, mock aggression is a negative outcome because it is disrespectful and is not seen as

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

3

a good appearance. Therefore, this article connects with this naturalistic observation study in order to help recall the meanings of dozens of nonverbal behaviors independent of any situational context. What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction The second article I read was, What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction . In this study, the pairs the nonverbal behaviors with other behaviors to see how they combine in respondents’ perceptions and create new adequate meanings. It also gathered information from volunteer undergraduate students on the meanings of nonverbal behaviors alone in order to determine whether nonverbal behaviors have meanings on the evaluation, effectiveness, and activity range. In the study they collected EPA ratings for the sixty-four nonverbal behaviors profile-verbal behavior profile combinations to see whether the meanings of nonverbal behaviors-other behaviors combinations could be predicted from the meanings of behaviors of nonverbal indications individually. Study one means for evaluation, potency, activity ratings of the ninety-eight nonverbal behaviors by males, females, and all subjects. Women made a wider range of responses than men did on evaluation and potency and scarcely wider on range on activity. This study’s second view includes the full set of two-way interaction terms between the nonverbal behavior and so forth; tested as a group which increased predictive capabilities. Nonverbal behaviors in social interaction: An extension to Affect Control Theory The third article I read was, Nonverbal behaviors in social interaction: An extension to Affect Control Theory. Nonverbal behaviors impact our perceptions of interaction. They used the

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

4

Affect Control Theory which had success in understanding the ways in which people perceive events generally predictive nonverbal behaviors in its scope. In the first study, the experimenter collected meanings of nonverbal independent event context. Study two paired nonverbal behaviors with other behaviors to see how they combine in people’s perceptions to create new affective meanings. The third and fourth study required performing two experiments to see what effects the inclusion of nonverbal behaviors and its impressions on people from events and event elements. This article is connected to pay study because it helps me better understand the relationship between nonverbal behaviors and the context of internal personal interactions. The current study examines what is more likely to see Sacramento State students in a group of 2 or more on technology or physically communicating and socially interacting with one another? To conduct this study I am gathering a total of ten hours observing social interaction between individuals and those in groups in the library quad at Sacramento State for one-hour sessions at noon. Method Participants The main goal is to observe how much social interaction California State University, Sacramento students have at the library quad. On average per session there were N=20 young to middle aged adults. Important participant variables that are relevant to interpretation of results are those who hang out and do not hang out at the library quad. Participants that were naturalistically observed at random, those who were at the library quad when observation was being done.

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

5

Design The method that was employed in the naturalistic observation was blending in as a student and hanging out in the library quad. Researcher observed on a bench toward the inner side of the quad underneath the trees with headphones on. Observation completed on Tuesdays and Thursdays at twelve to one in the afternoon each session so that there was a mix of a little social interaction to lunch time with more interaction. Materials Materials used were a Hewlett-Packward laptop, black pen, Apple earphones, and college ruled notebook. Materials were not needed but used to blend in. No scripts or consent forms were necessary for this naturalistic observation study. There was not any equipment needed. Data was recorded on a Google document to take notes for observation. Procedure Observations were completed on Tuesdays and Thursdays at twelve to one in the afternoon each session so that there was a mix of a little social interaction to lunch time with more interaction. First, being the researcher, I had to find a location to sit in library quad and put on earphones to blend in. I would then begin to observe social interaction within the library quad. When doing so I would record time of day, location, weather, description of surrounding. After observations, I would document results on a Google Document per session completed.

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

6

Researchers were training by learning in psychology 8 class to not interact with those being observed that would affect the results of observation. Each week on Tuesdays and Thursdays for five weeks there would be completed sessions of one hour. The confound variable was the time of day and the day of the week because compared to being in the library quad on a Monday then a Friday, the campus is a lot less crowded. The variables were accounted for by starting at the same time for the same duration each session. The data was recorded and stored on result notes per session that was recorded.

Results Field notes were coded to analyze how technology was associated with social interaction. Across 7 observations, the frequency of social interaction (verbally/nonverbally) for those who were using technology and those who were not using technology , was calculated as illustrated in Figure 1. Those that were not using technology displayed a 60% greater frequency of social interaction with other than those who were using technology which was 20%. Discussion Social interaction was associated with technology use. The more technology a person used, the less social interaction the person had. As a result, those who used technology had 20% less frequent social interaction than 60% more frequent to those that had social interaction. When completing observations, the findings shown a pattern of those who were alone used technology more and had less social interaction. Future researchers may consider using a larger variety using different age groups and choosing when and where to observe. Although the researchers only

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

7

observed and obtained findings from a portion of college students in the library quad, the repetitive findings seen more social interaction connected with less technology usage. Reference Ballard, M. E., Green, S., & Granger, C. (2003). Affiliation, flirting, and fun: Mock aggressive behavior in college students. The Psychological Record , 53( 1), 33-47. Rashotte, L. S. (1999, February). Nonverbal behaviors in social interaction: An extension to Affect Control Theory. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A , 59, 3239. Rashotte, L. S. (2002). What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly , 65( 1), 92-102. doi:10.2307/3090170 Figure 1. Amount of Social Interaction Using Verbal/Nonverbal Social Interaction With/Without Technology

Figure 1 . Social Interaction with others for those using technology and those who were not using technology....