Chapter 1 Related Activity: Research Design

Scientific research revolves around a single main objective:

proving or disproving a hypothesis. While the basic steps of the
scientific method are fairly straightforward (ask a question, do
background research, form a hypothesis, run an experiment, crunch
the data, and form a conclusion), there are many different options to
choose from when you are researching your question, formulating your
experiment, and then collecting data from it, especially when your
question involves human development or behavior. (1) While
researching your question, you must decide if you need to test
individuals over the course of time (a longitudal study), if you need to
study people of different ages (a cross-sectional study), or if you ought
to combine the two methods and do research on multiple groups of
people over the course of time (called sequential design). When
designing your experiment, you must decide if it will be correlational,
where you observe things as they occur naturally, or if you will
construct a formal experiment in which you have control over a single
variable and observe its effects on other dependent variables. Finally,
you must choose a method of collecting data. You may choose to
observe your subjects, whether spontaneously in a natural setting or in
a more structured, prepared setting; you might ask your subjects to
answer surveys or a list of questions you have prepared for them; or
you can observe their bodys physiological responses through
individualized testing, monitoring their heart rate, brain waves, or
other physical indicators that are relevant to your question and
hypothesis. In order to more thoroughly explain how each of these
options works, let us look at some different example hypotheses and
break down how we would conduct the experiments to answer them.
The first hypothesis we will look at states, Infants cared for in a
home setting are more content. The age group is defined for us
already: Infants. This leaves us with the research option of performing
a longitudal study. The same infants should be observed over the
course of the first year of their life. Next, we must define what is meant
by the word content. In my experience, the simplest way to
determine an infants level of contentment is by the amount that they
cry. Infants are not afraid to let you knowloudlythat they are
unhappy. So, for this experiment, we will measure the infants
contentment by the amount of time they spend crying throughout each
test day. We should also define what a home setting means. This
experiment is not measuring the infants contentment based on who
the caregiver is, so we should reduce the number of extra variables by
not including the childrens mothers and fathers. Home setting
should be defined as the home of a caregiver other than the childs
parents. At this point, we must choose if we are going to manipulate

the independent variable, using an experimental design, or if we are

going to observe setups that are already in place, using a correlational
design. Since being moved to a different setting frequently upsets
infants that are accustomed to a specific caregiver, we should move
forward with a correlational design. Changing the childrens caregivers
would more than likely cause them to be excessively upset, and
therefore skew the data. Several different infants should be followed
and observed. Some of the infants observed should be in and
accustomed to a home setting, while others should be in and
accustomed to a daycare setting. Now that we have defined our terms
and chosen our experiment design, we must choose a method of
collecting the data. A naturalistic observation, in which we watch and
carefully record what the infants do in their care settings, is likely the
best option for this experiment. We would send an observer into the
care setting to witness and record the amount that each infant cries
throughout each test day. At the end of the childrens first year, the
amount of crying from the children in the home setting can then be
compared to that of the children in the daycare setting. If the amount
of crying from the children that were in a home setting is significantly
lower than that of the children that were in a daycare setting, we can
then say that the hypothesis is true.
Many parents are concerned that their children will get into drugs or
be affected by violence, especially throughout their teen years. We
frequently look for answers to keep our children safe. One hypothesis
states, Adolescents raised in rural settings are less likely to get
involved with drugs and violence. How can we determine if this is
statistically true or not? First, let us define what adolescents are. (2)
A quick search in an online dictionary reveals that adolescence is the
transitional period between puberty and adulthood in human
development, mainly over the teen years and terminating legally when
the age of majority is reached; youth. Following this definition, we will
declare adolescents to be youth aged 13-17, 18 being the age of
legal adulthood in the United States. With a finite age group set, a
longitudal study would again be our most likely best course of action.
We would visit and revisit the teens in both urban and rural areas to
learn if they become involved in drugs or violence over time. As we
cannot choose to move our subjects to either a rural or urban setting
for the sake of the experiment, we must use a correlational design to
observe the behaviors of the adolescents based on where their families
have chosen to live. To determine if drugs have taken an effect in the
teens lives, individual testing could be performed if consent was
obtained from their parents. These could potentially be done without
the teens knowledge of the experiment at random school drug tests.
Collecting data about being involved in violent situations would likely
require a more subjective method of testing. Self-reports or surveys

answered by the teenagers might reveal if they had violent tendencies,

or parents and friends could be interviewed to see if they had noticed
any indications that the teen had been involved in violent situations.
After all of the adolescents involved in the test have reached the legal
age of maturity, 18, all of the tests and survey data from those living in
an urban setting could be compared to that of those living in a rural
setting. If the number of youth that become involved in drugs or
violence in a rural area is lower than the number that become involved
in an urban area, then we can say that the hypothesis is true.
Our next hypothesis states, The importance of friendships
diminishes as one ages. This hypothesis is a very subjective
statement, as each persons feelings about friendship can vary wildly,
regardless of age. However, we can get a feel for the average
importance of friendship to people over a lifetime by setting up a
cross-sectional study, in which we break down participants into groups
based on their ages and compare the results. A correlational design will
be a necessity in this particular experiment, as there are no variables
to be able to manipulate. In order to understand how a person feels
about the importance of friendships, the most straightforward method
would be to provide a survey to each individual, questioning them on
how they view different aspects of friendship. A survey that quantifies
these feelings, such as using a scale of 1-10, would be the most
effective form of questionnaire for comparing the data. A higher score
would indicate feelings of higher importance, while a lower score would
indicate feelings of lesser importance. However, this approach is
extremely subjective and could lead to inaccurate data due to people
who may answer with more socially acceptable answers rather than
with their true feelings. Another option for obtaining data would be a
naturalistic observation in which one experimenter would pose as a
kindly person approaching the subjects to start a casual conversation
that may ultimately lead to a conversation about how important friends
are to the subject. Another experimenter would be positioned out of
sight of the subject, watching these interactions. This method might be
more difficult to quantify, but the second experimenter might also
choose to use a number scale to score the participants reaction to the
first experimenters conversation. In either method, the scores of each
age group should be able to be compared. If the scores of the more
elderly subjects are significantly lower than the scores of those
younger than them, then we can say that the hypothesis is true.
Popular belief states that only-children are more self-centered than
children with siblings. Let us look at the steps we might take to prove
or disprove this hypothesis. First we must decide if we need to break
down our test subjects by age or not. The hypothesis does not ask
about older children versus younger children, so it would be wiser to

use a longitudal study in this case. We can define children as

individuals ages 1-17, since infants have not yet begun to be taught
concepts of sharing, and 18 is the legal age of adulthood in the United
States. So for our longitudal study, we will observe children many
times over the course of their lives from age 1 to 17, watching for their
ability to share and put other peoples feelings above their own,
qualities that self-centered individuals tend to lack. This study would
certainly need to be a correlational design, because, as with the
previous hypothesis, we do not have variables that we can manipulate.
We would need to use the most natural setting possible when
observing the children, as children frequently act differently when they
are in situations or places that they are not familiar with. In this
naturalistic observation, an observer could watch the childrens
interactions at school or at a park or play area, then record the way
they treat other people. After the children reach the age of 18, the data
could then be compared. If the behavior of only-children is indeed more
self-centered than the behavior of those with siblings, then we can say
that the hypothesis is true.
With the amount of technology we use in our world rapidly rising, and
children learning to use it at younger and younger ages (my son was a
pro with my smartphone at 2 years old!), you might have begun to
wonder how beneficial, or detrimental, it could all really be. One
hypothesis states, children who learn to use a computer will be better
students in school. We can analyze this with a simple longitudal study,
comparing the grades of those who learn how to use a computer to the
grades of those who do not over the course of their time in school. This
experiment could be conducted with an experimental design, choosing
which classes of children to teach to use the computer with more indepth skill than they would learn simply by playing on the computer at
home. The independent variable would be whether or not the child
received formal computer training, which would affect the dependent
variable, the childs grades. The data collected from this experiment
would result from a more naturalistic observation, as the children
would continue in their other studies as normal, not in any way
specially structured for the experiment. At the end of a set time frame,
say one school year, we could then compare the grades of the children
who received the specialized computer training to the grades of those
who did not. If the grades of the children who learned to use a
computer are higher than the grades of those who did not, then we can
say that the hypothesis is true.
As a child, I was always encouraged to find something I loved to do
and find a way to make a living off of it, rather than just picking any old
job. My parents wanted me to make sure I never felt stuck in a deadend job with no way out, but that I could enjoy what I do and not

simply work because I have to. The hypothesis we will set an

experiment for here states, Adults who enjoy their work will live
longer. A longitudal study would likely work best here, as we can
survey individuals about their happiness with their job(s) over the
course of their lifetime and then compare it to their ages when they
pass away. In this instance, we would use a correlational design as we
can neither influence what jobs people have nor their happiness within
their job in order to affect the dependent variable, the length of their
life. As stated above, the data collection method that would be most
accurate would be to use self-reports, or surveys, to ask the individuals
about how happy they are with their job. The surveys could be
quantified with a numeric scale so that the data could be graphed with
raw numbers. These number scores could then be compared with the
age of the person at the time of their death. If, at the end of the data
collection period, people whose survey scores indicated that they were
happy in their jobs sustained a longer life, then we can say that the
hypothesis is true.
The final hypothesis we will look at is, Older people with close family
relationships will remain healthier. The simplest way to define older
people would be to use the age the United States defines a senior as:
65 years. Close family may be a little more difficult to define, so we
will create our own definition. We will say that family members who
visit or call at least once a week can be considered close family.
Finally, we need to define healthier. A persons health can usually be
determined through physiological tests, such as measuring heart rate,
blood pressure, and respiratory rate both in a resting state and during
or immediately after exercising. Those whose vital signs remain closer
to what is medically considered normal will be defined as healthier
than those whose vitals stray from normal. A longitudal study would be
the best fit to watch the health of the older people over the course of
their senior years. Since we cannot manipulate the closeness of family
members, which would be the independent variable, we cannot call
this an experimental design. Rather, it would be considered a
correlational design, as we would observe the closeness of family
members as they relate to the individuals health as they already
occur. Individual testing would be the best data collection method, first
asking the subjects to allow medical professionals to obtain a set of
vitals (heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate) while they are
in a relaxed state. Then after they perform some physical activity, such
as walking or running on a treadmill for 10 minutes, the medical staff
would collect another set of vitals. The numbers could then be used to
quantify each patients health. After that, we would then be able to
compare the patients health to the closeness of their family. If the
individuals whose families contact them more frequently prove to have
better health, then we can say that the hypothesis is true.

At first, the prospect of adding more steps to the scientific method

we all learned in elementary school seems daunting, learning how to
break down the experimentation process into manageable pieces can
actually prove to be very beneficial. Deciding which research
strategies, designs, and data collection methods to include in your
work can help to eliminate unnecessary variables and unwanted
interference in the experiments. Taking a moment to deconstruct the
experimentation process will reduce the need for re-experimentation
that takes more funding, time, and other valuable resources.
I chose this option for two primary reasons. First, because I am rather
introverted and prefer to do as much in my life as I can without relying
on people I do not know. It can even be difficult for me sometimes to
request assistance from people I do know. With the recent death of my
husband, I have been especially in such a mood of not wanting to deal
with other people and their opinions. This option was the best fit for me
as it mostly relied on my own intuition and intelligence, with help from
the textbook and the internet rather than from people. The second
reason for my choosing this option was that I had a severe time
constraint. After beginning the class late, I had little time to orient
myself to the structure of this course, and thus little time to interview
people for the other options, even if I had wanted to.
I learned many things from writing this paper, mainly terms that I
had never heard before, such as the different types of studies, designs,
and data collection methods. I have known since I was small the rote
structure of the scientific method, but I had not realized that setting up
the experiment could be broken down into much nicer bite-sized
pieces! It was very eye-opening. I found that I picked up on the new
terms easily and was able to apply them to the given hypotheses with
little difficulty. Some provided a bit of a challenge as the experiments
could have been taken in several different directions. However, in order
to somewhat simplify things, I chose to take one direction with each
hypothesis. I believe that writing this paper helped me towards
achieving course objectives #1 and #2. I learned quite a bit about
using research methods to gather empirical evidence, and also to use
them to better understand human development.

References:
(1)Definitions obtained from Human Development: A Life-Span
View 5th edition, Robert V. Kail and John C. Cavanaugh, Chapter
1.
(2)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adolescence