Question

A contrived observational setting, as compared to a natural setting

a. usually speeds the data collection process.
b. has greater external validity.
c. results in higher cost research.
d. limits the use of electrical or mechanical equipment.
e. involves waiting for the phenomenon of interest to occur.

Answer 1

Contrived observational settings usually speed up the data collection process, but may have limitations in external validity.

Step-by-step explanation:

Naturalistic observation studies have the benefit of collecting honest data in a realistic setting, providing higher external validity. However, they can be difficult to set up and control, and often require more time and money to perform. The major downside is the lack of control over when the observed behavior occurs. On the other hand, contrived observational settings, as compared to natural settings, are usually faster in data collection because the researcher can control the environment and manipulate variables. They may have limitations in external validity and can be more expensive due to the need for specialized equipment. Therefore, the correct answer to the given question would be:

a. Usually speeds the data collection process.

Answer 2

A contrived observational setting, as compared to a natural setting. Therefore, the correct answer is option a. usually speed up the data collection process.

Step-by-step explanation:

Conducting research in a contrived observational setting involves intentionally creating a specific environment to observe and collect data. In such settings, researchers have greater control over variables, allowing for a more efficient and structured data collection process. Contrived settings often eliminate the unpredictability associated with natural settings, enabling researchers to manipulate conditions and expedite the data collection timeline.

The speedier data collection in contrived settings is advantageous for experimental studies, where researchers aim to isolate and examine specific variables. This efficiency comes at the cost of potentially sacrificing external validity, as findings from contrived settings may not fully generalize to real-world, natural scenarios. While contrived settings facilitate controlled observations, they may lack the ecological validity inherent in natural settings, limiting the extent to which research findings can be applied to broader contexts.

In summary, the choice of a contrived observational setting is often driven by the need for precise control over variables and a faster-paced data collection process. However, researchers must weigh the benefits of efficiency against potential compromises in external validity when opting for such settings in their studies.