Final answer:
The statement is false; naturalistic observation, not laboratory settings, are more appropriate for observing individuals without controlling the situation, as they allow collection of data in real-life contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a laboratory setting would be most appropriate if a researcher is observing individuals without attempting to control the situation is false. Such scenarios are better suited to naturalistic observation studies, where observers collect data in real-world settings without interference. In laboratory settings, researchers typically conduct experiments, where they do have control over variables to determine cause and effect. Whereas naturalistic observation allows for the collection of valid, true-to-life information, it does not allow for control over variables, making it difficult to deduce causality. Naturalistic observation provides ecological validity, which is advantageous for generalizing findings to real-world situations. However, there are challenges related to control and the potential for the observed behavior not occurring as anticipated.