Final answer:
Natural vs. contrived pertains to the method of naturalistic observation, where behaviors are observed in natural settings providing high ecological validity. Contrived observation is when conditions are created by the researcher, contrasting with the authentic environments of naturalistic observation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The classification of natural vs. contrived falls under the method of observation known as naturalistic observation. In naturalistic observation, behaviors and interactions are observed in their natural environment without manipulation by the observer. For instance, a psychologist observing children at play in a playground is conducting a naturalistic observation. The key advantage of this method is the high degree of ecological validity, meaning the findings are more likely to be representative of real-world conditions because the behaviors are genuine and not influenced by being part of a study.
Contrived observation, by contrast, refers to a setting where conditions are deliberately created or manipulated by the researcher. While naturalistic observation leads to honesty of data collection in realistic settings, it does not allow for much control and often requires more time and money to perform effectively. This type of research strives for tools that are both reliable and valid for collecting true-to-life information.