descriptive research psychology definition

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Descriptive Research in Psychology

Sometimes you need to dig deeper than the pure statistics

John Loeppky is a freelance journalist based in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, who has written about disability and health for outlets of all kinds.

FG Trade / E+/ Getty

Types of Descriptive Research and the Methods Used

• Advantages & Limitations of Descriptive Research

Best Practices for Conducting Descriptive Research

Descriptive research is one of the key tools needed in any psychology researcher’s toolbox in order to create and lead a project that is both equitable and effective. Because psychology, as a field, loves definitions, let’s start with one. The University of Minnesota’s Introduction to Psychology defines this type of research as one that is “...designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs.” That's pretty broad, so what does that mean in practice? Dr. Heather Derry-Vick (PhD) , an assistant professor in psychiatry at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, helps us put it into perspective. "Descriptive research really focuses on defining, understanding, and measuring a phenomenon or an experience," she says. "Not trying to change a person's experience or outcome, or even really looking at the mechanisms for why that might be happening, but more so describing an experience or a process as it unfolds naturally.”

Within the descriptive research methodology there are multiple types, including the following.

Descriptive Survey Research

This involves going beyond a typical tool like a LIkert Scale —where you typically place your response to a prompt on a one to five scale. We already know that scales like this can be ineffective, particularly when studying pain, for example.

When that's the case, using a descriptive methodology can help dig deeper into how a person is thinking, feeling, and acting rather than simply quantifying it in a way that might be unclear or confusing.

Descriptive Observational Research

Think of observational research like an ethically-focused version of people-watching. One example would be watching the patterns of children on a playground—perhaps when looking at a concept like risky play or seeking to observe social behaviors between children of different ages.

Descriptive Case Study Research

A descriptive approach to a case study is akin to a biography of a person, honing in on the experiences of a small group to extrapolate to larger themes. We most commonly see descriptive case studies when those in the psychology field are using past clients as an example to illustrate a point.

Correlational Descriptive Research

While descriptive research is often about the here and now, this form of the methodology allows researchers to make connections between groups of people. As an example from her research, Derry-Vick says she uses this method to identify how gender might play a role in cancer scan anxiety, aka scanxiety.

Dr. Derry-Vick's research uses surveys and interviews to get a sense of how cancer patients are feeling and what they are experiencing both in the course of their treatment and in the lead-up to their next scan, which can be a significant source of stress.

David Marlon, PsyD, MBA , who works as a clinician and as CEO at Vegas Stronger, and whose research focused on leadership styles at community-based clinics, says that using descriptive research allowed him to get beyond the numbers.

In his case, that includes data points like how many unhoused people found stable housing over a certain period or how many people became drug-free—and identify the reasons for those changes.

Those [data points] are some practical, quantitative tools that are helpful. But when I question them on how safe they feel, when I question them on the depth of the bond or the therapeutic alliance, when I talk to them about their processing of traumas,  wellbeing...these are things that don't really fall on to a yes, no, or even on a Likert scale.

For the portion of his thesis that was focused on descriptive research, Marlon used semi-structured interviews to look at the how and the why of transformational leadership and its impact on clinics’ clients and staff.

Advantages & Limitations of Descriptive Research

So, if the advantages of using descriptive research include that it centers the research participants, gives us a clear picture of what is happening to a person in a particular moment,  and gives us very nuanced insights into how a particular situation is being perceived by the very person affected, are there drawbacks? Yes, there are. Dr. Derry-Vick says that it’s important to keep in mind that just because descriptive research tells us something is happening doesn’t mean it necessarily leads us to the resolution of a given problem.

I think that, by design, the descriptive research might not tell you why a phenomenon is happening. So it might tell you, very well, how often it's happening, or what the levels are, or help you understand it in depth. But that may or may not always tell you information about the causes or mechanisms for why something is happening.

Another limitation she identifies is that it also can’t tell you, on its own, whether a particular treatment pathway is having the desired effect.

“Descriptive research in and of itself can't really tell you whether a specific approach is going to be helpful until you take in a different approach to actually test it.”

Marlon, who believes in a multi-disciplinary approach, says that his subfield—addictions—is one where descriptive research had its limits, but helps readers go beyond preconceived notions of what addictions treatment looks and feels like when it is effective. “If we talked to and interviewed and got descriptive information from the clinicians and the clients, a much more precise picture would be painted, showing the need for a client's specific multidisciplinary approach augmented with a variety of modalities," he says. "If you tried to look at my discipline in a pure quantitative approach , it wouldn't begin to tell the real story.”

Because you’re controlling far fewer variables than other forms of research, it’s important to identify whether those you are describing, your study participants, should be informed that they are part of a study.

For example, if you’re observing and describing who is buying what in a grocery store to identify patterns, then you might not need to identify yourself.

However, if you’re asking people about their fear of certain treatment, or how their marginalized identities impact their mental health in a particular way, there is far more of a pressure to think deeply about how you, as the researcher, are connected to the people you are researching.

Many descriptive research projects use interviews as a form of research gathering and, as a result, descriptive research that is focused on this type of data gathering also has ethical and practical concerns attached. Thankfully, there are plenty of guides from established researchers about how to best conduct these interviews and/or formulate surveys .

While descriptive research has its limits, it is commonly used by researchers to get a clear vantage point on what is happening in a given situation.

Tools like surveys, interviews, and observation are often employed to dive deeper into a given issue and really highlight the human element in psychological research. At its core, descriptive research is rooted in a collaborative style that allows deeper insights when used effectively.

University of Minnesota. Introduction to Psychology .

By John Loeppky John Loeppky is a freelance journalist based in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, who has written about disability and health for outlets of all kinds.

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Descriptive Research in Psychology: Methods, Applications, and Importance

Picture a psychologist’s toolkit, brimming with an array of methods designed to unravel the mysteries of the human mind—among them, the unsung hero of descriptive research, a powerful lens through which we can observe, understand, and illuminate the vast landscape of human behavior and cognition. This versatile approach to psychological inquiry serves as a cornerstone in our quest to comprehend the intricacies of the human experience, offering insights that shape our understanding of everything from child development to social interactions.

Descriptive research in psychology is like a skilled artist’s sketch, capturing the essence of human behavior and mental processes with precision and depth. It’s the foundation upon which many psychological theories are built, providing a rich tapestry of observations that inform more complex studies. Unlike experimental methods that manipulate variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships, descriptive research aims to paint a vivid picture of what is, rather than what could be.

Defining Descriptive Research in Psychology: More Than Meets the Eye

At its core, descriptive research in psychology is a systematic approach to observing and cataloging human behavior, thoughts, and emotions in their natural context. It’s the scientific equivalent of people-watching, but with a structured methodology and a keen eye for detail. This type of research doesn’t just scratch the surface; it dives deep into the nuances of human experience, capturing the subtleties that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The beauty of descriptive research lies in its versatility. It can take many forms, each offering a unique perspective on the human psyche. From participant observation in psychology , where researchers immerse themselves in the world they’re studying, to meticulous case studies that explore individual experiences in depth, descriptive research adapts to the questions at hand.

One of the primary goals of descriptive research is to provide a comprehensive account of a phenomenon. It’s not about proving or disproving hypotheses; instead, it’s about gathering rich, detailed information that can later inform more targeted inquiries. This approach is particularly valuable when exploring new or understudied areas of psychology, serving as a springboard for future research.

Methods and Techniques: The Descriptive Researcher’s Toolkit

The methods employed in descriptive research are as diverse as the questions they seek to answer. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key tools in the descriptive researcher’s arsenal:

1. Observational methods: Picture a researcher sitting quietly in a playground, noting how children interact. This direct observation can yield invaluable insights into social development and behavior patterns.

2. Case studies: These in-depth explorations of individual experiences can shed light on rare psychological phenomena or provide detailed accounts of therapeutic interventions.

3. Surveys and questionnaires: By tapping into the thoughts and opinions of large groups, researchers can identify trends and patterns in attitudes and behaviors.

4. Archival research in psychology : Delving into historical records and existing datasets can uncover long-term trends and provide context for current psychological phenomena.

5. Naturalistic observation: This method involves studying behavior in its natural environment, without interference from the researcher. It’s like being a fly on the wall, capturing authentic human interactions.

Each of these methods has its strengths and limitations, and skilled researchers often combine multiple approaches to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their subject matter.

Applications: Descriptive Research in Action

The applications of descriptive research in psychology are as varied as human behavior itself. Let’s explore how this approach illuminates different areas of psychological study:

In developmental psychology, descriptive research plays a crucial role in understanding how children grow and change over time. Longitudinal studies in psychology , which follow the same group of individuals over an extended period, provide invaluable insights into the trajectory of human development.

Social psychology relies heavily on descriptive methods to explore how people interact and influence one another. For instance, observational studies in public spaces can reveal patterns of nonverbal communication or group dynamics that might be difficult to capture in a laboratory setting.

Clinical psychology often employs case studies to delve into the complexities of mental health disorders. These detailed accounts can provide rich, contextual information about the lived experiences of individuals dealing with psychological challenges.

In educational psychology, descriptive research helps identify effective teaching strategies and learning patterns. Classroom observations and student surveys can inform educational policies and practices, ultimately improving learning outcomes.

Real-world examples of descriptive studies abound. Consider the famous “Bobo doll” experiments by Albert Bandura, which used observational methods to explore how children learn aggressive behaviors. While not strictly descriptive in nature, these studies incorporated descriptive elements that provided crucial insights into social learning theory.

Strengths and Limitations: A Balanced View

Like any research method, descriptive research has its strengths and limitations. On the plus side, it offers a level of ecological validity that’s hard to match in controlled experiments. By studying behavior in natural settings, researchers can capture the complexity and nuance of real-world phenomena.

Descriptive research is also particularly adept at identifying patterns and generating hypotheses. It’s often the first step in a longer research process, providing the foundation for more targeted experimental studies. This approach can be especially valuable when dealing with sensitive topics or populations that might be difficult to study in more controlled settings.

However, it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of descriptive research. One of the primary challenges is the directionality problem in psychology . While descriptive studies can identify relationships between variables, they can’t establish causation. This limitation can sometimes lead to misinterpretation of results or overreaching conclusions.

Another potential pitfall is researcher bias. The subjective nature of some descriptive methods, particularly observational studies, can introduce unintended biases into the data collection and interpretation process. Researchers must be vigilant in maintaining objectivity and employing strategies to minimize bias.

When compared to experimental research, descriptive studies may seem less rigorous or definitive. However, this perception overlooks the unique value that descriptive research brings to the table. While experiments are excellent for testing specific hypotheses and establishing causal relationships, they often lack the richness and contextual detail that descriptive methods provide.

Conducting a Descriptive Study: From Planning to Publication

Embarking on a descriptive research project requires careful planning and execution. Here’s a roadmap for aspiring researchers:

1. Define your research question: Start with a clear, focused question that guides your inquiry. What specific aspect of human behavior or cognition do you want to explore?

2. Choose your method: Select the descriptive technique(s) best suited to answer your research question. Will you be conducting surveys, observing behavior, or delving into case studies?

3. Develop your data collection tools: Create robust instruments for gathering information, whether it’s a well-designed questionnaire or a structured observation protocol.

4. Recruit participants: If your study involves human subjects, ensure you have a representative sample and obtain proper informed consent.

5. Collect data: Implement your chosen method(s) with consistency and attention to detail. Remember, the quality of your data will directly impact the value of your findings.

6. Analyze and interpret: Once you’ve gathered your data, it’s time to make sense of it. Look for patterns, themes, and relationships within your observations.

7. Draw conclusions: Based on your analysis, what can you say about the phenomenon you’ve studied? Be careful not to overstate your findings or imply causation where none has been established.

Throughout this process, it’s crucial to keep ethical considerations at the forefront. Respect for participants’ privacy, confidentiality, and well-being should guide every step of your research.

The Future of Descriptive Research: Evolving Methods and New Frontiers

As we look to the future, descriptive research in psychology continues to evolve and adapt to new challenges and opportunities. Emerging technologies are opening up exciting possibilities for data collection and analysis. For instance, wearable devices and smartphone apps are enabling researchers to gather real-time data on behavior and physiological responses in natural settings.

The rise of big data and advanced analytics is also transforming descriptive research. By analyzing vast datasets of human behavior online, researchers can identify patterns and trends on a scale previously unimaginable. However, this new frontier also brings ethical challenges, particularly around privacy and consent.

Another promising direction is the integration of descriptive methods with other research approaches. Quasi-experiments in psychology , which combine elements of descriptive and experimental research, offer a middle ground that can leverage the strengths of both approaches.

As we continue to unravel the complexities of the human mind, descriptive research will undoubtedly play a crucial role. Its ability to capture the richness and diversity of human experience makes it an indispensable tool in the psychologist’s toolkit.

In conclusion, descriptive research in psychology is far more than just a preliminary step in the scientific process. It’s a powerful approach that provides the foundation for our understanding of human behavior and mental processes. By offering detailed, contextual insights into the human experience, descriptive research helps us identify patterns, generate hypotheses, and ultimately advance our knowledge of psychology.

From exploring the intricacies of child development to unraveling the dynamics of social interactions, descriptive research continues to illuminate the vast landscape of human psychology. As we move forward, the challenge for researchers will be to harness new technologies and methodologies while maintaining the core strengths of descriptive approaches – their ability to capture the nuance, complexity, and diversity of human experience.

In the end, it’s this deep, rich understanding of human behavior that drives psychological science forward, informing theories, shaping interventions, and ultimately helping us to better understand ourselves and others. As we continue to explore the fascinating world of the human mind, descriptive research will remain an essential tool, helping us to see the world through the eyes of those we study and to tell their stories with clarity, empathy, and scientific rigor.

References:

1. Coolican, H. (2014). Research methods and statistics in psychology. Psychology Press.

2. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

3. Goodwin, C. J., & Goodwin, K. A. (2016). Research in psychology: Methods and design. John Wiley & Sons.

4. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.

5. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical research: Planning and design. Pearson.

6. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and methodology. John Wiley & Sons.

7. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

8. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill.

9. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2015). Research methods in psychology. McGraw-Hill Education.

10. Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Sage.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

CEN Psychology: Understanding Childhood Emotional Neglect and Its Impact on…

WKM Psychology: Exploring the Wilhelm-Kempf Method in Mental Health

Traumatic Brain Injury Counseling Psychology: Effective Approaches for Recovery and…

Learning Disability Definition in Psychology: A Comprehensive Exploration

Behavior Definition in Psychology: Understanding Human Actions and Responses

Metronome Uses in Psychology: Exploring Rhythmic Applications in Mental Health

Encounter for Psychological Evaluation ICD-10: A Comprehensive Guide for Healthcare…

Evaluative Conditioning in Psychology: Shaping Attitudes and Behaviors

OT Psychology: Exploring the Intersection of Occupational Therapy and Mental…

Congruence Psychology: Exploring Authenticity and Self-Alignment in Mental Health

Psychological Research

Descriptive Research

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate between descriptive, experimental, and correlational research
• Explain the strengths and weaknesses of case studies, naturalistic observation, and surveys

There are many research methods available to psychologists in their efforts to understand, describe, and explain behavior and the cognitive and biological processes that underlie it. Some methods rely on observational techniques. Other approaches involve interactions between the researcher and the individuals who are being studied—ranging from a series of simple questions to extensive, in-depth interviews—to well-controlled experiments.

The three main categories of psychological research are descriptive, correlational, and experimental research. Research studies that do not test specific relationships between variables are called descriptive, or qualitative, studies . These studies are used to describe general or specific behaviors and attributes that are observed and measured. In the early stages of research it might be difficult to form a hypothesis, especially when there is not any existing literature in the area. In these situations designing an experiment would be premature, as the question of interest is not yet clearly defined as a hypothesis. Often a researcher will begin with a non-experimental approach, such as a descriptive study, to gather more information about the topic before designing an experiment or correlational study to address a specific hypothesis. Descriptive research is distinct from correlational research , in which psychologists formally test whether a relationship exists between two or more variables. Experimental research goes a step further beyond descriptive and correlational research and randomly assigns people to different conditions, using hypothesis testing to make inferences about how these conditions affect behavior. It aims to determine if one variable directly impacts and causes another. Correlational and experimental research both typically use hypothesis testing, whereas descriptive research does not.

Each of these research methods has unique strengths and weaknesses, and each method may only be appropriate for certain types of research questions. For example, studies that rely primarily on observation produce incredible amounts of information, but the ability to apply this information to the larger population is somewhat limited because of small sample sizes. Survey research, on the other hand, allows researchers to easily collect data from relatively large samples. While this allows for results to be generalized to the larger population more easily, the information that can be collected on any given survey is somewhat limited and subject to problems associated with any type of self-reported data. Some researchers conduct archival research by using existing records. While this can be a fairly inexpensive way to collect data that can provide insight into a number of research questions, researchers using this approach have no control on how or what kind of data was collected.

Correlational research can find a relationship between two variables, but the only way a researcher can claim that the relationship between the variables is cause and effect is to perform an experiment. In experimental research, which will be discussed later in the text, there is a tremendous amount of control over variables of interest. While this is a powerful approach, experiments are often conducted in very artificial settings. This calls into question the validity of experimental findings with regard to how they would apply in real-world settings. In addition, many of the questions that psychologists would like to answer cannot be pursued through experimental research because of ethical concerns.

The three main types of descriptive studies are case studies, naturalistic observation, and surveys.

Case Studies

In 2011, the New York Times published a feature story on Krista and Tatiana Hogan, Canadian twin girls. These particular twins are unique because Krista and Tatiana are conjoined twins, connected at the head. There is evidence that the two girls are connected in a part of the brain called the thalamus, which is a major sensory relay center. Most incoming sensory information is sent through the thalamus before reaching higher regions of the cerebral cortex for processing.

Link to Learning

To learn more about Krista and Tatiana, watch this video about their lives as conjoined twins.

The implications of this potential connection mean that it might be possible for one twin to experience the sensations of the other twin. For instance, if Krista is watching a particularly funny television program, Tatiana might smile or laugh even if she is not watching the program. This particular possibility has piqued the interest of many neuroscientists who seek to understand how the brain uses sensory information.

These twins represent an enormous resource in the study of the brain, and since their condition is very rare, it is likely that as long as their family agrees, scientists will follow these girls very closely throughout their lives to gain as much information as possible (Dominus, 2011).

In observational research, scientists are conducting a clinical or case study when they focus on one person or just a few individuals. Indeed, some scientists spend their entire careers studying just 10–20 individuals. Why would they do this? Obviously, when they focus their attention on a very small number of people, they can gain a tremendous amount of insight into those cases. The richness of information that is collected in clinical or case studies is unmatched by any other single research method. This allows the researcher to have a very deep understanding of the individuals and the particular phenomenon being studied.

If clinical or case studies provide so much information, why are they not more frequent among researchers? As it turns out, the major benefit of this particular approach is also a weakness. As mentioned earlier, this approach is often used when studying individuals who are interesting to researchers because they have a rare characteristic. Therefore, the individuals who serve as the focus of case studies are not like most other people. If scientists ultimately want to explain all behavior, focusing attention on such a special group of people can make it difficult to generalize any observations to the larger population as a whole. Generalizing refers to the ability to apply the findings of a particular research project to larger segments of society. Again, case studies provide enormous amounts of information, but since the cases are so specific, the potential to apply what’s learned to the average person may be very limited.

Naturalistic Observation

If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances are that almost everyone in the classroom will raise their hand, but do you think hand washing after every trip to the restroom is really that universal?

This is very similar to the phenomenon mentioned earlier in this module: many individuals do not feel comfortable answering a question honestly. But if we are committed to finding out the facts about hand washing, we have other options available to us.

Suppose we send a classmate into the restroom to actually watch whether everyone washes their hands after using the restroom. Will our observer blend into the restroom environment by wearing a white lab coat, sitting with a clipboard, and staring at the sinks? We want our researcher to be inconspicuous—perhaps standing at one of the sinks pretending to put in contact lenses while secretly recording the relevant information. This type of observational study is called naturalistic observation : observing behavior in its natural setting. To better understand peer exclusion, Suzanne Fanger collaborated with colleagues at the University of Texas to observe the behavior of preschool children on a playground. How did the observers remain inconspicuous over the duration of the study? They equipped a few of the children with wireless microphones (which the children quickly forgot about) and observed while taking notes from a distance. Also, the children in that particular preschool (a “laboratory preschool”) were accustomed to having observers on the playground (Fanger, Frankel, & Hazen, 2012).

It is critical that the observer be as unobtrusive and as inconspicuous as possible: when people know they are being watched, they are less likely to behave naturally. If you have any doubt about this, ask yourself how your driving behavior might differ in two situations: In the first situation, you are driving down a deserted highway during the middle of the day; in the second situation, you are being followed by a police car down the same deserted highway (Figure 1).

It should be pointed out that naturalistic observation is not limited to research involving humans. Indeed, some of the best-known examples of naturalistic observation involve researchers going into the field to observe various kinds of animals in their own environments. As with human studies, the researchers maintain their distance and avoid interfering with the animal subjects so as not to influence their natural behaviors. Scientists have used this technique to study social hierarchies and interactions among animals ranging from ground squirrels to gorillas. The information provided by these studies is invaluable in understanding how those animals organize socially and communicate with one another. The anthropologist Jane Goodall, for example, spent nearly five decades observing the behavior of chimpanzees in Africa (Figure 2). As an illustration of the types of concerns that a researcher might encounter in naturalistic observation, some scientists criticized Goodall for giving the chimps names instead of referring to them by numbers—using names was thought to undermine the emotional detachment required for the objectivity of the study (McKie, 2010).

The greatest benefit of naturalistic observation is the validity, or accuracy, of information collected unobtrusively in a natural setting. Having individuals behave as they normally would in a given situation means that we have a higher degree of ecological validity, or realism, than we might achieve with other research approaches. Therefore, our ability to generalize the findings of the research to real-world situations is enhanced. If done correctly, we need not worry about people or animals modifying their behavior simply because they are being observed. Sometimes, people may assume that reality programs give us a glimpse into authentic human behavior. However, the principle of inconspicuous observation is violated as reality stars are followed by camera crews and are interviewed on camera for personal confessionals. Given that environment, we must doubt how natural and realistic their behaviors are.

The major downside of naturalistic observation is that they are often difficult to set up and control. In our restroom study, what if you stood in the restroom all day prepared to record people’s hand washing behavior and no one came in? Or, what if you have been closely observing a troop of gorillas for weeks only to find that they migrated to a new place while you were sleeping in your tent? The benefit of realistic data comes at a cost. As a researcher you have no control of when (or if) you have behavior to observe. In addition, this type of observational research often requires significant investments of time, money, and a good dose of luck.

Sometimes studies involve structured observation. In these cases, people are observed while engaging in set, specific tasks. An excellent example of structured observation comes from Strange Situation by Mary Ainsworth (you will read more about this in the module on lifespan development). The Strange Situation is a procedure used to evaluate attachment styles that exist between an infant and caregiver. In this scenario, caregivers bring their infants into a room filled with toys. The Strange Situation involves a number of phases, including a stranger coming into the room, the caregiver leaving the room, and the caregiver’s return to the room. The infant’s behavior is closely monitored at each phase, but it is the behavior of the infant upon being reunited with the caregiver that is most telling in terms of characterizing the infant’s attachment style with the caregiver.

Another potential problem in observational research is observer bias . Generally, people who act as observers are closely involved in the research project and may unconsciously skew their observations to fit their research goals or expectations. To protect against this type of bias, researchers should have clear criteria established for the types of behaviors recorded and how those behaviors should be classified. In addition, researchers often compare observations of the same event by multiple observers, in order to test inter-rater reliability : a measure of reliability that assesses the consistency of observations by different observers.

Often, psychologists develop surveys as a means of gathering data. Surveys are lists of questions to be answered by research participants, and can be delivered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires, administered electronically, or conducted verbally (Figure 3). Generally, the survey itself can be completed in a short time, and the ease of administering a survey makes it easy to collect data from a large number of people.

Surveys allow researchers to gather data from larger samples than may be afforded by other research methods . A sample is a subset of individuals selected from a population , which is the overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in. Researchers study the sample and seek to generalize their findings to the population.

There is both strength and weakness of the survey in comparison to case studies. By using surveys, we can collect information from a larger sample of people. A larger sample is better able to reflect the actual diversity of the population, thus allowing better generalizability. Therefore, if our sample is sufficiently large and diverse, we can assume that the data we collect from the survey can be generalized to the larger population with more certainty than the information collected through a case study. However, given the greater number of people involved, we are not able to collect the same depth of information on each person that would be collected in a case study.

Another potential weakness of surveys is something we touched on earlier in this module: people don’t always give accurate responses. They may lie, misremember, or answer questions in a way that they think makes them look good. For example, people may report drinking less alcohol than is actually the case.

Any number of research questions can be answered through the use of surveys. One real-world example is the research conducted by Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl, and Griffin (2012) about the backlash against the US Arab-American community following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Jenkins and colleagues wanted to determine to what extent these negative attitudes toward Arab-Americans still existed nearly a decade after the attacks occurred. In one study, 140 research participants filled out a survey with 10 questions, including questions asking directly about the participant’s overt prejudicial attitudes toward people of various ethnicities. The survey also asked indirect questions about how likely the participant would be to interact with a person of a given ethnicity in a variety of settings (such as, “How likely do you think it is that you would introduce yourself to a person of Arab-American descent?”). The results of the research suggested that participants were unwilling to report prejudicial attitudes toward any ethnic group. However, there were significant differences between their pattern of responses to questions about social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to other ethnic groups: they indicated less willingness for social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to the other ethnic groups. This suggested that the participants harbored subtle forms of prejudice against Arab-Americans, despite their assertions that this was not the case (Jenkins et al., 2012).

Think It Over

A friend of yours is working part-time in a local pet store. Your friend has become increasingly interested in how dogs normally communicate and interact with each other, and is thinking of visiting a local veterinary clinic to see how dogs interact in the waiting room. After reading this section, do you think this is the best way to better understand such interactions? Do you have any suggestions that might result in more valid data?

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Approaches to Research. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-2-approaches-to-research . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction.
• Descriptive Research. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/researching-psychology-2/types-of-research-studies-27/descriptive-research-124-12659/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

research studies that do not test specific relationships between variables; they are used to describe general or specific behaviors and attributes that are observed and measured

tests whether a relationship exists between two or more variables

tests a hypothesis to determine cause and effect relationships

observational research study focusing on one or a few people

observation of behavior in its natural setting

inferring that the results for a sample apply to the larger population

when observations may be skewed to align with observer expectations

measure of agreement among observers on how they record and classify a particular event

list of questions to be answered by research participants—given as paper-and-pencil questionnaires, administered electronically, or conducted verbally—allowing researchers to collect data from a large number of people

the collection of individuals on which we collect data.

a larger collection of individuals that we would like to generalize our results to.

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

All Subjects

study guides for every class

That actually explain what's on your next test, descriptive research, from class:, intro to psychology.

Descriptive research is a type of study that aims to observe, describe, and document aspects of a situation as it naturally occurs. It focuses on providing a detailed, accurate, and factual representation of the characteristics of a particular individual, event, or phenomenon without attempting to explain or control the observed variables.

congrats on reading the definition of Descriptive Research . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• Descriptive research does not aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships but rather to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs.
• Descriptive studies can utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods, such as observations, interviews, surveys, and document analysis.
• The primary goal of descriptive research is to accurately portray the characteristics of a particular individual, group, or situation, without manipulating or controlling variables.
• Descriptive studies can help identify patterns, trends, and relationships within a phenomenon, but they do not provide explanations for why these patterns or relationships exist.
• Descriptive research is often a precursor to more advanced forms of research, such as correlational or experimental studies, as it provides a foundation for understanding the phenomenon under investigation.

Review Questions

• Descriptive research differs from correlational and experimental studies in its primary focus and objectives. While correlational research examines the relationships between variables and experimental studies establish cause-and-effect relationships, descriptive research aims to provide a detailed, factual, and accurate representation of the characteristics of a particular individual, event, or phenomenon as it naturally occurs, without attempting to explain or control the observed variables. Descriptive research is often a preliminary step that lays the groundwork for more advanced forms of research by identifying patterns, trends, and relationships within a phenomenon.
• Descriptive research can utilize a variety of methods and techniques, including observations, interviews, surveys, and document analysis. Observational research involves systematically observing and recording people's behavior, actions, and interactions in their natural environment without intervention. Case studies provide an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, or event, offering a detailed, contextual analysis. Survey research collects data from a sample of individuals through questionnaires or interviews to gain insights about the target population and their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. These different methods and techniques used in descriptive research contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon by providing detailed, factual, and accurate representations of the characteristics, patterns, and relationships within the observed situation.
• The strengths of descriptive research in the context of understanding human behavior and psychological processes lie in its ability to provide rich, detailed, and contextual information about a phenomenon. By observing and documenting the characteristics, patterns, and relationships within a specific situation or individual, descriptive research can uncover insights that may not be readily apparent through other research approaches. However, the limitations of descriptive research include its inability to establish cause-and-effect relationships and its reliance on subjective interpretations of the observed data. Additionally, the lack of manipulation or control of variables in descriptive research can make it challenging to generalize the findings to a broader population. Nonetheless, descriptive research remains an essential component of psychological inquiry, as it lays the foundation for more advanced forms of research and contributes to a deeper understanding of human behavior and psychological processes.

Related terms

Observational research involves systematically observing and recording people's behavior, actions, and interactions in their natural environment without intervening or manipulating the situation.

Case Study : A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, or event, which provides a detailed, contextual analysis of a limited number of conditions and their relationships.

Survey research involves collecting data from a sample of individuals through the use of questionnaires or interviews to gain insights about the target population and their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or behaviors.

" Descriptive Research " also found in:

Subjects ( 9 ).

• Advertising Strategy
• Communication Research Methods
• Intrapreneurship
• Intro to Marketing
• Market Research Tools
• Marketing Research
• Marketing Strategy
• Principles of Marketing
• Professionalism and Research in Nursing

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

Cross-Sectional Study: Definition, Designs & Examples

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A cross-sectional study design is a type of observational study, or descriptive research, that involves analyzing information about a population at a specific point in time.

This design measures the prevalence of an outcome of interest in a defined population. It provides a snapshot of the characteristics of the population at a single point in time.

It can be used to assess the prevalence of outcomes and exposures, determine relationships among variables, and generate hypotheses about causal connections between factors to be explored in experimental designs.

Typically, these studies are used to measure the prevalence of health outcomes and describe the characteristics of a population.

In this study, researchers examine a group of participants and depict what already exists in the population without manipulating any variables or interfering with the environment.

Cross-sectional studies aim to describe a variable , not measure it. They can be beneficial for describing a population or “taking a snapshot” of a group of individuals at a single moment in time.

In epidemiology and public health research, cross-sectional studies are used to assess exposure (cause) and disease (effect) and compare the rates of diseases and symptoms of an exposed group with an unexposed group.

Cross-sectional studies are also unique because researchers are able to look at numerous characteristics at once.

For example, a cross-sectional study could be used to investigate whether exposure to certain factors, such as overeating, might correlate to particular outcomes, such as obesity.

While this study cannot prove that overeating causes obesity, it can draw attention to a relationship that might be worth investigating.

Cross-sectional studies can be categorized based on the nature of the data collection and the type of data being sought.

Analytical Studies

In analytical cross-sectional studies, researchers investigate an association between two parameters. They collect data for exposures and outcomes at one specific time to measure an association between an exposure and a condition within a defined population.

The purpose of this type of study is to compare health outcome differences between exposed and unexposed individuals.

Descriptive Studies

• Descriptive cross-sectional studies are purely used to characterize and assess the prevalence and distribution of one or many health outcomes in a defined population.
• They can assess how frequently, widely, or severely a specific variable occurs throughout a specific demographic.
• This is the most common type of cross-sectional study.
• Evaluating the COVID-19 positivity rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated adolescents
• Investigating the prevalence of dysfunctional breathing in patients treated for asthma in primary care (Wang & Cheng, 2020)
• Analyzing whether individuals in a community have any history of mental illness and whether they have used therapy to help with their mental health
• Comparing grades of elementary school students whose parents come from different income levels
• Determining the association between gender and HIV status (Setia, 2016)
• Investigating suicide rates among individuals who have at least one parent with chronic depression
• Assessing the prevalence of HIV and risk behaviors in male sex workers (Shinde et al., 2009)
• Examining sleep quality and its demographic and psychological correlates among university students in Ethiopia (Lemma et al., 2012)
• Calculating what proportion of people served by a health clinic in a particular year have high cholesterol
• Analyzing college students’ distress levels with regard to their year level (Leahy et al., 2010)

Simple and Inexpensive

These studies are quick, cheap, and easy to conduct as they do not require any follow-up with subjects and can be done through self-report surveys.

Minimal room for error

Because all of the variables are analyzed at once, and data does not need to be collected multiple times, there will likely be fewer mistakes as a higher level of control is obtained.

Multiple variables and outcomes can be researched and compared at once

Researchers are able to look at numerous characteristics (ie, age, gender, ethnicity, and education level) in one study.

The data can be a starting point for future research

The information obtained from cross-sectional studies enables researchers to conduct further data analyses to explore any causal relationships in more depth.

Limitations

Does not help determine cause and effect.

Cross-sectional studies can be influenced by an antecedent consequent bias which occurs when it cannot be determined whether exposure preceded disease. (Alexander et al.)

Report bias is probable

Cross-sectional studies rely on surveys and questionnaires, which might not result in accurate reporting as there is no way to verify the information presented.

The timing of the snapshot is not always representative

Cross-sectional studies do not provide information from before or after the report was recorded and only offer a single snapshot of a point in time.

It cannot be used to analyze behavior over a period of time

Cross-sectional studies are designed to look at a variable at a particular moment, while longitudinal studies are more beneficial for analyzing relationships over extended periods.

Cross-Sectional vs. Longitudinal

Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are observational and do not require any interference or manipulation of the study environment.

However, cross-sectional studies differ from longitudinal studies in that cross-sectional studies look at a characteristic of a population at a specific point in time, while longitudinal studies involve studying a population over an extended period.

Longitudinal studies require more time and resources and can be less valid as participants might quit the study before the data has been fully collected.

Unlike cross-sectional studies, researchers can use longitudinal data to detect changes in a population and, over time, establish patterns among subjects.

Cross-sectional studies can be done much quicker than longitudinal studies and are a good starting point to establish any associations between variables, while longitudinal studies are more timely but are necessary for studying cause and effect.

Alexander, L. K., Lopez, B., Ricchetti-Masterson, K., & Yeatts, K. B. (n.d.). Cross-sectional Studies. Eric Notebook. Retrieved from https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2015/07/nciph_ERIC8.pdf

Cherry, K. (2019, October 10). How Does the Cross-Sectional Research Method Work? Verywell Mind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cross-sectional-study-2794978

Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal studies. Institute for Work & Health. (2015, August). Retrieved from https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researchers-mean-by/cross-sectional-vs-longitudinal-studies

Leahy, C. M., Peterson, R. F., Wilson, I. G., Newbury, J. W., Tonkin, A. L., & Turnbull, D. (2010). Distress levels and self-reported treatment rates for medicine, law, psychology and mechanical engineering tertiary students: cross-sectional study. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 44(7), 608–615.

Lemma, S., Gelaye, B., Berhane, Y. et al. Sleep quality and its psychological correlates among university students in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 12, 237 (2012).

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations. Chest, 158(1S), S65–S71.

Setia M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian journal of dermatology, 61 (3), 261–264.

Shinde S, Setia MS, Row-Kavi A, Anand V, Jerajani H. Male sex workers: Are we ignoring a risk group in Mumbai, India? Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2009;75:41–6.

Further Information

• Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian journal of dermatology, 61(3), 261.
• Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. Bmj, 348.

1. Are cross-sectional studies qualitative or quantitative?

Cross-sectional studies can be either qualitative or quantitative , depending on the type of data they collect and how they analyze it. Often, the two approaches are combined in mixed-methods research to get a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

2. What’s the difference between cross-sectional and cohort studies?

A cohort study is a type of longitudinal study that samples a group of people with a common characteristic. One key difference is that cross-sectional studies measure a specific moment in time, whereas  cohort studies  follow individuals over extended periods.

Another difference between these two types of studies is the subject pool. In cross-sectional studies, researchers select a sample population and gather data to determine the prevalence of a problem.

Cohort studies, on the other hand, begin by selecting a population of individuals who are already at risk for a specific disease.

3. What’s the difference between cross-sectional and case-control studies?

Case-control studies differ from cross-sectional studies in that case-control studies compare groups retrospectively and cannot be used to calculate relative risk.

In these studies, researchers study one group of people who have developed a particular condition and compare them to a sample without the disease.

Case-control studies are used to determine what factors might be associated with the condition and help researchers form hypotheses about a population.

4. Does a cross-sectional study have a control group?

A cross-sectional study does not need to have a control group , as the population studied is not selected based on exposure.

In a cross-sectional study, data are collected from a sample of the target population at a specific point in time, and everyone in the sample is assessed in the same way. There isn’t a manipulation of variables or a control group as there would be in an experimental study design.

5. Is a cross-sectional study prospective or retrospective?

A cross-sectional study is generally considered neither prospective nor retrospective because it provides a “snapshot” of a population at a single point in time.

Cross-sectional studies are not designed to follow individuals forward in time ( prospective ) or look back at historical data ( retrospective ), as they analyze data from a specific point in time.