



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Guidelines for conducting naturalistic observations, a descriptive technique used to record behavior in naturally occurring situations. Students are required to select a behavior, write an operational definition, decide when and where to observe, and collect data without interacting with subjects. The observations must be documented in a professional, concise manner and submitted electronically as a word document or PDF by the due date.
What you will learn
Typology: Summaries
1 / 5
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
S cientific writing is very different from fiction, poems, short stories, or even a research paper. When researchers report their findings for publication in a professional journal, there are clear instructions on what needs to be included and how it is to be formatted. Many publications even limit the length of manuscripts. The goals of this assignment are:
Your Name Due Date Naturalistic Observation Nomothetic Study: Pedestrian Safety Precautions ABSTRACT Pedestrians waiting to cross the street were observed at traffic intersections to discover their response to safety signals and oncoming traffic. Their regard for traffic lights and walk signals, as well as attention to traffic, varied according to the number of pedestrians in the waiting group. When waiting in the middle or in the back of large groups, pedestrians paid little heed to safety information. They seemed to trust their safety to total strangers. INTRODUCTION With bigger and faster cars, pedestrian safety is an increasing problem. This study examined pedestrians’ concern for their safety in the context of their most dangerous predator, the automobile. The aim was to explore the ways they manage their safety in different traffic settings. METHOD Using covert, non-participation in medium-sized city, pedestrians were observed on three street corners which involved little (1 to 2 cars passing per minute), moderate (3 to 6 cars passing per minute), or heavy traffic (more than 6 cars passing per minute). Any pedestrian arriving at the street corner alone and crossing the street during the hours of observation were included in the study. Children were not included and the observer made the distinction of child or adult by height approximation that any who appeared under five feet was not included. Whenever a small group, two or six pedestrians, waited to cross, one was selected. The selection was made by choosing someone of the opposite gender than the prior subject in a small group. Whenever a large group waited to cross, twelve or more pedestrians, again only one individual was selected for inclusion. The choice was made by the procedure used with small groups. As a rule, subjects observed alone stood at the corner with little traffic. Those observed in small and large groups waited at street corners with moderate and heavy traffic. Altogether, 23 subjects were observed alone, 7 in small groups, and 34 in large groups. Observations were from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm on two weekday days with clear weather. The safety signals included red, orange, and green lights and Walk and Don’t Walk signals.
Safety precautions were operationally defined as looking at a traffic light or Walk sign for at least three seconds or looking both ways at oncoming traffic for two seconds. When the observer was uncertain whether a subject had glanced at the safety signals or traffic, the subject was discarded from the sample. RESULTS When crossing streets alone, 100% of the pedestrians studied the signals and oncoming traffic. In small groups, 91% looked for signs of safety, watching the traffic or signals or both. But in groups of 12 or more, only 26% took safety precautions. Most pedestrians in large groups ignored safety measures, especially those waiting in the second or the latter rows, rather than at the curbside. Among the nine pedestrians who checked for their safety in a large group, eight stood in the front row, at curbside. Only one was stationed in a back row, away from the curb. DISCUSSION Pedestrians crossing city streets appear to accept the dictum of “safety in numbers.” The data shows different norms for groups of different sizes, and in large groups, separate norms for various locations in the group. In a large group, 89% of those who took safety precautions were standing at the curbside. They seemed to serve as lookouts for the others. In the back rows, 96% relied on strangers in front of them. They trusted their lives with people they perhaps would have not trusted with their wallets. Further research is necessary to confirm these probabilistic findings. The pedestrians were an incidental sample and not chosen randomly. The study of accidents might reveal the circumstances under which this trust on the part of back-row pedestrians is warranted.