Examining the Method of Research, Essay Example

The authors of this study present many observations within the research to answer an important and poorly researched question within the field of psychosocial behavioral science.  The research question for this study is whether happy and unhappy people differ in the amount of small talk and substantive conversations they have (Mehl et al., 2010).  The authors fully explain that much research has been conducted to suggest the implications of happiness on physical health (Robbins et al., 2011) and overall social health as a consequence of being in a state of happiness (Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2009). Unfortunately, one key area that is not addressed is to define within this particular study what happiness is within a person. The goal of this particular study is to examine what social behaviors a happy individual exudes, but the researchers fail to define what a happy individual looks like except to acknowledge that subjects self-designated their own personalities as happy through self-reporting techniques.

This study meets all of the definitions of a qualitative research study.  A qualitative research study focuses on understanding and interpreting social interactions, focuses on studying the whole population and not specific variables and to observe behaviors as they are situations and personal, not predictable (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).  The positive gains from conducting a qualitative research study for this particular research question are that the researchers do no allow outside bias to cloud the results or the formation of hypotheses.  Pure observations are collected from a recording device over a short period of time, which enables the researchers to examine the subjects’ social interactions. Variables are nonexistent and the researchers are truly pulling observations from the entire pool of subjects as opposed to identifying a control group or reviewing particular variations within the group.

The researchers for this study acknowledge the limitations of subjects self-reporting their own experiences and therefore utilize the Electronically Activated Recorder to periodically record real-world behavior in an unobtrusive manner (Mehl et al., 2010).  The 79 subjects that were comprised of both male and female participants wore the concealed recording device to capture snippets of their interactions with people over a course of a 4-day period.  Although the direct subject was aware of wearing a physical device during his or her social interactions, indirect subjects that could be observed through interactions with the subjects were unaware of the device.  Likewise, the subjects were able to interact within their normal daily lives without changing the typical environment their particular daily behaviors.  Therefore, the study meets the definition of a concealed observation method.

In order to ensure positive ethical results, the researchers use the Electronically Activated Recorder so as not to interfere with much of the subjects’ daily lives.  The device was small and unobtrusive and the device specifically recorded only snippets of interactions.  This method attempts to ensure privacy as much as possible in a study such as this, but also enables the researchers to obtain key observations that would allow for concrete findings and conclusions on the surface.  However, there are several key drawbacks to this study that inhibit the true quality of the observations.  Unfortunately, the device may record personal conversations or personal interactions that could be private in nature.  Although the researchers do not claim such bias occurred, the subjects may have intentionally avoided such situations in order to maintain their personal privacy.  This behavioral modification could absolutely have had a negative consequence on the quality of the final results.

Furthermore, a key drawback may be that the recording device only records snippets on a conversation and not the entire conversation.  This may have skewed the researchers’ observations as the meaning of words, intention and intonation may have been misunderstood, as the entire conversation was not recorded in full.  Likewise, there may be interpretation bias as the researchers are forced to interpret social interactions and the meaning of small talk as a causal factor to happiness. Although the researchers do not directly reference this in the study, the subjects may or may not have uniformity in how the recording devices are displayed.  As subjects are moving around as part of their daily activities, the recording devices may be altered by wind hitting the microphone or the quality of the recording reduced by clothing rubbing against the device.  While this is certainly unclear, the researchers assume that they have obtained quality observations from the 79 subjects.

Lastly, the researchers failed to identify the impact that outward appearance may have on personal interactions and social situations.  For example, the clothes that a person wears or whether they are obese can have a drastically negative impact on social interactions (Schupp & Renner, 2011).  A drawback for the current study at hand is that the recording device strictly reviews snippets of oral conversations and the visual component is missing.  Body language, ethnicity and physical attractiveness can all play key roles in the positivity of social interaction (Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2009).  Due to this being a qualitative research study, the researchers are unable to take these multiple variables into consideration and simply focus small talk as a guiding factor towards happiness.

Being and happiness are unique. Both can either be a state of mind, but only happiness can be exuded in outward behavior. The researchers primarily reference being as a “well-being” although a definition of well-being is very generic and not specific in any sense of the word.  Well-being is most likely that state of physical and psychosocial wellness. In many cases, a person may be in a state of well-being and also exude happy behavioral traits.  However, these two unique factors do not have a direct correlative relationship as someone may be in a state of well-being and not exude happiness or, as the researchers suggest, engaging in small talk.  Without a clear understanding and definition of happiness, it is impossible for any true understanding of the word or the state of mind to be analyzed.  Although the researchers truly appreciate the wealth of research around the topic, much of the research utilized as background on this particular topic simply suggest that there are multiple psychosocial and physical benefits related being happy.

The researchers of this study do not address reliability much during the course of the article discussion; however, they do showcase the results are similar across weekday and weekend behaviors.  Therefore, the results are not skewed by the day or time of the week.  It may be assumed that the researchers believe the results are reliable simply because they supported the overall hypothesis that small talk is more prevalent amongst happy individuals.  Unfortunately, the study does suffer from the problem involving direction of causation.  The researchers acknowledge that the study is limited insofar as small talk may not be a side effect of happiness, but it may be a causal factor that leads to or may generate happiness within an individual’s psyche.  Likewise, the previously mentioned drawbacks of the study do not acknowledge specific variables that may have a causal relationship toward observations and the results of those observations.  Therefore, much of the study could absolutely have suffered from the direction of causation problem.

As there are a multiple of variables that exist within this study and are not differentiated within the results of this qualitative study, the research certainly encounters the third variable problem. For example, small talk may be a consequence of happiness or it may be a causal factor of happiness.  Likewise, physical or psychosocial variables may have a direct impact on personality traits and small talk may be a consequence of personality as opposed to a consequence of happiness. The researchers are not able to effectively draw correlation between personality type and happiness, as they cannot clearly define happiness in general. Therefore, the third variable problem is rampant throughout the core of this study and truly has an impact on the results that is neither addressed nor directly acknowledged by the researchers in any of the research commentary.

This qualitative research study attempts to answer a very important research question in examining small talk as a consequence of happiness. Unfortunately, many of the very critical elements that make this a qualitative study hinder the effectiveness of the research as variable causation is not analyzed nor is it acknowledged as a limiting factor on the effectiveness of this study.  Likewise, the researchers’ observational bias and the possible lack of quality and uniform recording technology can certainly have a hindrance on the quality of the results.  Despite these drawbacks to this research, the results do support that small talk is a consequence of happiness.  In addition, the authors acknowledge that small talk may also exist as a causal factor for happiness as opposed to a consequence of happiness.  Therefore, the results of this study solely succeed in convincing the reader that additional research is necessary to truly define and examine any correlation or causation relationships between happiness and social interaction.  Lastly, the authors fail to define happiness and rely on outside resources to support the overall purpose of the study.  Instead, research should have been provided, if any exists, to begin by defining happiness and defining what constitutes as small talk.  Many basic assumptions are made by the researchers and these assumptions have a clear negative impact on the quality of this research study and the validity of its results.

References

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (p. 34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clark, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping on Happiness Well-Being Is Related to Having Less Small Talk and More Substantive Conversations. Psychological Science, 21(4), 539-541.

Ramírez-Esparza, N., Mehl, M. R., Álvarez-Bermúdez, J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Are Mexicans more or less sociable than Americans? Insights from a naturalistic observation study. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 1-7.

Robbins, M. L., Focella, E. S., Kasle, S., López, A. M., Weihs, K. L., & Mehl, M. R. (2011). Naturalistically observed swearing, emotional support, and depressive symptoms in women coping with illness. Health Psychology, 30(6), 789.

Schupp, H. T., & Renner, B. (2011). The implicit nature of the anti-fat bias. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 5, 23.