Naturalistic Observation

The following is a naturalistic observation paper I wrote for my psych class:


The setting for this study is the pool at the University of Texas’ Gregory Gym aquatic complex. The two subjects whose behavior was examined were lifeguards on duty on the afternoon of Tuesday May 27th.

Subject one is a male who will be known as Joe, more than likely a student at the University near 21 years of age. Joe sat in his lifeguard stand with a somewhat slouched posture hinting at his lack of interest for his task at hand coupled with a shred of arrogance. There were eight people in the pool Joe was watching over at the time with over a dozen mainly female students lying out on beach chairs around the pool’s perimeter. Not much noise came from the people in this pool, as most of the volume came from those playing basketball around the corner and the moderately loud music being played out of loudspeakers positioned around the pool area. Joe would keep his mind occupied often by fiddling with the whistle that hung from around his neck. His job was a very simple one that required very little active concentration, but only a mental awareness of his environment. It seemed that Joe was eager to socialize whenever the opportunity was presented to him, especially by his female colleagues. In these instances his relatively stern expression would quickly change to one of lightheartedness.

For the most part, Joe seemed to play into what was socially expected of him as a somewhat authoritative figure over the pool. It was as if he was playing a specific character when he was performing job operations such as pool supervision and addressing the students swimming in the pool that he turned off when he back to interact with his coworkers. It seems that one can make some conclusions about Joe’s personality based off of this fact. For instance, Joe probably takes pride in and enjoys the little bit of authority he has in this position, and so by playing the serious character he gives people less room to disrespect that authority. Also, it can be hypothesized that in most social settings Joe is more of a laid back and charismatic type who is easy to get along with, at least judging by the responses of his female associates.

Subject 2 is a female university student near the same age as the previously mentioned test subject. She will from here forth be known as Jill. Her posture seems relaxed but upright. The setting for the hour I observed her is very similar as that which was previously described despite being later in the day. Jill also seems to be quite stern as she sits in her post, supervising the pool. The more noticeable difference in her outward behavior is the distance she puts between herself and her coworkers. Fewer people approach her and when they do she seems to spout out a concise, obligatory response that does not garner much additional attention. Jill is apparently uninterested in her male counterparts and is more than likely preoccupied by something weighing on her emotionally. The similarly tight lipped facial expression that projected a sense of arrogance and pride from Joe exudes perhaps an inner conflict from Jill. One may speculate that perhaps she is recounting troublesome interactions with someone who she is close to or some other event that could produce such a reaction.

I could not decipher whether or not the standoffish behavior from Jill was a result of her personality and how she normally socially interacts, or because of an event which elicited such a response as previously hypothesized. If this was because of a traumatic experience, she was undergoing emotion-focused coping, as her problem was currently out of her hands as she sat on the lifeguard stand. In order to more specifically narrow down whether or not I was observing a character trait or an emotional response, I would need more time observing Jill along with additional experience in general of observing people.

After observing both of these subjects for hour long periods of time, I was able to infer subtle differences in their personalities and/or current emotional states. As with any naturalistic observation however, the conclusions made were very hypothetical and are based off of both my observational skills and deductive reasoning abilities. Both additional time with each individual and additional experience would limit the amount of probable error or uncertainty related to these assumptions. All naturalistic observations then could be limited by these characteristics of such experimentation.

The information gathered however could have some very real and applicable usages. Due to the fact that the subjects were performing the same, extremely simple tasks, it was easier then to make observations about the people themselves independently of what they were actually doing. On the other hand, the simplicity of the tasks required less social interaction and thought process which may have reduced the amount of information collected about the individual’s personality.

If I were to repeat such a naturalistic observation experiment again, I would find a setting with more social interactions. An interesting place to do this I think would be in a setting in which strangers came in contact and were forced to interact with one another such as on a bus or at a team business meeting. A situation with more vocalization would probably allow for better personality analysis. Also, another idea could be to use a situation in which emotions of people were seen more transparently such as at a sad movie shown in a theater or in a sports bar watching an intense finish to an important game. Through this experience however, I was provided with a small window into psychological analysis and experimentation.