An example of a study that uses a descriptive research approach is the case study entitled “Does Internet and Computer Addiction Exist? Some Case Study Evidence” by Mark Griffiths that was done in the year 2000. The author mentioned that there were still no studies done during that time which tackled the potential existence or non-existence of Internet and computer addiction. Thus, Griffiths did his case study to find out the truth about this matter. The research question that Griffiths wanted to answer was, “Does Internet and computer addiction exist?”
The method used by the author in this descriptive research approach was a case study of five people, all of which had interesting issues connected to the excessive use of the Internet and computers. These people were Gary (15 years old), Jamie (16 years old), Panos (20 years old), Jodie (35 years old), and Dave (32 years old). To determine if any of these five people were already guilty of Internet and computer addiction, Griffiths established the six characteristics of addiction which were salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse. Salience was described to be the drastic effort of people to prioritize an activity over others on a consistent basis. Mood modification was described to be the satisfaction that people get from an activity where they have become addicted to. Tolerance meant that people would sacrifice important things just to satisfy their addiction. Withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse were usually present among addicts. The results of the case study revealed that Gary and Jaime were the ones who met all six characteristics of addiction. Gary became hooked to video games, while Jaime got addicted to the Internet. They did not want to leave the house and interact with others anymore because of this addiction. Thus, these findings helped Griffiths to conclude that Internet and computer addiction exist. These are serious behavioral problems that must be addressed effectively right away before they get worse.
An example of a study that uses a correlational research approach is the study entitled “A Correlational Study of the Relationship Between Sense of Humor and Positive Psychological Capacities” by Larry W. Hughes that was done in the year 2008. The author believed that sense of humor and a positive organizational behavior were both crucial towards contributing to the overall success of an organization. For Hughes, sense of humor meant that the people within the organization know how to take it easy every now and then even if they are facing tremendous challenges and difficulties. He believed that it is good that people within the organization also know how to have fun and enjoy light moments with one another. On the other hand, Hughes said that positive organizational behavior can be achieved through the people within the organization being hopeful, confident, optimistic, and resilient.
Hughes wanted to find out if there was any correlation between sense of humor and positive organizational behavior. The hypothesis of Hughes was that sense of humor and positive organizational behavior were positively and significantly correlated. A cross-sectional survey was done to test if this hypothesis of Hughes was correct or not. Surveys were done to 92 companies, and their answers were measured using the Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS) and the PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ-24). The results of the study revealed that the hypothesis of Hughes was correct as supported by (r=.30, p<.01). Thus, Hughes concluded that people in organizations must never forget the importance of sense of humor and positive organizational behavior because both are crucial towards helping them to have sustained success over the long term. The combination of sense of humor and positive organizational behavior helps to establish a vibrant and dynamic environment within the organization that cultivates success and excellence.
Griffiths, M. (2000). Does Internet and Computer “Addiction” Exist? Some Case Study Evidence. CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 211-219