| Abstract: | Maintains that many psychological investigations are accused of failure to generalize to the real world because of sample bias or artificiality of setting. It is argued in this article that such generalizations often are not intended. Rather than making predictions about the real world from the laboratory, it is possible to test predictions that specify what ought to happen in the lab. Even "artificial" findings may be regarded as interesting because they show what can occur, even if it rarely does; or, where generalizations are made, they may have added force because of artificiality of sample or setting. A misplaced preoccupation with external validity can lead to dismissing good research for which generalization to real life is not intended or meaningful. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
