Laboratory studies and studies conducted with students are frequently criticized for questionable generalizability. The basis for the criticism has simply been that because students and laboratory settings are not managers and work settings, findings based on the former may not have anything meaningful to say about the latter. This commentary focuses on the issue of generalizability of laboratory studies and, more generally, explores the utility of both laboratory and field studies. Rationale for each approach and criteria for assessing each are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, D. T. , & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Cronbach, L. J. , & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177-193.
3.
Dobbins, G. H. , Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281-286.
4.
Fromkin, H. L. , & Streufert, S. (1976). Laboratory experimentation. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 415-466). Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
Greenberg, J. , & Folger, R. (1988). Controversial issues in social research methods. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6.
Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
7.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
8.
Smeltzer, L. R. , & Fann, G. (1989). Comparison of managerial communication patterns in small, entrepreneurial organizations and large, mature organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 198-215.
