Anderson, Lindsay, and Bushman (1999) compared effect sizes from laboratory and field studies of 38 research topics compiled in 21 meta-analyses and concluded that psychological laboratories produced externally valid results. A replication and extension of Anderson et al. (1999) using 217 lab-field comparisons from 82 meta-analyses found that the external validity of laboratory research differed considerably by psychological subfield, research topic, and effect size. Laboratory results from industrial–organizational psychology most reliably predicted field results, effects found in social psychology laboratories most frequently changed signs in the field (from positive to negative or vice versa), and large laboratory effects were more reliably replicated in the field than medium and small laboratory effects.
AndersonC. A.LindsayJ. J.BushmanB. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.
2.
AronsonE.WilsonT. D.AkertR. M. (1994). Social psychology: The heart and mind. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
3.
AvolioB. J.ReichardR. J.HannahS. T.WalumbwaF. O.ChanA. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764–784.
4.
BehrmanB. W.DaveyS. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491.
5.
BerkowitzL.DonnersteinE. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245–257.
6.
BlackV. (1955). Laboratory versus field research in psychology and the social sciences. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5, 319–330.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CookT. D. (1990). The generalization of causal connections: Multiple theories in search of clear practice. In SechrestL.PerrinE.BunkerJ. (Eds.), Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data (DHHS Publication No. PHS 90-3454, pp. 9–31). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
9.
CookT. D. (2001). Generalization: Conceptions in the social sciences. In SmelserN. J.WrightJ.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), 9 International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 6037–6043). Oxford, UK: Pergamon-Elsevier.
10.
CortinaJ. M.LandisR. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large effect sizes don’t. In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 287–308). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
DhamiM. K.HertwigR.HoffrageU. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959–988.
12.
DieckmannN. F.MalleB. F.BodnerT. E. (2009). An empirical assessment of meta-analytic practice. Review of General Psychology, 13, 101–115.
13.
EllisA. K. J.HumphreyS. E.ConlonD. E.TinsleyC. H. (2006). Improving customer reactions to electronic brokered ultimatums: The benefits of prior experience and explanations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2293–2324.
14.
FloweH. D.FinkleaK. M.EbbesenE. B. (2009). Limitations of expert psychology testimony on eyewitness identification. In CutlerB. L. (Ed.), Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification (pp. 201–221). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
FrattaroliJ. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 823–865.
16.
GreenwoodJ. D. (2004). What happened to the “social” in social psychology?Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34, 19–34.
17.
HammondK. R.HammR. M.GrassiaJ. (1986). Generalizing over conditions by combining the multitrait-multimethod matrix and the representative design of experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 257–269.
18.
HarréR.SecordP. F. (1972). The explanation of social behavior. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
19.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
20.
HenryP. J. (2009). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 49–71.
21.
LockeE. A. (Ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
22.
McKayD.SchareM. L. (1999). The effects of alcohol and alcohol expectancies on subjective reports and physiological reactivity: A meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 633–647.
23.
MookD. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.
24.
MullenB.CopperC.CoxP.FraserC.HuL.MeislerA. . . .SymonsC. (1991). Boundaries around group interaction: A meta-analytic integration of the effects of group size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 271–283.
25.
PrenticeD. A.MillerD. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.
26.
ProctorR. W.CapaldiE. J. (2001). Empirical evaluation and justification of methodologies in psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 759–772.
27.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.
28.
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
RozinP. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2–14.
30.
SecordP. F. (1982). The behavior identity problem in generalizing from experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 1408.
31.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
32.
Stone-RomeroE. F. (2002). The relative validity and usefulness of various empirical research designs. In RogelbergS. G. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 77–98). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
33.
von WittichD.AntonakisJ. (2011). The KAI cognitive style inventory: Was it personality all along?Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1044–1049.
34.
WestB. J.PateraJ. L.CarstenM. K. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249–267.
35.
WilsonT. D.AronsonE.CarlsmithK. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 51–81). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
