Egon Brunswik coined the term ecological validity to refer to the correlation between perceptual cues and the states and traits of a stimulus. Martin Orne adapted the term to refer to the generalization of experimental findings to the real world outside the laboratory. Both are legitimate uses of the term because the ecological validity of the cues in an experiment determines the ecological validity of the experiment itself.
AronsonE.CarlsmithJ. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1–79). Addison-Wesley.
BerkowitzL.DonnersteinE. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticism of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.3.245
BrooksP. H.BaumeisterA. A. (1977). A plea for consideration of ecological validity in the experimental psychology of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 406–416.
6.
BrunswikE. (1944). Distal focussing of perception: Size-constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs, 56, i–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093505
7.
BrunswikE. (1949). Systematic and representative design of psychological experiments. With results in physical and social perception [University of California Syllabus Series #304]. In NeymanJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 143–202). University of California Press. (Original work published 1947)
8.
BrunswikE. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047470
9.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
10.
CampbellD. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950
11.
DunloskyJ.BottiroliS.HartwigM. (2009). Sins committed in the name of ecological validity: A call for representative design in education research. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 430-440). Routledge.
12.
EbbinghausH. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Dover. (Original work published 1885)
13.
EpsteinW. (1962). A test of two interpretations of the apparent size effects in a distorted room. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040345
14.
EvansF. J.OrneM. T. (1971). The disappearing hypnotist: The use of simulating subjects to evaluate how subjects perceive experimental procedures. IJCEH, 19, 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207147108407173
15.
FordJ.Gaylord-RossR. (1991). Ecological validity revisited: A 10-year comparison of two journals. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079699101600204
16.
GergenK. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 26, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034436
17.
GibsonJ. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.
18.
GoodmanG. S.HahnA. (1987). Evaluating eyewitness testimony. In WeinerI. B.HessA. K. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 258–292). Wiley.
HammondK. R.StewartT. R. (Eds.). (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. Oxford University Press.
21.
HarreR.SecordP. F. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Blackwell.
22.
HastieR.DawesR. M. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making (2nd ed.). SAGE.
23.
HollemanG. A.HoogeI. T. C.KemnerC.HesselsR. S. (2020). The ‘Real-World Approach’ and its problems: A critique of the term ecological validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 721. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721
24.
HollemanG. A.HoogeI. T. C.KemnerC.HesselsR. S. (2021). The reality of “real-life” neuroscience: A commentary on Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn (2019). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917354
25.
IttelsonW. H. (1952). The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton University Press.
26.
KihlstromJ. F. (1996). Memory research: The convergence of theory and practice. In HermannD.JohnsonM.McEvoyC.HertzogC.HertelP. (Eds.), Basic and applied memory: Theory in context (Vol. 1, pp. 5–25). Erlbaum.
27.
KihlstromJ. F. (2002). Demand characteristics in the laboratory and the clinic: Conversations and collaborations with subjects and patients. Prevention & Treatment [Special Issue Honoring Martin T. Orne], 5, Article 36c. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.536c
28.
KoffkaK. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. Lund Humphries.
29.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw-Hill.
30.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
31.
MilgramS. (1972). Interpreting obedience: Error and evidence. A reply to Orne and Holland. In MillerA. G. (Ed.), The social psychology of psychological research. Free Press.
32.
MohlJ. (Producer). (2017, June30). Debate between Stanley Milgram and Martin T. Orne (University of Pennsylvania, February 16, 1969) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/Sr5dkBauVgg
33.
NeisserU. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In GrunebergM. M.MorrisP. E.SykesR. N. (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3–24). Academic Press.
34.
OrneM. T. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046128
35.
OrneM. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
36.
OrneM. T. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In RosenthalR.RosnowR. (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 143–179). Academic Press.
37.
OrneM. T. (1970a). From the subject’s point of view, when is behavior private and when is it public: Problems of inference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030088
38.
OrneM. T. (1970b). Hypnosis, motivation, and the ecological validity of the psychological experiment. In ArnoldW. J.PageM. M. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 187–265). University of Nebraska Press.
39.
OrneM. T. (1973). Communication by the total experimental situation: Why it is important, how it is evaluated, and its significance for the ecological validity of findings. In PlinerP.KramesL.AllowayT. (Eds.), Communication and affect (pp. 157–191). Academic Press.
40.
OrneM. T. (1979). Commentary on “Citation Classic - On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.”Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, 13, 56. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1979/classics1979.html
41.
OrneM. T. (1981). The significance of unwitting cues for experimental outcomes: Toward a pragmatic approach. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 364, 152–159.
42.
OrneM. T.EvansF. J. (1965). Social control in the psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021933
43.
OrneM. T.EvansF. J. (1966). Inadvertent termination of hypnosis with hypnotized and simulating subjects. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 14, Article 71078. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207146608415895
44.
OrneM. T.HollandC. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282–293.
45.
OrneM. T.ScheibeK. E. (1964). The contribution of nondeprivation factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects: The psychology of the “panic button.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048803
RoseM. R. (2017). How typical is Lockhart v. McCree? Ecological validity concerns in court opinions. In KoveraM. B. (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 227–253). American Psychological Association.
48.
SbordoneR. J. (2008). Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing: Critical issues. In HortonA. M.WeddingD. (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook (3rd ed., pp. 367–394). Springer.
Shamay-TsooryS. G.MendelsohnA. (2019). Real-life neuroscience: An ecological approach to brain and behavior research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 841–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619856350
51.
SharpeD.WheltonW. J. (2016). Frightened by an old scarecrow: The remarkable resilience of demand characteristics. Review of General Psychology, 20, 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000087
