Finally, our article is meant to educate a new generation of students and researchers on the historical roots and conceptual issues of the term ecological validity. Second, we scrutinize some of the assumptions that guide the contemporary framework of ecological validity, specifically those regarding artificiality–naturality and simplicity–complexity. First, we extend the critique of the term ecological validity and apply it to the field of social attention. The contribution of this article is threefold. Therefore, it will be necessary to cover some of the same ground. Araujo et al., 2007 Dunlosky et al., 2009), we think that these critiques have largely been overlooked.
This not only holds for how this concept is used in many scholarly articles and textbooks, but also in presentations and discussions of experimental research at conferences, during the review process, and when talking with students about experimental design and the analysis of evidence.Īlthough the usage of the term ecological validity has previously been criticized by several scholars ( Hammond, 1998 Schmuckler, 2001 cf. As we ourselves are interested in cognitive and behavioral functioning in the context of people’s everyday experience, and conduct experiments across various ‘laboratory’ and ‘real-world’ environments, we have seen how the uncritical use of the term ‘ecological validity’ can lead to rather misleading and counterproductive discussions. Most notably, we will argue that the popular term ‘ecological validity,’ which is widely used nowadays by researchers to discuss whether experimental research resembles and generalizes to the ‘real-world,’ is shrouded in both conceptual and methodological confusion.
In this article, we will argue that the general aspiration of researchers to understand human cognition and behavior in the ‘real-world’ by conducting experiments that are more ‘ecologically valid’ (henceforth referred to as the ‘real-world approach’) is not without its problems. In recent years, several technological advances (e.g., virtual reality, wearable eye trackers, mobile EEG devices, fNIRS, biosensors, etc.) have further galvanized researchers to emphasize the importance of studying human cognition and behavior in the ‘real-world,’ as new technologies will aid researchers in overcoming some of the inherent limitations of laboratory experiments ( Schilbach, 2015 Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn, 2019 Sonkusare et al., 2019). In response, many researchers have advocated for more ‘ecologically valid’ experiments, as opposed to the so-called ‘conventional’ laboratory methods ( Neisser, 1976 Aanstoos, 1991 Kingstone et al., 2008 Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn, 2019 Osborne-Crowley, 2020). Over the course of psychology’s history, critics have often questioned whether psychology’s lab-based experiments permit the generalization of results beyond the laboratory settings within which these results are typically obtained. the ‘psychologist’s laboratory’ ( Danziger, 1994 Hatfield, 2002). To move beyond the ‘real-world or the lab’-dilemma, we believe that researchers in psychological science should always specify the particular context of cognitive and behavioral functioning in which they are interested, instead of advocating that experiments should be more ‘ecologically valid’ in order to generalize to the ‘real-world.’ We believe this will be a more constructive way to uncover the context-specific and context-generic principles of cognition and behavior.Ī popular goal in psychological science is to understand human cognition and behavior in the ‘real-world.’ In contrast, researchers have traditionally conducted experiments in specialized research settings, a.k.a. In our opinion, the popular concept of ecological validity is ill-formed, lacks specificity, and falls short of addressing the problem of generalizability. To bridge the gap between lab and life, many researchers have called for experiments with more ‘ecological validity’ to ensure that experiments more closely resemble and generalize to the ‘real-world.’ However, researchers seldom explain what they mean with this term, nor how more ecological validity should be achieved.
This is known as the ‘real-world or the lab’-dilemma. the ‘psychologist’s laboratory.’ Critics have often questioned whether psychology’s laboratory experiments permit generalizable results. 3Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, NetherlandsĪ popular goal in psychological science is to understand human cognition and behavior in the ‘real-world.’ In contrast, researchers have typically conducted their research in experimental research settings, a.k.a.2Department of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.1Department of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
0 kommentar(er)
