The 'Real-World Approach' and Its Problems: A Critique of the Term Ecological Validity.

Gijs A Holleman,Roy S Hessels,Ignace T C Hooge,Chantal Kemner

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721

Gijs A Holleman, Roy S Hessels + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721

Copy DOI

Abstract

A 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. the ‘psychologist’s laboratory.’ Critics have often questioned whether psychology’s laboratory experiments permit generalizable results. This is known as the ‘real-world or the lab’-dilemma. 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. In our opinion, the popular concept of ecological validity is ill-formed, lacks specificity, and falls short of addressing the problem of generalizability. 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.

Highlights

A popular goal in psychological science is to understand human cognition and behavior in the ‘realworld.’ In contrast, researchers have traditionally conducted experiments in specialized research settings, a.k.a. the ‘psychologist’s laboratory’ (Danziger, 1994; Hatfield, 2002)
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 ‘realworld,’ is shrouded in both conceptual and methodological confusion
We have argued that the ‘real-world approach’ and its call for ecological validity has several problems

Summary

INTRODUCTION

A popular goal in psychological science is to understand human cognition and behavior in the ‘realworld.’ In contrast, researchers have traditionally conducted experiments in specialized research settings, a.k.a. the ‘psychologist’s laboratory’ (Danziger, 1994; Hatfield, 2002). 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. 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). 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)

A Critique of Ecological Validity

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ‘REAL-WORLD OR THE LAB’-DILEMMA

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY?

CONCLUSION