Question

Suppose you heard the following criticism of social psychological research: “A lot of the studies are done with college students in artificial laboratory settings, such as the Latané and Darley experiment in which people heard another student have a seizure while wearing headphones in a cubicle.

1. What is the value in studies like this (given that the participants are not representative samples of ALL human beings)? What do we need to watch out for when we are interpreting the results?  

2. Can we learn anything from studies in which the settings are not representative of everyday life?

3. How would a social psychologist answer this criticism?

Answer 1

Answer 1:

• The sample size may not be representative of all the population across the globe due to the limitations posed by uniqueness and diversity.
• However, we need to acknowledge that experiments like these, give us an insight on the human behavior that can be seen under a particular situation that is framed in the experiment, where there is high internal validity. This human behavior that is observed can be generalized to some extent more or less. Moreover, this behavior can be tested with a different sample in order to verify the results.
• While interpreting the results, one needs to watch out for the experimenter bias that can be reflected by manipulating the results to mold them in congruence with the hypothesis.

Answer 2:

• Yes, we can learn from the experiments that are not representative of everyday life, which is low external validity.
• As we know, some of the experiments like Milgram's experiment or Zimbardo's experiment show the power of situational factors. It provides a base to further research. It shows us an aspect of human behavior, which couldn't have been studied to such intensity if the situation was not as controlled as it was.
• However, it must be noted that such control conditions are less likely to occur. Thus, the behavior portrayed in the experiments may or may not occur with the same intensity outside the lab.