|
How reliable are psychology experiment outcomes in predicting real world behavior?
|
In my work with human decision research, I've been thinking a lot about the gap between controlled experiments and real world behavior. Some psychology experiment outcomes are incredibly robust in lab settings but don't always translate to everyday life.
For example, many behavioral psychology insights come from studies where participants know they're being observed, which can change their behavior. The replication crisis in psychology has also made me more critical about which findings we can really trust.
What's your take on the reliability of social science experiments and behavioral research findings? Are there particular methodologies that seem more valid than others?
You've hit on a crucial issue in behavioral research. The replication crisis has forced us to be much more careful about generalizing from lab findings to real world behavior. One problem is that lab studies often strip away context, but context is exactly what shapes real world decisions.
That said, some psychology experiment outcomes do translate remarkably well. Research on social norms, for example, shows consistent effects across lab and field settings. People are highly responsive to what they perceive as normal behavior in their social group, whether in a psychology experiment or in their community.
From my observational work, I've noticed that the gap between lab behavior and real world behavior is particularly large for socially sensitive topics. People might report certain attitudes or intentions in a survey or experiment, but their actual behavior in social contexts can be quite different.
One methodology that seems promising for bridging this gap is experience sampling, where people report on their behavior and experiences in real time via smartphone apps. This captures behavior in context better than retrospective reports. However, even this method has limitations people might still alter their behavior because they know they're being studied.
I think the key is understanding what aspects of behavior are context dependent versus more stable. Some behavioral psychology insights seem to hold across contexts, like the fundamental attribution error (overemphasizing personality and underemphasizing situation when explaining others' behavior).
Other findings are highly context specific. For example, research on altruism shows that people are more likely to help when they're in a good mood, but this effect depends on cultural norms and the specific helping context. So the question isn't just whether psychology experiment outcomes generalize, but under what conditions they generalize.
The methodological issues you raise are why I'm excited about advances in computational modeling and big data analysis. By analyzing large datasets of real world behavior (like social media activity, purchasing patterns, or mobility data), researchers can identify patterns that might not emerge in controlled experiments.
However, these methods have their own limitations, like selection bias (who uses social media?) and ethical concerns about privacy. The ideal approach might be triangulation using multiple methods to study the same phenomenon. If lab experiments, field studies, and computational analyses all point to the same conclusion, we can be more confident in the behavioral research findings.
One of the biggest challenges in evaluating the reliability of social science experiments is publication bias. Studies with statistically significant results are more likely to be published than studies with null results, which creates a distorted picture of what findings are robust.
The open science movement, with practices like preregistration (specifying hypotheses and methods before data collection) and data sharing, is helping address this. But there's still a long way to go. As a psychology blogger, I try to highlight when findings fail to replicate or have methodological limitations, but this kind of nuance often gets lost in popular science writing.
|
