what is low experimental realism?

Is that to do with being less objective? or less like an experiment, so it becomes less... i dont know?

And low mundane realism, must be the opposite. So its not like everyday life?

So confused, please help!

Reply 1

ShaolinTemple

Mundane, unrealistic, lacks ecological validity...
Cannot be applied to real-life settings

Reply 2

ice mario

This answer is partly correct but confusing.

Mundane realism-can the results of a study be applied to everyday life? E.g. How often would we be asked to give electric shocks as a punishment for giving wrong answers in real-life?

Ecological validity-can the results of a study be applied to different environments/settings? E.g. Milgram replicated his study in different environments (e.g. rundown office block) with different procedures (forcing learners hand onto a 'shockplate', giving orders via telephone etc). Thus, it could be argued that his research has ecological validity as it took place in the different environments and settings previously described. NB. It's possible for a study to lack both ecological validity and mundane realism or lack one but not the other.

Internal/experimental validity-can you say that the changes in the dependent variable are ONLY the result of the manipulation of the dependent variable? E.g. In Milgram's study, can you say that the participants' levels of obedience (willingness to give increasingly severe electric shocks) was only because of the situtation that they were in (following instructions from a researcher in a white lab coat at Yale University)?

Experimental realism-can you say that the participants in an experiment were so 'caught up' in the situation that they were in (i.e. completing tasks in a controlled environment) that they TRULY believed in it? i.e. Did the experimental situation feel 'real' to them? E.g. In Milgram's study, did the participants TRULY believe that they were taking part in a controlled study (experiment/lab observation) on learning and pain? Orne and Holland argued that the participants did not and therefore faked the signs of distress when giving electric shocks as this was what they were expected to do (i.e. the situation was a 'game' and 'obeying' and pretending to be upset about doing so' were the 'rules'). Consequently, they argued that Milgram's study was low in experimental realism (i.e. they didn't believe that they were taking part in an experiment) and lacked internal validity (therefore can't say the levels of obedience-dependent variable- were simply down to being in a controlled environment with a person in a white lab coat giving orders-Independent variable).

By the way, Mundane realism, ecological validity, population validity (ability to apply the findings of research carried out on one group of people to other groups of people-i.e. the whole population) and ethocentrism (ability to apply the findings of research to other cultures) are all examples of external validity (ability to apply the findings of research to other contexts).

I hope that this answer helps to resolve your confusion (as it appeared to in the case of my A-level students and fellow teaching colleagues)!

If not, please PM me on here and I'll explain in more detail.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Articles for you

Clearing 2025: how to call universities

Try out the app

Continue on web