University of Virginia
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Mar;7(2):109-17. doi: 10.1177/1745691611432343. Epub 2012 Mar 9.
Anderson, Lindsay, and Bushman (1999) compared effect sizes from laboratory and field studies of 38 research topics compiled in 21 meta-analyses and concluded that psychological laboratories produced externally valid results. A replication and extension of Anderson et al. (1999) using 217 lab-field comparisons from 82 meta-analyses found that the external validity of laboratory research differed considerably by psychological subfield, research topic, and effect size. Laboratory results from industrial-organizational psychology most reliably predicted field results, effects found in social psychology laboratories most frequently changed signs in the field (from positive to negative or vice versa), and large laboratory effects were more reliably replicated in the field than medium and small laboratory effects.
安德森、林赛和布什曼(1999 年)比较了 21 项荟萃分析中汇编的 38 个研究课题的实验室和现场研究的效应量,并得出结论,心理实验室产生了具有外部有效性的结果。安德森等人(1999 年)的一项复制和扩展研究使用了 82 项荟萃分析中的 217 个实验室-现场比较,发现实验室研究的外部有效性因心理学子领域、研究课题和效应量而有很大差异。工业组织心理学的实验室结果最可靠地预测了现场结果,社会心理学实验室中发现的效应在现场中经常改变符号(从正到负或反之亦然),并且与中、小实验室效应相比,大实验室效应在现场中更可靠地复制。