The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Research in the Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality?
Abstract
This article examines the truism that studies from psychological laboratories are low in external validity. Past rational and empirical explorations of this truism found little support for it. A broader empirical approach was taken for the study reported here; correspondence between lab and field was compared across a broad range of domains, including aggression, helping, leadership style, social loafing, self-efficacy, depression, and memory, among others. Correspondence between lab- and field-based effect sizes of conceptually similar independent and dependent variables was considerable. In brief, the psychological laboratory has generally produced psychological truths, rather than trivialities. These same data suggest that a companion truism about field studies in psychology—that they are generally low on internal validity—is also false.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196
Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 · Cited by 1,068
A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.56 · Cited by 376
Cited by
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018251 · Cited by 2,048
Self-citationVideo games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772 · Cited by 1,778
Self-citationOne Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.78 · Cited by 1,237
The rules of the game called psychological science
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612459060 · Cited by 800
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-9
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2103216055
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Research in the Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-8721.00002
- The paper
- Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
