1. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.1 Generalizing Results Generalizing to –other populations –the “real world” Generalizing from –replications –comparisons of many studies

2. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.2 Other Populations College students –~70% of participants –differ from general population Volunteers –generally more educated, need for approval, social –higher SES –titles influence who volunteers

3. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.3 Other Populations Gender –more women in college and more likely to volunteer – may be confounded with independent variable Locale –part of country –type of school

4. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.4 Other Populations Culture –etic = same across cultures –emic = differs across cultures –culture can influence questions asked hypotheses participant responses

5. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.5 The ‘real world” Mundane realism –similar to everyday experience Experimental Realism –participants are involved and serious Comparison of lab and field experiments –Anderson, Lindsay,& Bushman (99) –38 pairs of lab and field studies –similar results with equal magnitude of effect

6. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.6 Replications Exact replications –same operational definitions but new participants - more confident about generalizing Conceptual replications –new operational definitions –very important for theory that not depend on one particular set of operational definitions

7. © 2001 Laura Snodgrass, Ph.D.7 Comparisons of studies Literature review articles –what is always found –what is often found –what results are contradictory Meta-analysis –combine many studies in a statistical analysis of effect size over studies