Some everyday thoughts on ecologically valid methods.

Judging by the comments in response to our article ( Banaji & Crowder, September 1989 ), enthusiasts for the everyday memory movement are razor sharp in their reading of titles but a little fuzzy on what follows. Thus, many responded as if our article had been (a) an attack on research set in a naturalistic context and (b) insensitive to the application of research findings. It was not. We distinguished two dimensions in scientific research–the ecological validity of the method that is used and the generality of the conclusions permitted. We thought we made clear our view that the best possible situation is for research to be high in both qualities. To repeat, we believe now and plainly stated then that if research is scientifically sound it is better to use ecologically lifelike rather than contrived methods (p. 1188). On some occasions the ability to exert a great deal of control in real-world settings is possible, and in such instances an ingenious experiment, high on both dimensions of ecological validity and scientific generality, is possible. Nobody in his or her right mind would quarrel with this priority. The only issue for debate arises when one dimension must be sacrificed in favor of the other. We argued for the option that guarantees greater generalizability of findings, sacrificing when we must ecologically valid methods of investigation. We wonder whether our critics really endorse the contrary sacrifice.