Three dimensions of naturalness: An expanded definition of field research.

After reviewing several definitions of field research, an expanded framework for conceptualizing field research is presented. Three theoretically independent dimensions commonly used in field designs—natural behavior, natural setting, and natural treatment—are defined and exemplified. Advantages of combining all three dimensions in research include the discovery of new empirical laws and increased internal and external validity. Empirical examples are given that illustrate how naturalistic dimensions can be implemented in many settings, both laboratory and field, often without loss of experimental control. In recent years various schools of field researchers have selectively emphasized one or more naturalistic dimensions and neglected others. These dimensions include natural behavior, natural setting, and natural treatment. Although each dimension injects a bit of the real world into psychological research, each dimension reflects a separate aspect of reality. Certain research problems preclude incorporating all three dimensions in a single study, but investigations that have combined the three dimensions have accrued at least three advantages: (a) New empirical laws have been discovered, (b) the research has been made more credible to participants, thereby increasing internal validity, and (c) the research has been given greater external validity, a valued asset to a discipline supposedly concerned with real-world events. Before discussing in detail these benefits, each naturalistic dimension is more thoroughly described and exemplified. A review of the literature indicates that the vast majority of field studies have used only one or two naturalistic dimensions in their research designs. Specifically, ethologists (Jones, 1972) have mainly been interested in natural behavior, field methodologists (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) have primarily been concerned The author is indebted to John Berman and Richard Dienstbier for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gilbert B. Tunnell, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York 13346. with using natural settings, and naturalprocess researchers (Shontz, 1965) have been particularly attentive to using naturally occurring events as experimental treatments. The argument to be developed here is that field research stands to become much richer if and when all three dimensions are simultaneously considered.