In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology

Critics of the experimental method claim that experiments rely too heavily on artificial settings, rely too heavily on college student participants, and do not provide practical solutions to applied problems. Contrary to these claims, I review evidence suggesting that natural research settings are often overrated, artificial research settings are often underrated, college student research participants provide remarkably useful data, and concrete thinking (i.e., focusing on superficial surface details rather than on underlying fundamental abstract principles) impedes learning and problem solving. Moreover, I suggest that much of the confusion concerning the experimental method stems from a preference for different types of information among different groups of individuals. A clearer understanding of this preference difference is needed to facilitate effective intercommunication between scientists and practitioners.