Describe the concepts of mundane realism and experimental realism, and relate them to the larger issue of eternal validity in a research study

What will be an ideal response?

The external validity of an experiment may also depend in part on how realistic the
study is for the participants. But what is meant by realistic is not as straightforward as
one might think. Two types of realism can be distinguished: mundane versus
experimental (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1968). Mundane realism refers to the extent to
which the research setting resembles the real-world setting of interest.
In order to study interpersonal attraction, Theodore Newcomb (1961) set up an entire
college dormitory—a striking example of mundane realism. Advocates of mundane
realism contend that if research procedures are more realistic, research findings are
more likely to reveal what really goes on. In contrast, experimental realism refers to
the degree to which the experimental setting and procedures are real and involving to
the participant, regardless of whether they resemble real life or not. According to those
who favor experimental realism, if the experimental situation is compelling and real to
the participants while they are participating in the study, their behavior in the lab—even
if the lab is in the basement of the psychology building—will be as natural and
spontaneous as their behavior in the real world. The majority of social psychologists
who conduct experiments emphasize experimental realism.