Experiments make a good breakfast, but a poor supper

Abstract

AbstractCesario's analysis has three key flaws. First, the focus on whether an effect is “real” (an “effects flaw”) overlooks the importance of theory testing. Second, obsession with effects (a “fetishization flaw”) sidelines theoretically informed questions about when and why an effect may arise. Third, failure to take stock of cultural and historical context (a “decontextualization flaw”) strips findings of meaning.