This is generally an interesting question. There are always limitations of research, nothing is ever perfect, but increasingly science has focused on increasing validity and reliability.
This sounds a lot like the question of ecological validity or the extent to which any research or experiment can be generalised to real world conditions. I should imagine it all depends on the research in question, and how able the researcher was able to rid the experiement of confounding variables.
I think it's certainly better than flying blind with policy being drawn up using only instinct.
I think that psychology has already provided a broad array of benefits to real world conditions such as parenting and the understanding of parenting styles. Psychology has already had a massive effect on the treatment of eyewitness testimony as well as the fallability of memory which has revolutionised police interview techniques.
This is generally an interesting question. There are always limitations of research, nothing is ever perfect, but increasingly science has focused on increasing validity and reliability.
This sounds a lot like the question of ecological validity or the extent to which any research or experiment can be generalised to real world conditions. I should imagine it all depends on the research in question, and how able the researcher was able to rid the experiement of confounding variables.
I think it's certainly better than flying blind with policy being drawn up using only instinct.
I think that psychology has already provided a broad array of benefits to real world conditions such as parenting and the understanding of parenting styles. Psychology has already had a massive effect on the treatment of eyewitness testimony as well as the fallability of memory which has revolutionised police interview techniques.