Why study people in dangerous environments, such as battlefields or natural disasters?

Kolditz: It’s simply good science. Scientific evidence is limited to the context in which it’s gathered, and most of our social science is based on evidence accrued in mundane or even controlled settings, in the absence of excitement, fear and awareness of one’s eventual death. While it is reasonable to assume these same results could happen in real world settings, it is not reasonable to assume that theories don’t require retesting in dangerous environments to make sure the results are similar and not gotten by chance. Extreme contexts demand the replication and extension of scientific work, and this is not a new idea or limited to social psychology. Also, it’s a moral responsibility. The number of law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, military personnel, humanitarian aid workers and others working under conditions of physical risk exceeds 5 million people in the United States and 40 million worldwide. We recently watched in horror as the nation of ...  more