Three mostly positive developments in academic psychology-the cognitive revolution, the virtual requirement for multiple study reports in our top journals, and the prioritization of mediational evidence in our data-have had the unintended effect of making field research on naturally occurring behavior less suited to publication in the leading outlets of the discipline. Two regrettable consequences have ensued. The first is a reduction in the willingness of researchers, especially those young investigators confronting hiring and promotion issues, to undertake such field work. The second is a reduction in the clarity with which nonacademic audiences (e.g., citizens and legislators) can see the relevance of academic psychology to their lives and self-interest, which has contributed to a concomitant reduction in the availability of federal funds for basic behavioral science. Suggestions are offered for countering this problem.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 189 citations exist upstream.