The notion of validity in experimental crowd dynamics

TL;DR

This paper discusses the importance of different validity types in crowd dynamics experiments, emphasizing the need to balance control and realism based on research goals.

Contribution

It provides a framework for understanding various validity dimensions and their relevance depending on the experiment's purpose in crowd dynamics research.

Findings

Different types of validity are crucial depending on experiment goals

Artificial laboratory settings can be justified for certain research aims

Balancing internal and external validity is essential for reliable crowd experiments

Abstract

As experimental methods become increasingly popular in crowd dynamics, the question of experimental validity becomes more critical than ever. For the purposes of evaluation of crowd experiments, it is paramount that we distinguish between different dimensions of their validity. Here, we differentiate between four types of experimentation in crowd dynamics based on their underlying purpose of investigation. This includes experiments whose main aim is (i) testing a behavioural theory/hypothesis, (ii) exploring empirical behavioural regularities; (iii) assessing collective (system-level) performance rather than individual behaviour (iv) calibrating and/or validating pre-existing models. While delineating various dimensions of external/internal validity as they relate to crowd experiments, we argue how the importance of different validity dimensions varies depending on investigation purpose. This could provide clarity about circumstances where artificiality of laboratory settings is justified as opposed to experiments for which higher levels of contextual fidelity should be given more weight. It is critical that investigators (a) be conscious of the trade-off between controllability and realism in their experiment design and (b) identify potential factors that can jeopardise validity of their experiments and mitigate them. Inferences made from field data do not invariably supersede those of experiments on the issue of validity. Depending on the purpose of investigation, maintaining internal validity sometimes necessitates laboratory settings and justifies artificiality. In the absence of adequate control over the causal relationship, the question of external validity will be futile. Therefore, striking a reasonable balance between internal and external validity of crowd experiments should be made a major design consideration.