Final answer:
The statement is false, as laboratory settings do not provide natural environments for the observation of typical behaviors. Naturalistic observation, on the other hand, takes place in the subject's natural environment, offering high ecological validity and the potential to generalize findings.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'In a laboratory setting, subjects are observed in the environment where the behavior normally takes place' is false. Laboratory settings do not replicate the natural environments where behaviors typically occur. Rather, they provide a controlled environment where variables can be manipulated to test specific hypotheses. The observation of subjects in their natural environment is known as naturalistic observation, not a laboratory observation.
Naturalistic observation is a research method in which subjects are observed in their natural context, throughout their everyday lives or in natural settings. For example, a developmental psychologist might observe children's behaviors at a playground rather than in a lab. The advantage of this approach is the heightened validity and ecological realism it provides. Subjects act naturally, offering insights that are more reflective of real-world behaviors, therefore enhancing the potential to generalize the findings.
Naturalistic observation differs from a controlled experiment, where conditions are deliberately altered and rigidly structured to understand cause-and-effect relationships. However, while experiments allow scientists to make cause-and-effect claims, they do have their limitations, including the artificiality of the experimental environment.