Authors’ response

Sir,

We appreciate the author for his comments on our article1 and also for his concern over generalization of the results. However, it is obvious that generalization of results of any study is limited only to the population under study. At the same time, the results could be equally applicable for any other population, which manifest similar characteristics. We thus consider that our study is not different on generalization. We, of course, cannot naturalize/globalize the results.

Another concern is about sampling of the two institutions in our study which is done through the convenience sampling. We agree with the author because of the non-probability nature of the convenience sampling. However, the important point to note was that the institutions were not the primary units. We used proper probabilistic sampling approach for selecting primary unit of the study. Hence, external validity stands intact for all those institutions in which underlined conditions are similar to the institutions selected in this study. The findings of this study thus calibrate the results not only of those few studies done in India but also in other parts of the world. Hence, mundane realism also stands intact under given setting, whereas validity of experimental realism, being a psychological quantity, is hard to challenge as the respondents knew that their identity would not be revealed.