Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Consumer Psychology of Individuals
- 2 Consumer Psychology of Groups and Society
- 3 Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology
- 19 Field Experimentation in Consumer Research
- 20 MTurk and Online Panel Research
- 21 Meta-analysis: Assessing Heterogeneity Using Traditional and Contemporary Approaches
- 22 Netnography for Consumer Psychologists
- 23 A Recipe for Honest Consumer Research
- Index
- References
19 - Field Experimentation in Consumer Research
from 3 - Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 March 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Consumer Psychology of Individuals
- 2 Consumer Psychology of Groups and Society
- 3 Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology
- 19 Field Experimentation in Consumer Research
- 20 MTurk and Online Panel Research
- 21 Meta-analysis: Assessing Heterogeneity Using Traditional and Contemporary Approaches
- 22 Netnography for Consumer Psychologists
- 23 A Recipe for Honest Consumer Research
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter assesses how consumer research defines a “field experiment,” takes a look at trends in field experimentation in consumer research journals, explores the advantages and shortcomings of field experimentation, and assesses the status and value of open science practices for field experiments. These assessments render four insights. First, the field of consumer research does not have a consensus on the definition of field experiments, though an established taxonomy helps us determine the extent to which any given field experiment differs from traditional lab settings. Second, about 7 ercent of the published papers in one of the top consumer psychology journals include some form of field experiment – a small but growing proportion. Third, although field experimentation can be useful for providing evidence of external validity and estimating real-world effect sizes, no single lab or field study offers complete generalizable insight. Instead, each well-designed, high-powered study adds to the collection of findings that converge to advance our understanding. Finally, open science practices are useful for bridging scientific findings in field experiments with real-life applications.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology , pp. 531 - 547Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Arens, Z. G., & Hamilton, R. W. (2016). Why focusing on the similarity of substitutes leaves a lot to be desired. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 448–459.Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.Google Scholar
Bolton, L. E., Reed, A., Volpp, K. G., & Armstrong, K. (2008). How does drug and supplement marketing affect a healthy lifestyle? Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 713–726.Google Scholar
Braun, M., & Schwartz, E. M. (2022). The A/B Test Deception: Divergent Delivery, Response Heterogeneity, and Erroneous Inferences in Online Advertising Field Experiments. SMU Cox School of Business Research Paper (21-10).Google Scholar
Brodeur, A., Lé, M., Sangnier, M., & Zylberberg, Y. (2016). Star wars: The empirics strike back. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on the Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, in press. www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A799C9C57F388A712BE5A8D34D5229A1/S0140525X22002023a.pdf/iframe_and_the_sframe_how_focusing_on_individuallevel_solutions_has_led_behavioral_public_policy_astray.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DellaVigna, S., & Linos, E. (2022). RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica, 90(1), 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckles, D., Gordon, B. R., & Johnson, G. A. (2018). Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(23), E5254–E5255.Google Scholar
Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernbach, P. M., Kan, C., & LynchJr., J. G. (2015). Squeezed: Coping with constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1204–1227.Google Scholar
Garcia-Rada, X., Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Norton, M. I. (2022). Consumers value effort over ease when caring for close others. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(6), 970–990.Google Scholar
Gneezy, A. (2017). Field experimentation in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 140–143.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.Google Scholar
Jung, M. H., Perfecto, H., & Nelson, L. D. (2016). Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., et al. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1765.Google Scholar
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., et al. (2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1001.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 40(2), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2009). Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. European Economic Review, 53(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.Google Scholar
Lynch Jr., J. G. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 225–239.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. G. (1999). Theory and external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mick, D. G. (2003). Appreciation, advice, and some aspirations for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., et al. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30–31.Google Scholar
Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., et al. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature, 600(7889), 478–483.Google Scholar
Milkman, K. L., Patel, M. S., Gandhi, L., et al. (2021). A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20) e2101165118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, L., Simester, D., & Sudhir, K. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on marketing science and field experiments. Marketing Science, 39(6), 1033–1038.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534.Google Scholar
Oostrom, T. (2021). Funding of clinical trials and reported drug efficacy. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Packard, G., & Berger, J. (2021). How concrete language shapes customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 787–806.Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813.Google Scholar
Scott, C. A. (1977). Modifying socially-conscious behavior: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 156–164.Google Scholar
Simester, D. (2017). Field experiments in marketing. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, Vol. 1 (pp. 465–497). North-Holland.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2021). Pre‐registration is a game changer. But, like random assignment, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for credible science. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 177–180.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). p-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666–681.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2020). Specification curve analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1208–1214.Google Scholar
Sudhir, K. (2016). The exploration-exploitation tradeoff and efficiency in knowledge production. Marketing Science, 35(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D. J., & Hershfield, H. E. (2020). Consumers make different inferences and choices when product uncertainty is attributed to forgetting rather than ignorance. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 56–78.Google Scholar
Webb, P. H. (1979). Consumer initial processing in a difficult media environment. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(3), 225–236.Google Scholar