Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:15:53.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Field Experimentation in Consumer Research

from 3 - Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2023

By
Minah H. Jung
Edited by
Cait Lamberton ,
Derek D. Rucker  and
Stephen A. Spiller
Cait Lamberton
Affiliation:
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Derek D. Rucker
Affiliation:
Kellogg School, Northwestern University, Illinois
Stephen A. Spiller
Affiliation:
Anderson School, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

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.

Keywords

field experimentsconsumer research methodssample sizephilosophy of science
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology , pp. 531 - 547
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×