Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental bias: Task, tools, and time

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In any experiment, control over all possible variables affecting the response is rarely, if ever, possible. Even in a laboratory setting it is difficult to control all variables which might conceivably affect the outcome. This study identifies three variables—task relevancy, tool availability, and time allocation as variables which have potentially reactive effects in laboratory experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arndt, Johan (1977), “Laboratory Studies and the Laboratory Paradigm of Man: Confessions of an Uneasy Consumer Researcher,”Journal of Consumer Policy, 1, 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, Elliot, and Carlsmith, J. Merrill (1968), “Experimentation in Social Psychology,” inThe Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R., Capon, N., and Lutz, R.J. (1975), “Information Processing in Attitude Formation and Change,”Communications Research, 2, 267–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brightman, Donald and Raymond, Beth (1975), “The Effects of Task Ambiguity and Expectancy Control Groups on the Experimenter Bias Effect,”The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 277–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day George S. (1976), “Assessing the Effects of Information Disclosure Requirements,”Journal of Marketing, 40, 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Ward (1975), “Comment: Cognitive Processes and the Assessment of Subjective Probability Distribution,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 291–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, Richard W., and Miller, John A. (1972), “Consumer Expectations, Product Performance, and Perceived Quality,”Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, Robert (1966),Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research, New York, N.Y.: Meredith Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. Edward, Krieser, Gene and Miyashita, Sally (1975), “An Effective Display of Unit Price Information,”Journal of Marketing, 39, 11–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, Alan G. (1975), “Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane, J. (1968), “The Vane Kindergarten Test,”Journal of Clinical Psychology, Monograph Supplement Number 24.

  • Venkatesan, M. and Holloway, Robert J. (1971).An Introduction to Marketing Experimentation: Methods, Applications and Problems, New York, N.Y.: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, Georgia, USA

    James H. Barnes Ph.D.

  2. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA

    Daniel T. Seymour M.B.A.

Authors
  1. James H. Barnes Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel T. Seymour M.B.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Gerald Albaum and Donald Messmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnes, J.H., Seymour, D.T. Experimental bias: Task, tools, and time. JAMS 8, 1–11 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721967

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721967

Keywords

Search

Navigation