The authors propose that non-experiments be a frequent component of laboratory investigations addressing personal selling. A comparison of the results of a replication of an earlier experiment with those of a parallel non-experiment suggests the need to establish greater experimental realism in buyer-seller interaction research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BuschPaul (1974), “An Experimental Analysis of the Expert and Referent Bases of Social Power in the Buyer-Seller Dyad,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
2.
BuschPaul, and WilsonDavid T. (1976), “An Experimental Analysis of a Salesman's Expert and Referent Bases of Social Power in the Buyer-Seller Dyad,”Journal of Marketing Research, 13(February), 3–11.
3.
ByrneD. (1961), “Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity,”Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 62(May), 713–15.
4.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
GoldingStephen L., and LichtensteinEdward (1970), “Confession of Awareness and Prior Knowledge of Deception as a Function of Interview Set and Approval Motivation,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 213–23.
6.
JolsonMarvin A. (1975), “The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales Presentation,”Journal of Marketing, 39(January), 75–8.
7.
LeighThomas (1981), “The Effect of Nonverbal Cues on Industrial Buyers’ Perceptions During the Initial Sales Call,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
8.
LevittTheodore (1965), Industrial Purchasing Behavior: A Study in Communications Effects.Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
9.
LevyL. H. (1967), “Awareness, Learning, and the Beneficent Subject as Expert Witness,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 365–670.
10.
MathewsH. Lee, WilsonDavid T., and MonokyJohn E.Jr. (1972), “Bargaining Behavior in a Buyer-Seller Dyad,”Journal of Marketing Research, 9(February), 103–5.
11.
OrneMartin T. (1969), “Demand Characteristics and the Concept of Quasi-Controls,” in Artifact in Behavioral Research, RosenthalRobert, and RosnowRalph L., eds. New York: Academic Press,143–79.
12.
ReizensteinRichard C. (1971), “Dissonance Approach to Measuring the Effectiveness of Two Personal Selling Techniques Through Decision Reversal,” in 1971 Combined Conference Proceedings, AllvineFred C., ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association,176–80.
13.
SawyerAlan G. (1974), “Detecting Demand Characteristics in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research: The Case of Repetition-Affect Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, SchlingerMary Jane, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,713–23.
14.
SawyerAlan G. (1975), “Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1(March), 20–30.
15.
SawyerAlan G., and DeutscherTerry, and ObermillerCarl (1979), “Can Seller/Customer Interaction and Influence be Studied in the Laboratory?”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, OlsonJerry C., ed. San Francisco: Association for Consumer Research,393–9.
16.
WeberStephen J., and CookThomas D. (1972), “Subject Effects in Laboratory Research: An Examination of Subject Roles, Demand Characteristics, and Valid Inference,”Psychology Bulletin,11, 273–95.
17.
WeitzBarton A. (1979), “A Critical Review of Personal Selling Research: The Need for a Contingency Approach,” in Critical Issues in Sales Management: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Needs, AlbaumG., and ChurchillG., eds. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Business Administration.
18.
WeitzBarton A. (1981), “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter), 85–103.
