Detecting and reducing the effect of biased participants continues to be an important task for researchers. However, the lack of objective measures to assess demand artifact has made it difficult to effectively address this issue. This paper reports two experiments that apply a theory-based post-experimental inquiry that can systematically identify biased participants in consumer research. The results demonstrate how easily and effectively researchers can incorporate this tool into experimental studies of all types and reduce the likelihood of systematic error.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenC. T. (2004) A theory-based approach for improving demand artifact assessment in advertising experiments. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 63–73.
2.
AllenC. T.JaniszewskiC. A. (1989) Assessing the role of contingency awareness in attitudinal conditioning with implications for advertising research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(1), 30–43.
3.
BakerW. E. (1999) When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice?Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 31–46.
4.
ChapmanG. B.JohnsonE. J. (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–153. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2841.
5.
DarleyW. K.LimJ-S. (1993) Assessing demand artifacts in consumer research: an alternative perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 489–495.
6.
HigginsE. T. (1996) Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 133–168.
7.
KardesF. R.PosavacS. S.SilveraD.CronleyM. L.SanbonmatsuD. M.SchertzerS.MillerF.HerrP. M.ChandrashekaranM. (2006) Debiasing omission neglect. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 786–792.
8.
KennedyJ. J.BushA. J. (1985) An introduction to the design and analysis of experiments in behavior research. Lanham, MD: Univer. Press of America.
9.
MussweilerT. (2002) The malleability of anchoring effects. Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 67–72. DOI: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.1.67.
10.
MuthukrishnanA.RamaswamiS. (1999) Contexual effects on the revision of evaluative judgements: an extension of the omission-detection framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 70–80.
11.
OrneM. T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783.
12.
PageM. M. (1969) Social psychology of a classical conditioning of attitudes experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 177–186.
13.
PageM. M. (1974) Demand characteristics and the classical conditioning of attitudes experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 468–476.
14.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1969) Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press.
15.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1975) The volunteer participant. New York: Wiley.
16.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991) Participant-experimenter artifacts and their control essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 110–134.
17.
SanbonmatsuD. M.KardesF. R.HoughtonD. C.HoE. A.PosavacS. S. (2003) Overestimating the importance of the given information in multiattribute consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 289–300.
18.
SawyerA. G. (1975) Demand artifacts in laboratory experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 20–30.
19.
ShimpT. A.HyattE. M.SnyderD. J. (1991) A critical appraisal of demand artifacts in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 273–283.
20.
ShimpT. A.HyattE. M.SnyderD. J. (1993) A critique of Darley and Lim's “alternative perspective.”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 496–501.
21.
StuartE. W.ShimpT. A.EngleR. W. (1987) Classical conditioning of consumer attitudes: four experiments in an advertising context. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 334–349.
