IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v161y2023ics0148296323001169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research

Author

Listed:
  • Calder, Bobby J.
  • He, Sharlene
  • Sternthal, Brian

Abstract

Behavioral research is primarily conducted within the silos of effect paradigms. As a result, theory is often developed at a granular level: theories are closely tied to the independent variable producing a given effect or to variables that moderate a given effect. Due to this granularity, findings and insights from one effect paradigm rarely inform research in another effect paradigm and application is difficult. This is a critical obstacle in building cumulative knowledge and applying research findings. Theorizing with greater explanatory scope is needed in the form of integrative theoretical frameworks that encompass multiple diverse effect paradigms and provide greater explanatory understanding about why effects occur. We develop one such framework—the Ambiguity-Adoptability-Accessibility (3A) framework. We illustrate how it enhances the explanation of four different effect paradigms and how the effect paradigms in turn inform the framework. Finally, we discuss how theoretical frameworks improve the applicability of behavioral research.

Suggested Citation

  • Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323001169
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323001169
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113758?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich, 2019. "A problem in theory," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 221-229, March.
    3. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    4. Alice M. Tybout & Brian Sternthal & Prashant Malaviya & Georgios A. Bakamitsos & Se-Bum Park, 2005. "Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Content versus Retrieval Ease," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(1), pages 76-85, June.
    5. Kathleen D. Vohs & Ronald J. Faber, 2007. "Spent Resources: Self-Regulatory Resource Availability Affects Impulse Buying," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 537-547, January.
    6. Mehdi Mourali & Ulf Bckenholt & Michel Laroche, 2007. "Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 234-247, June.
    7. Prashant Malaviya, 2007. "The Moderating Influence of Advertising Context on Ad Repetition Effects: The Role of Amount and Type of Elaboration," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 32-40, March.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:729-742 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Pettibone, Jonathan C. & Wedell, Douglas H., 2000. "Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 300-328, March.
    10. Nidhi Agrawal & Echo Wen Wan, 2009. "Regulating Risk or Risking Regulation? Construal Levels and Depletion Effects in the Processing of Health Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 448-462.
    11. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    12. Wen Mao & Harmen Oppewal, 2012. "The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 339-351, March.
    13. Katherine L. Milkman & Mitesh S. Patel & Linnea Gandhi & Heather N. Graci & Dena M. Gromet & Hung Ho & Joseph S. Kay & Timothy W. Lee & Modupe Akinola & John Beshears & Jonathan E. Bogard & Alison But, 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, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(20), pages 2101165118-, May.
    14. Echo Wen Wan & Nidhi Agrawal, 2011. "Carryover Effects of Self-Control on Decision Making: A Construal-Level Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 199-214.
    15. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    16. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    5. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    6. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.
    7. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:513-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Jungkeun Kim, 2017. "The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 397-409, September.
    10. Lichters, Marcel & Müller, Holger & Sarstedt, Marko & Vogt, Bodo, 2016. "How durable are compromise effects?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4056-4064.
    11. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2013. "The impact of promotions on consumer choices and preferences in out-of-stock situations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 587-598.
    12. Ahn, Heinz & Vazquez Novoa, Nadia, 2016. "The decoy effect in relative performance evaluation and the debiasing role of DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 959-967.
    13. Mehran Spitmaan & Oihane Horno & Emily Chu & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Combinations of low-level and high-level neural processes account for distinct patterns of context-dependent choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, October.
    14. Alexia Gaudeul & Paolo Crosetto, 2019. "Fast then slow: A choice process explanation for the attraction effect," Working Papers hal-02408719, HAL.
    15. Reich, Taly & Savary, Jennifer & Kupor, Daniella, 2021. "Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 147-157.
    16. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    17. Köcher, Sören & Jugovac, Michael & Jannach, Dietmar & Holzmüller, Hartmut H., 2019. "New Hidden Persuaders: An Investigation of Attribute-Level Anchoring Effects of Product Recommendations," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 24-41.
    18. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia, 2003. "Effect Propensity: The Location of the Reference State in the Option Space as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice," Research Papers 1788, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    19. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2020. "Choose Quickly! The Influence of Cognitive Resource Availability on the Preference between the Intuitive and Externally Recommended Options," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 263-272.
    20. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    21. Ronayne, David & Brown, Gordon D.A., 2016. "Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, comprimise and similarity effects," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1124, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323001169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.