IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ijb/journl/v12y2013i2p131-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Triple Sense-Making of Findings from Marketing Experiments Using the Dominant Variable Based-Logic, Case-Based Logic, and Isomorphic Modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Arch G. Woodside

    (Carroll School of Management, Boston College, U.S.A.)

  • Alexandre Schpektor

    (Queen Mary University of London, UK)

  • Xin Xia

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China)

Abstract

The study describes the complementary benefits of model-building and data analysis using algorithm and statistical modeling methods in the context of unobtrusive marketing field experiments and in transforming findings into isomorphic management models. Relevant for marketing performance measurement, case-based configural analysis is a relatively new paradigm in crafting and testing theory. Statistical testing of hypotheses to learn net effects of individual terms in multiple regression analysis is the current dominant logic. Isomorphic modeling might best communicate what executives should decide using the findings from algorithm and statistical models. We test these propositions using data from an unobtrusive field experiment in a retailing context that includes two levels of expertise, four price-points, and presence versus absence of a friend ("pal" condition) during the customer-salesperson interactions (n=240 store customers). The analyses support the conclusion that all three approaches to modeling provide useful complementary information substantially above the use of one alone and that transforming findings from such models into isomorphic management models is possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Arch G. Woodside & Alexandre Schpektor & Xin Xia, 2013. "Triple Sense-Making of Findings from Marketing Experiments Using the Dominant Variable Based-Logic, Case-Based Logic, and Isomorphic Modeling," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 12(2), pages 131-153, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ijb:journl:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:131-153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.12-2/pdf/vol_12-2-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.12-2/abstract/04.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. List, 2006. "The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(1), pages 1-37, February.
    2. Woodside, Arch G & Davenport, J William, Jr, 1976. "Effects of Price and Salesman Expertise on Customer Purchasing Behavior," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 51-59, January.
    3. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tanjim Istiaque Chowdhury & Md Rakibul Hoque & Peter Wanke & Mohammad Zahir Raihan & Md Abul Kalam Azad, 2022. "Antecedents of Perceived Service Quality of Online Education During a Pandemic: Configuration Analysis Based on Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Evaluation Review, , vol. 46(3), pages 235-265, June.
    2. Huarng, Kun-Huang, 2016. "Qualitative analysis with structural associations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5187-5191.
    3. Yu-Shan Lin, 2017. "Causal complexity for passengers’ intentions to re-ride," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 1925-1937, September.
    4. Chaouali, Walid & Hammami, Samiha Mjahed & Cristóvão Veríssimo, José Manuel & Harris, Lloyd C. & El-Manstrly, Dahlia & Woodside, Arch G., 2022. "Customers who misbehave: Identifying restaurant guests “acting out†via asymmetric case models," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. de Villiers, Rouxelle, 2015. "Consumer brand enmeshment: Typography and complexity modeling of consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty enactments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1953-1963.
    6. Zhongju Liao & Xiang Zhu, 2022. "A configurational analysis of firms' environmental innovation: Evidence from China's key pollutant‐discharge listed companies," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1511-1522, December.
    7. Grohs, Reinhard & Raies, Karine & Koll, Oliver & Mühlbacher, Hans, 2016. "One pie, many recipes: Alternative paths to high brand strength," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2244-2251.
    8. Huarng, Kun-Huang, 2016. "Identifying regime switches using causal recipes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1498-1502.
    9. Brenes, Esteban R. & Ciravegna, Luciano & Marcotte, Patrick, 2016. "Assessing agri-business firms' performances: Organizational and marketing business models of high/low sales and ROE outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3415-3426.
    10. Veríssimo, José Manuel Cristóvão, 2018. "Usage intensity of mobile medical apps: A tale of two methods," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 442-447.
    11. Huarng, Kun-Huang, 2015. "Configural theory for ICT development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 748-756.
    12. Tran, Cong Duc & Nguyen, Tin Trung, 2021. "Health vs. privacy? The risk-risk tradeoff in using COVID-19 contact-tracing apps," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Megehee, Carol M., 2016. "Flipping Lewin on his head: There is nothing as usefully theoretical as a good practice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5124-5127.
    14. Torugsa, Nuttaneeya (Ann) & Arundel, Anthony, 2017. "Rethinking the effect of risk aversion on the benefits of service innovations in public administration agencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 900-910.
    15. Nuttaneeya (Ann) Torugsa & Anthony Arundel & Paul L. Robertson, 2018. "Applying Configurational Thinking To Identify Recipes For Producing Service Innovations In The Service Sector," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-23, August.
    16. Sun, Yang & Garrett, Tony C. & Phau, Ian & Zheng, Bing, 2020. "Case-based models of customer-perceived sustainable marketing and its effect on perceived customer equity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 615-622.
    17. Stephan M. Liozu & Sven Feurer & Andreas Hinterhuber & Arch Woodside, 2021. "Configurational theory and practices of firms employing multiple pricing policies: assessing effective and ineffective pricing recipes in multiple firm contexts," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(4), pages 420-435, August.
    18. Chou, De-Wai & Huang, Pei-Ching & Lai, Christine W., 2016. "New mutual fund managers: Why do they alter portfolios?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2167-2175.

    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. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    5. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    6. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Nicole M. Baran & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the trust game," NBER Working Papers 15654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    10. Brian Albrecht & Omar Al-Ubaydli & Peter Boettke, 2022. "Testing the Hayek hypothesis: Recent theoretical and experimental evidence," Artefactual Field Experiments 00759, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Horak, Sven, 2013. "Cross-cultural experimental economics and indigenous management research: Issues and contributions," Working Papers on East Asian Studies 92/2013, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies IN-EAST.
    12. Brit Grosskopf & Graeme Pearce, 2020. "Do You Mind Me Paying Less? Measuring Other-Regarding Preferences in the Market for Taxis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5059-5074, November.
    13. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2023. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-Making," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    15. John List, 2007. "Experimenting with Fish has some Advantages," Artefactual Field Experiments 00387, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    17. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    18. Zuzana Gocmanová & Jaromír Skorkovský & Štěpán Veselý & Jan Böhm, 2019. "Where Do You Want to Go Skiing? The Effect of the Reference Point and Loss Aversion," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 243-252.
    19. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neyse, Levent & Aleknonyte, Milda, 2019. "Income inequality and risk taking: the impact of social comparison information," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(3), pages 283-297.
    20. Cosmina Bradu & Jacob Orquin & John Thøgersen, 2014. "The Mediated Influence of a Traceability Label on Consumer’s Willingness to Buy the Labelled Product," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 283-295, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    configural analysis; field experiment; fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis; multiple regression analysis; isomorphic management model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ijb:journl:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:131-153. 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: Szu-Hsien Ho (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbfcutw.html .

    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.