IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tky/fseres/2025cf1247.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research: Estimating the Effect of a Manipulation-check Variable

Author

Listed:
  • Makoto Abe

    (Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo)

Abstract

In consumer research and psychological experiments, subjects' states (attitudes) are manipulated by means of stimulus treatment in order to examine the effects of the subjects' states (attitudes) on the target variable. The interest here is not the effect of the treatment (stimulus) itself, but the effect on the target variable of the difference in state produced as a result of the treatment. Therefore, a manipulation check is usually performed to establish the validity of the experimental design, i.e., whether the stimulus produced the intended difference in state. When the manipulation-check variable (state) is directly associated with the target variable, one encounters the problem of confounding that affects both variables. To eliminate this problem, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used, but two weaknesses exist: first, only a discrete, binary effect of the presence or absence of treatment on the target variable can be uncovered. Second, the imperfection of the experimental design, in which the state induced by the treatment (stimulus) varies from subject to subject, resulting in different effects on the target variable, cannot be taken into account. In this study, we propose an approach that can correctly estimate the effect, which relates the manipulation-check variable to the target variable, even when unobserved confounding factors are present. By accounting for imperfections in the experimental design, the effect of the state variable becomes statistically more efficient than the effect of the experimental approach. The simulation analysis confirms that, for the same sample size, our instrumental variable approach is more significant than the usual experimental approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Makoto Abe, 2025. "Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research: Estimating the Effect of a Manipulation-check Variable," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1247, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
  • Handle: RePEc:tky:fseres:2025cf1247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirje.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research/dp/2025/2025cf1247.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    2. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    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. S Anukriti & Catalina Herrera‐Almanza & Praveen K. Pathak & Mahesh Karra, 2020. "Curse of the Mummy‐ji: The Influence of Mothers‐in‐Law on Women in India†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1328-1351, October.
    2. Arne Henningsen & Guy Low & David Wuepper & Tobias Dalhaus & Hugo Storm & Dagim Belay & Stefan Hirsch, 2024. "Estimating Causal Effects with Observational Data: Guidelines for Agricultural and Applied Economists," IFRO Working Paper 2024/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Peter G. Backus & Nicky L. Grant, 2019. "How sensitive is the average taxpayer to changes in the tax-price of giving?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(2), pages 317-356, April.
    4. Ea Hoppe Blaabæk & Mads Meier Jæger & Joseph Molitoris, 2020. "Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 575-600, July.
    5. Chang, Hung-Hao & Lee, Brian & Hsieh, Yi-Ting, 2021. "Participation in afforestation programs and the distribution of forest farm income," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Heger, Dörte & Korfhage, Thorben, 2017. "Does the negative effect of caregiving on work persist over time?," Ruhr Economic Papers 703, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Smolyansky, Michael, 2019. "Policy externalities and banking integration," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 118-139.
    8. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    9. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    10. Per G. Fredriksson & Khawaja A. Mamun, 2014. "Tobacco Politics and Electoral Accountability in the United States," Public Finance Review, , vol. 42(1), pages 4-34, January.
    11. Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2017. "Does ethnic segregation matter for spatial inequality?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1149-1178.
    12. Ayhan, Sinem H., 2015. "Evidence of Added Worker Effect from the 2008 Economic Crisis," IZA Discussion Papers 8937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Petri Böckerman & Alex Bryson & Pekka Ilmakunnas, 2013. "Does high involvement management lead to higher pay?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(4), pages 861-885, October.
    14. Zhorayev, Olzhas, 2020. "Determinants of Trust in Police: A Cross-National Analysis," MPRA Paper 109068, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ashesh Rambachan & Jonathan Roth, 2020. "Design-Based Uncertainty for Quasi-Experiments," Papers 2008.00602, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    16. Heissel, Jennifer, 2016. "The relative benefits of live versus online delivery: Evidence from virtual algebra I in North Carolina," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 99-115.
    17. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Gröschl, Jasmin, 2013. "Natural disasters and the effect of trade on income: A new panel IV approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 18-30.
    18. Kamal Saggi & Andrey Stoyanov & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2018. "Do Free Trade Agreements Affect Tariffs of Nonmember Countries? A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 128-170, July.
    19. Rietveld, Cornelius A. & Webbink, Dinand, 2016. "On the genetic bias of the quarter of birth instrument," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 137-146.
    20. Marcelo Moreira & Geert Ridder, 2019. "Efficiency loss of asymptotically efficient tests in an instrumental variables regression," CeMMAP working papers CWP03/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tky:fseres:2025cf1247. 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: CIRJE administrative office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ritokjp.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.