This critique can apply to this paper as well. Furthermore, the paper has a more fundamental in my opinion error, especially in Experiment 3. It fails to separate the effect of experimental stimulus (shopping at conventional or green store) from other potential effects stemming from the general propensity of the experimental subjects. That is, the authors should have first done pre-testing i.e. measure all subjects on the lying and stealing test, then divide them into 3 groups - one control (no shopping) and two experimental (green and conventional shopping) and then do post-testing i.e. measure all subjects on the lying and stealing test again and look for differences in changes between pre- and post-testing for all three groups.
The failure to do so is a fatal flaw in experimental design, because it makes it impossible to isolate the effect under investigation (shopping choice) form other possible effects. If I were asked to review this paper for potential publication, I would give it a negative review because the paper does not produce sufficient evidence to support its conclusions. As I said before, it could be that the people who shopped green and cheated did so because they were arrogant upper class pricks (or economists :)) and both behaviors caused by their uppity arrogance (green shopping - manifestation of social status, cheating - feeling of entitlement and greed.) The paper does not control for that possible effect.
Wojtek
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> Do you have the quote of the actual paper? I could not find it in
>> Psychological Science.
>>
>
> I posted the link earlier:
>
>
> http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/MazarZhong_PS_GreenProducts.pdf
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>