[lbo-talk] green consumers: thieving pricks

[Miles Jackson]

Wojtek S wrote:
> 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.
>   
No, that's unnecessary.  Participants were randomly assigned to the 
experimental levels, so the "individual propensities" of the 
participants are equally distributed among the groups.  Eliminating the 
types of confounds you're concerned about here is the reason that 
psychologists prefer to use experimental rather than correlational 
designs whenever possible.


> 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.

Again, the experimental design does control for this possible effect.   
The results provide clear evidence of causality.

Miles