UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA



UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Marshall School of Business

Fall 2009

GSBA 625 – DESIGNING AND RUNNING EXPERIMENTS (Section 16120R)

Instructor: Professor Sarah Bonner

Class Hours: Wed., 9:00 – 11:50, HOH 506

Course Website:

Office: HOH 622

Office Phone: (213) 740-5025

Email Address: sbonner@marshall.usc.edu

Office Hours: 2:00 – 3:30 TuTh, 12:00 – 2:00 Wed., and by appt.*

Emergencies: Call (213) 740-4321 (for a personal emergency) or (213) 740-9233

or listen to 91.5 KUSC radio (for emergency information)

USC Information: (213) 740-2311

Prerequisites: Departmental approval

Corequisites: None

*Also please feel free to email me at any time. I will respond to you as quickly as I can.

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course provides an overview of the design and implementation of experiments. The first half of the course is devoted to understanding fundamental design issues and the various types of experimental designs available for answering research questions. The second half of the course is devoted to the various issues that arise when actually operationalizing one’s own experiment. These issues include measuring dependent variables, as well as measurement issues related to mediators and covariates; proper manipulation of independent variables; choice, recruitment, and treatment of experimental subjects; and proper experimental procedures including methods for avoiding demand/experimenter expectancy effects and minimizing noise.

II. COURSE PREQUISITE KNOWLEDGE

This course assumes you are familiar with basic principles of research design, as well as with basic psychological concepts since most experimental research in business is based on psychology. Additionally, since examples from business settings are used, some familiarity with basic business issues is assumed. Enrollment in this course is restricted to Ph.D. students.

III. COURSE GOAL AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES; COURSE FORMAT

The overall goal of this course is to introduce you to the key issues related to designing and running experiments. Subsumed under this goal are several specific learning objectives and desired outcomes related to those objectives:

■ You should gain factual knowledge of important terminology related to experiments, including, for example: random assignment, between-subjects design, within-subjects design, repeated measures, fully crossed factorial design, main effect, interaction, planned contrasts, post hoc comparisons, measurement, measurement error, reliability, confound, mediator, moderator, covariate, and manipulation check.

-- The desired outcome for this objective is that you be able to define and describe these concepts.

■ You should learn fundamental principles related to designing and running experiments. These fundamental principles are among the specific skills and competencies needed by experimental researchers. These principles include those related to the choice of a proper and efficient design and the analysis technique that is appropriate for that design, proper manipulation of treatments, proper measurement of dependent and other variables, proper control of noise and correlated omitted variables, proper sampling and treatment of subjects, and proper experimental procedures.

-- The desired outcome for this objective is that you be able to describe these principles.

■ You should learn to apply the above terminology to novel situations. This learning would include the ability to recognize, based on your understanding of terminology, whether something you read employs repeated measures, a fractional factorial design, etc. More important, you should also learn to apply the above principles to novel situations and begin to learn how to apply the above principles to your own experimental research – this would include determining whether another researcher (or you yourself) have chosen a proper design, properly measured or manipulated variables, used proper controls, etc.

-- The desired outcome for these objectives is that you be able to classify “good” (or “present”) vs. “bad” (“absent”) examples of important terminology and principles, e.g., whether a study has properly measured a specific type of dependent variable (e.g., memory recall). An additional desired outcome is that you can begin to properly apply the principles to your own work. You obviously cannot completely learn all there is to know about experiments in a one-semester course. This is why my objective is that you can begin to do these things.

To achieve the above learning objectives, I will employ a combination of background reading, interactive lecture, written work, and prompt feedback. Because research on learning indicates that having an initial conceptual framework substantially improves later learning, I will lecture to establish the framework and clarify the terminology and principles embedded therein. I expect questions during lectures. However, because my learning objectives include fostering your ability to apply terminology and principles, and beginning to learn to apply the principles to your own work, there also will be quite a bit of written work and feedback from me on that work. Research on learning indicates that it is very difficult to gain anything more than a superficial understanding of (i.e., memorize) material without practice and feedback. The best combination of techniques for learning difficult material deeply, then, is the introduction of the framework up front, followed by practice and feedback.

One specific element of most lectures will be what I’ll call “reality checks.” There are two types of reality checks that we will employ. In the first half of the class where we discuss various designs, we will talk about the real-world circumstances under which one might see or use such designs. There are two reasons for using this type of reality check. The first is that people tend to get into ruts with designs because they tend to get in ruts with research questions. Thus, getting into the habit of thinking about the circumstances under which you could use various designs might help you get out of a rut with research questions. Second, some designs have been invented because of real-world problems that experimentalists have faced. For example, fractional factorial designs are an alternative to fully-crossed factorial designs that can help if, for example, there is a restriction on subject time. In other words, experimental designs are not simply a jumbled up bag of tricks from which one pulls a choice, and thinking about the reality of the circumstances under which they are appropriate will reinforce your knowledge of how the designs fit together. In the second half of the course, the reality check sections will relate to the theoretical principles that govern the actual doing of experiments. These principles are sound and strict, but experimentalists have to operate in a world that often confronts them with restrictions, e.g., on money, time, subject availability, and laboratory conditions. As a result, we often are prevented from completely following the principles – we have to make tradeoffs. We will discuss the types of tradeoffs you might be confronted with and the effects of these tradeoffs on your research.

Another element of several classes will be the provision of a study that employs a “clever experiment” as part of your background reading. These studies were nominated by several colleagues who do experimental research, and are clever in various ways. They are included in the hope that you might be able to draw an analogy from the situations in these studies to a situation that you face. You need only skim these articles.

IV. REQUIRED TEXTS, READINGS, AND OTHER TOOLS; RECOMMENDED OR ADDITIONAL READINGS

The required texts for this course are:

■ Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (3rd edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 2007. ISBN:

978-0-07-353196-0 or 0-07-353196-0. Please shop around for this book. Used copies are available on the Internet for very low prices.

■ Shadish, W., Cook, T., and Campbell, D. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 2002. ISBN: 0-395-61556-9. You should be able to shop around for this book on the Internet as well.

Additionally, you will be assigned readings from psychology and business journals (listed in detail below). To the extent these materials are not available online, they will be distributed to you well ahead of time. You also may want to consider purchasing the following texts for your library at some point (if you do not already own them), as they are among the standard references for (behavioral) experimental researchers:

■ Kerlinger, F., and Lee, H. Foundations of Behavioral Research (4th edition). Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 2000.

■ Kirk, R. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 1995.

■ Nunnally, J., and Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory (3rd edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 1994.

■ Winer, B., Brown, D., and Michels, K. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (3rd edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 1991.

■ Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1988.

■ Siegel, S., and Castellan, N., Jr. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 1988.

For each topic we cover, there literally are hundreds of additional readings. Thus, I have not listed additional readings for each session, as this would be overwhelming. However, you should feel free to inquire further about any topic in which you have a particular interest.

V. GRADE COMPOSITION AND GRADING EXPECTATIONS

Total points for this course are 1000. Your letter grade will be determined based on your relative performance (vis-à-vis your peers).

|Component |Points |

|Written assignments |500 |

|Final exam |400 |

|Class participation |100 |

| Total |1000 |

My expectations for performance in each component of this class are as follows. First, with regard to the final exam, the exam will occur during finals period and will be closed book. Students will be allowed to take a make-up exam only under exceptional circumstances. You can expect to have some shorter definitional and recall questions, as well as lengthier qualifying-exam type questions because both types of questions are necessary for me to determine whether you have met the learning objectives of the course (see above). Shorter definitional and recall questions will be similar to those you have seen in undergraduate and masters-level courses. “Qualifying-exam” types of questions typically ask students to recall large amounts of material, to synthesize and organize material in new ways, and to apply the material to novel situations to demonstrate a relatively deep understanding thereof. Grading includes, but is not limited to, the following components: accuracy of recall (including references to particular articles and other sources, if required), completeness of recall, meaningful organization of material (i.e., the answer is not just a jumbled-up listing of concepts and facts), novelty of insights (if required), and appropriate application of material to new situations including, for example, the mapping of abstract concepts to details of the new situation. As performance on these components of the exam decreases, grades will decrease from a maximum of 400 points.

This course also requires FIVE written assignments because of the challenging nature of the learning objectives (see above). There are 500 points allocated to these assignments – the points for each assignment are indicated in the detailed description of the assignments below. I will be grading each assignment on whether you completed all parts of the assignment, the effort you put into the assignment as exhibited by your thoroughness and depth of thought, and, to a lesser extent, accuracy of application of concepts, in cases where we have covered the material pertinent to the assignment in some depth prior to the assignment being due. Additionally, your grade on Assignment 4 will depend on the quality of your presentation in class. In other words, I am not necessarily looking for you to always get a “right answer” unless we clearly have covered the material prior to the assignment, but rather that you are working hard and putting forth your best effort to learn. Assignments are due by the beginning of class on the date indicated, even if you must miss class. I will grade your assignments and provide feedback on them as promptly as possible, typically by the next class period.

Next, 100 points are allocated to general class participation – that related to discussions we have on days when there are no assignments due and/or discussions we have on days when assignments are due but that do not relate to your assignment. My expectations for this participation grade are that you will have read the background readings thoroughly and you will be prepared to discuss their major points and ask and answer questions. Your preparedness can be exhibited voluntarily or involuntarily (i.e., I will call on you). The main criterion for grading participation is effort, as exhibited by thoroughness of preparation and depth of thought. In discussions there often is no “right answer,” so little weight will be placed on an accuracy criterion.

VI. STATEMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure that the letter is delivered to me as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.

VII. STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

USC seeks to maintain an optimal learning environment. General principles of academic honesty include the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligation both to protect one’s own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another’s work as one’s own. All students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. Scampus, the Student Guidebook, contains the Student Conduct Code in Section 11.00, while the recommended sanctions are located in Appendix A: . Students will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards for further review, should there be any suspicion of academic dishonesty. The Review process can be found at .

Specifically, the following are my policies on academic integrity for this course. With regard to the final exam, sharing information with other students about the contents of or answers to the exams is considered a violation of the Student Conduct Code and will result in an “F” for the course. Additionally, using reference materials of any sort on the final (unless you are instructed to the contrary) is a violation of the Student Conduct Code and will result in an “F” for the course. With regard to written/discussion assignments and critiques of others’ assignments, my policy is that all these assignments and critiques are to be completed individually. It will be considered a violation of the Student Conduct Code if any discussion about a written/discussion assignment or a critique of another’s written assignment has occurred among students or from a student to, for example, a faculty member (except, of course, the simple transmission of the written assignment by one student to the other student responsible for critiquing it). If you have questions about assignments or critiques, please direct them to me. Students discussing assignments or critiques will receive a -0- for the item that they have discussed.

VIII. CLASS TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|1 |8/26 |Review of basic |RR – Skim Chs. 1, 2 |None |

| | |research design issues|SCC -- Review Chs. 1-3 if you feel that it is necessary (or | |

| | | |read it if you have never had this material) | |

| | |Reality check: What is| | |

| | |your philosophy of |Other readings: | |

| | |science? |Anderson, P., “Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific | |

| | | |Method,” Journal of Marketing (1983), 18-31. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Sutton, R., and B. Staw, “What Theory is Not,” Administrative | |

| | | |Science Quarterly (1995), 371-384. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Whetten, D., “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” | |

| | | |Academy of Management Review (1989), 490-495. | |

|2 |9/2 |Experiments and key |RR – Ch. 7 through p. 216 |None |

| | |validity issues |SCC – Ch. 8 through p. 252 | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Other readings: | |

| | | |Anderson, C., J. Lindsay, and B. Bushman, “Research in the | |

| | | |Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality?” Current | |

| | | |Directions in Psychological Science (1999), 3-9. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Dhami, M., R. Hertwig, and U. Hoffrage, “The Role of | |

| | | |Representative Design in an Ecological Approach to Cognition,”| |

| | | |Psychological Bulletin (2004), 959-988 (skimming this article | |

| | | |is fine). | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiment for your reference: | |

| | | |Argo, J., D. Dahl, and A. Morales, “Consumer Contamination: | |

| | | |How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others,” Journal of| |

| | | |Marketing (2006), 81-94. | |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|3 |9/9 |Overview of |SCC – Ch. 8, pp. 257-266 |Assignment 1 |

| | |experimental designs; | | |

| | |roles of designs | | |

| | | | | |

| | |Reality checks: When | | |

| | |is it OK to have a | | |

| | |one-factor design? How| | |

| | |likely is it that you | | |

| | |need a nested design? | | |

| | |How likely is it that | | |

| | |you can meet the | | |

| | |conditions for a | | |

| | |fractional factorial | | |

| | |or Latin square | | |

| | |design? | | |

|4 |9/16 |Answering questions |RR – Chs. 13 (except pp. 395-400), 14, 15 |None |

| | |with designs: | | |

| | |Single-factor |Other readings: | |

| | |randomized designs |Prentice, D., and D. Miller, “When Small Effects are | |

| | | |Impressive,” Psychological Bulletin (1992), 160-164. | |

| | |Reality checks: Is | | |

| | |ANOVA really as robust|Wilkinson, L. et al., “Statistical Methods in Psychology | |

| | |as thought? How many |Journals: Guidelines and Explanations.” American Psychologist | |

| | |levels of the factor |(1999), 594-604. | |

| | |should be used and | | |

| | |what should they be? |Yeaton, W. and L. Sechrest, “Meaningful Measures of Effect,” | |

| | |How can planned |Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1981), 766-767.| |

| | |contrasts be messy? | | |

| | | |Clever experiment for your reference: | |

| | | |Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A., and J. Bargh, “Relationship | |

| | | |Orientation as a Moderator of the Effects of Social Power,” | |

| | | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2001), 173-187. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |In-class activity: Go over one-factor ANOVA and related tests,| |

| | | |planned contrasts, and post hoc comparisons in SPSS. | |

| | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|5 |9/23 |Answering questions |RR – Chs. 16 (through p. 489), 17 |Assignment 2 |

| | |with designs: Fully | | |

| | |crossed (randomized) |Other readings: | |

| | |factorial designs |Baron, R., and D. Kenny, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable | |

| | | |Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, | |

| | |Reality checks: What |Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of | |

| | |type of variable will |Personality and Social Psychology (1986), 1173-1182. | |

| | |the second factor be? | | |

| | |Why is theory |Jaccard, J., Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of | |

| | |incredibly important |Variance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 1-19. | |

| | |for 2-factor studies? | | |

| | | |In-class activity: Go over two-factor ANOVA and related | |

| | | |tests for main, interactive, and simple effects, planned | |

| | | |contrasts, and post hoc comparisons in SPSS. | |

|6 |9/30 |Controlling for |RR – Ch.16 (pp. 489-495) |None |

| | |threats to validity | | |

| | |with designs: Blocking|Other readings: | |

| | |and covariate designs |Trochim, W., and J. Donnelly, The Research Methods Knowledge| |

| | | |Base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson, 2007, pp. 198-203. | |

| | |Reality checks: Why is| | |

| | |ex ante consideration |In-class activity: Learn about ANCOVA and related tests for | |

| | |of noise variables so |main effect, effect of covariate, and comparisons in SPSS. | |

| | |important? Should task| | |

| | |and environmental | | |

| | |factors always be held| | |

| | |constant? Why is | | |

| | |ANCOVA the poor | | |

| | |stepsister to random | | |

| | |assignment? | | |

| | | | | |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|7 |10/7 |Answering questions/ |RR – Ch. 18 |Assignment 3 |

| | |dealing with practical| | |

| | |issues with designs: |Other readings: | |

| | |Repeated measures and |Greenwald, A., “Within-Subjects Designs: To Use or Not To | |

| | |within-subjects |Use?” Psychological Bulletin (1976), 136-147. | |

| | |designs; Wrap-up of | | |

| | |randomized designs |In-class activity: Go over repeated measures ANOVA (and | |

| | | |MANOVA alternative) and related tests for main effect and | |

| | |Reality check: Do we |comparisons in SPSS. | |

| | |live in a between-Ss | | |

| | |or a within-Ss world? | | |

|8 |10/14 |Quasi-experiments |SCC – Chs. 4, 5, 7, 8 (pp. 269-277) |None |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiment for your reference: | |

| | | |Stajkovic, A. and F. Luthans, “Differential Effects of | |

| | | |Incentive Motivators on Work Performance.” Academy of | |

| | | |Management Journal (2001), 580-590. | |

|9 |10/21 |Presentation of |RR – Ch. 4 |Assignment 4 |

| | |Assignment 4; | | |

| | |Measurement issues – |Other readings: | |

| | |basics of measurement |Martin, D., Doing Psychology Experiments (7th ed.). Belmont,| |

| | |and construct |CA: Thompson, 2008, pp. 136-147. | |

| | |validity; overview of | | |

| | |types of measures |Simon, J., and P. Burstein, Basic Research Methods in Social| |

| | |taken by experimenters|Science (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Random House, 1985, pp. | |

| | | |58-68. | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|10 |10/28 |Measurement issues – |RR – Ch. 6 |None |

| | |subjective measures | | |

| | |provided by |Other readings: | |

| | |participants |Schwarz, N., “Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the | |

| | | |Answers,” American Psychologist (1999), 93-105. | |

| | |Reality checks: TBA | | |

| | | |Spector, P. Summated Rating Scale Construction: An | |

| | | |Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992, pp. 1-12. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Stone, A., J. Turkkan, C. Bachrach, J. Jobe, H. Kurtzman, and | |

| | | |V. Cain (Eds.), The Science of Self-Report: Implications for | |

| | | |Research and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000, | |

| | | |Chs.1, 3, 5. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiment for your reference: | |

| | | |Hackenbrack, K., and M. Nelson, “Auditors’ Incentives and | |

| | | |Their Application of Financial Accounting Standards,” The | |

| | | |Accounting Review (1996), 43-59. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |In-class activity: Learn about statistical tests for | |

| | | |reliability and unidimensionality, including factor analysis, | |

| | | |in SPSS. | |

|11 |11/4 |Measurement issues – |RR – Ch. 7 (pp. 216-223) |None |

| | |subjective measures | | |

| | |provided by |Other readings: | |

| | |participants, |Dunning, D., C. Heath, and J. Suls, “Flawed Self-Assessment: | |

| | |continued; objective |Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace.” | |

| | |measures provided by |Psychological Science in the Public Interest (December 2004), | |

| | |participants |69-106. | |

| | | | | |

| | |Reality checks: TBA |Haladyna, T., Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test | |

| | | |Items. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2004, Chapters 1-4. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiment for your reference: | |

| | | |Galinsky, A., D. Gruenfeld, and J. Magee,” From Power to | |

| | | |Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2003), | |

| | | |453-466. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |In-class activities: Critique scale; critique knowledge test. | |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|12 |11/11 |Measurement issues – |RR – Ch. 5 (pp. 128-151) |None |

| | |measures provided by | | |

| | |observers; Mediator |Other readings: | |

| | |issues – types of |Bonner, S. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Upper | |

| | |mediators examined by |Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 2008, pp. 110-120. | |

| | |experiments; methods | | |

| | |for examining |MacKinnon, D., and A. Fairchild, “Current Directions in | |

| | |mediators in |Mediation Analysis,” Current Directions in Psychological | |

| | |experiments; analyzing|Science (2009), 16-20. | |

| | |mediators’ effects | | |

| | | |MacKinnon, D., C. Lockwood, J. Hoffman, S. West, and V. | |

| | |Reality checks: TBA |Sheets, “A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other | |

| | | |Intervening Variable Effects,” Psychological Methods (2002), | |

| | | |83-104 (NOTE: This article is FYI only. We will not discuss it| |

| | | |in class.) | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiments for your reference: | |

| | | |Bonner, S., R. Libby, and M. Nelson, “Using Decision Aids to | |

| | | |Improve Auditors’ Conditional Probability Judgments,” The | |

| | | |Accounting Review (1996), 221-240. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Kachelmeier, S., B. Reichert, and M. Williamson, “Measuring | |

| | | |and Motivating Quantity, Creativity, or Both,” Journal of | |

| | | |Accounting Research (2008), 341-373. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |In-class activities: Code qualitative data; learn how to | |

| | | |calculate Cohen’s Kappa. | |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|13 |11/18 |Manipulation issues – |Other readings: |None |

| | |constructing |LeBlanc, G., “Once in a Blue Mood,” O, The Oprah Magazine | |

| | |manipulations and |(August 2009), 96. | |

| | |cover stories, | | |

| | |manipulation checks |Martin, D., Doing Psychology Experiments (7th ed.). Belmont, | |

| | | |CA: Thompson, 2008, pp. 131-135. | |

| | |Reality checks: TBA | | |

| | | |Perdue, B. and J. Summers, “Checking the Success of | |

| | | |Manipulations in Marketing Experiments.” Journal of Marketing| |

| | | |Research (November 1986), 317-326. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Clever experiments for your reference: | |

| | | |Gilbert, D., D. Krull, and P. Malone, “Unbelieving the | |

| | | |Unbelievable: Some Problems in the Rejection of Information,”| |

| | | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1990), 601-613.| |

| | | | | |

| | | |Hopkins, P., “The Effect of Financial Statement | |

| | | |Classification of Hybrid Financial Instruments on Financial | |

| | | |Analysts’ Stock Price Judgments,” Journal of Accounting | |

| | | |Research (Supplement 1996), 33-50. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Hugon, A., “The Effect of Redundancy in Financial Media | |

| | | |Coverage on Earnings Expectations,” Working paper, 2006. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Young, S., J. Fisher, and T. Lindquist, “The Effects of | |

| | | |Intergroup Competition and Intragroup Cooperation on Slack | |

| | | |and Output in a Manufacturing Setting,” The Accounting Review| |

| | | |(1996), 466-481. | |

|14 |11/25 |Catch-up day | |Assignment 5 |

|Class No. | | |Reading Assignments/ |Written Assignment |

| |Date |Topic |In-Class Activities | |

|15 |12/2 |Running the |RR – Chapters 3, 7 (pp. 193-196, 223-230) 9, 12 | |

| | |experiment: Choosing |SCC – Ch. 9 (pp. 294-302) | |

| | |the proper number and | | |

| | |types of subjects; |Other readings: | |

| | |random assignment; |Edlund, J., B. Sagarin, J. Skowronski, S. Johnson, and J. | |

| | |proper treatment of |Kutter, “Whatever Happens in the Laboratory Stays in the | |

| | |subjects (ethics); |Laboratory: The Prevalence and Prevention of Participant | |

| | |experimenter |Crosstalk,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | |

| | |expectancy effects |(2009), 635-642. | |

| | | | | |

| | |Reality checks: TBA |Sears, D. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences | |

| | | |of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human | |

| | | |Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | |

| | | |(September 1986), 515-530. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |In-class activity: View video of re-creation of Milgram | |

| | | |“experiment.” | |

| |12/14 or TBD|FINAL EXAM | | |

Assignment 1 – Due 9/9 (100 points) – REMINDER: each assignment is to be done individually. If you have questions, email me.

Suppose you are a researcher who is interested in the effects of various dental products. Specifically, you are very curious about the effects of a new product called BEST toothpaste. Please do the following related to this issue:

1. Outline an experiment (a controlled, randomized experiment, that is) that attempts to answer the following research question: Does brushing with BEST toothpaste lead to fewer cavities? Or, stated in terms of a signed association between two variables: Does brushing with BEST toothpaste have a negative relation with the number of cavities people have? Be sure to describe who your research participants will be and how you will assign them to different conditions or groups. Also describe how you will manipulate your independent variable and measure your dependent variable.

2. Outline a non-experimental study (either a survey or one using archival data) in which you are attempting to answer the research question above. In other words, you are examining whether there is a negative correlation between brushing with BEST toothpaste and the number of cavities people have. Note whether you would use a survey or would attempt to locate archival data. For the approach you choose, describe how you will measure your independent and dependent variables. In addition, describe how you will deal with the key threats to internal validity that arise with a non-experimental study, namely reverse causality and correlated omitted variables.

Assignment 2 – Due 9/23 (75 points) – REMINDER: each assignment is to be done individually. If you have questions, email me.

Using the data that I give you, please do the following using Excel and/or a calculator. That is, do not use any statistical software to assist you in doing the tests. The only items to which you may refer are the formulas we learn in class on 9/12, a table of F values (I’m providing one from the Kirk book), and the Rosenthal and Rosnow chapters you read for class (if you want further discussion or an alternative presentation of the formulas).

The data file contains two variables. The independent variable (coded 0 or 1) represents whether people who have a department store’s credit card received a special advertising insert in their credit card billing promoting a reduced interest rate on purchases made over the next three months (coded 1) or, instead, received the standard seasonal ad insert (coded 0). The dependent variable (the other variable on your sheet) is the dollars spent during the promotional (three-month) period. NOTE: The original file had 500 observations. I just chose the first 60 to make your calculations easier. This made the cell sizes slightly unequal, but this is OK for purposes of this assignment.

1. Calculate the total sum of squares, the between-group sum of squares (for the ad treatment), and the within-group sum of squares.

2. Determine the degrees of freedom for the between-group sum of squares and the within-group sum of squares and calculate the mean square (between group) and the mean square (within group).

3. Calculate the F statistic and determine if it is statistically significant (by reference to the attached F table).

4. Given the difficulty of analyzing whether the assumptions of the F test have been met by hand, let’s assume that one or more violations of the assumptions has occurred and we need nonparametric tests. Perform the median test (pp. 124-128 of attached document) and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (pp. 128-137 of attached document), taken from Siegel and Castellan (1988).

Assignment 3 – Due 10/7 (100 points) – REMINDER: each assignment is to be done individually. If you have questions, email me.

Using the data that I give you, please do the following using Excel and/or a calculator. Do not use any statistical software to assist you in making the calculations or doing the tests.

The data file contains three variables that reflect a study of the effects of two types of reinforcement schedules and three types of reinforcers (incentives) on the math problem-solving performance of 2nd-graders. The first independent variable (manipulation) is type of incentive (1 = tokens; 2 = money; 3 = food). The second independent variable (manipulation) is reinforcement schedule (1 = random; 2 = spaced). The dependent variable is the students’ score on an arithmetic problem-solving test. The cell sizes are equal here, which is important in two-way ANOVA.

1. Calculate the total sum of squares, the sum of squares for reinforcement schedule, the sum of squares for type of incentive, the sum of squares for the interaction between reinforcement schedule and type of incentive, and the within-group sum of squares.

2. Determine the degrees of freedom for the above sums of squares and calculate the mean squares for all terms except the total sum of squares.

3. Calculate the F statistics and determine if they are statistically significant (by reference to the F table I gave you for assignment 2). Use a p value of .05 for assessing significance.

4. You should find a significant interaction in step 3. Given this, do the following. First, interpret the interaction in conventional terms, i.e., using cell means. Second, employ the “mean polishing” technique described in RR to learn more about the interaction. This technique will be discussed in class and is illustrated on pp. 504-506 and pp. 510-513. Based on these results, interpret the interaction (as RR would do).

Assignment 4 – Due 10/21 (125 points) –REMINDER: each assignment is to be done individually. If you have questions, email me.

Propose a two-factor randomized factorial experiment that has as its dependent variable “quality of dental hygiene,” and that includes one blocking factor. NOTE: I have chosen a specific topic for everyone to address in order to level the playing field. You may propose any two independent variables that you find reasonable based on whatever means you believe are appropriate for deciding upon those variables. Similarly, you may propose any blocking variable that you find reasonable (do not choose more than one blocking variable, however).

In your write-up, which should be no more than 5 pages double-spaced (less is OK as long as you fully complete the requirements), provide the following information:

1. Describe the design, i.e., is it a 2 x 2, a 2 x 3, etc.?

2. Provide information about the levels of the two independent variables that you will manipulate. That is, if you have a variable that has two levels, tell me what the two levels are. You should go beyond saying something like “high” and “low,” i.e., give me brief descriptions of what “high” and “low” levels mean. Make sure that the two variables are theoretically crossable, i.e., that you do not have a nested design.

3. Provide information about the blocking variable, i.e., what it is and how you will obtain information about it in order to create blocks of subjects.

4. Provide information about how you will measure “quality of dental hygiene” as the dependent variable. Again, this does not have to be extensive as it is a brief proposal, but provide some detail about measurement given that “quality of dental hygiene” is a construct that needs to be operationalized. NOTE: You are not allowed to use a pre-existing scale for “quality of dental hygiene.”

5. Discuss two other noise variables that might affect your dependent variable and how you will control for their effects (NOTE: these should be two variables beyond the one that you use for blocking purposes).

You will be required to give a 5-minute presentation on this assignment in class. I will be grading your assignment on the work per se, so nothing fancy is required for this presentation. You may write on the board or have a few basic slides. The most important thing is to be concise (while still being clear, of course).

Assignment 5 – Due 11/25 (100 points). REMINDER: each assignment is to be done individually. If you have questions, email me.

Develop a scale to measure the construct “quality of exercise regimen” (again, you are not allowed to use a pre-existing scale). Your scale must have at least 10 items/questions to begin with (I understand that you may have to drop some once you calculate alpha). Put the scale in the form of a questionnaire, complete with instructions. Give the questionnaire to at least 10 people who are familiar with the domain, i.e., adults who will understand the notion of exercising voluntarily (children likely would not understand this concept). DO NOT give the questionnaire to your fellow GSBA 625 students. It is OK if your participants overlap, however. For example, many of you may ask students or faculty in your department to fill out the questionnaire. Please caution them against discussing your questionnaire with other GSBA 625 students, however.

Analyze your data to determine the internal consistency of your scale using whatever statistical software you prefer. Specifically, calculate Cronbach’s alpha.

Turn in your questionnaire, copies of the raw data (e.g., copies of the filled-out questionnaires if given manually, or data files if given electronically), and your statistical analysis clearly showing Cronbach’s alpha.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download