Do samples really matter that much?

Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 247-265

  Highhouse, Scott ^a   Gillespie, Jennifer Z ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909087481     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203867266     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3-9.
2. Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 35, 463-464.
3. Birnbaum, M. H., & Martin, T. (2003). Generalization across people, procedures, and predictions: Violations of stochastic dominance and coalescing. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197-207.
5. Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise:Prospects and limits (pp. 195-217). New York: Cambridge Press.
6. Campbell, J. P. (1986). Labs, fields, and straw issues. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 269-279). Lexington, MA: Heath.
7. Conrad, H. S. (1946). Some principles of attitude-measurement: A reply to "Opinion attitude methodology." Psychological Bulletin, 63, 570-589.
8. Dipboye, R. L., & Flanagan, M. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? American Psychologist, 34, 141-150.
9. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281-286.
10. Dunlap, W. P. (1994). Generalizing the common language effect size indicator to bivariate normal correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 509-511.
11. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145.
12. Farber, M. L. (1952). The college student as laboratory animal. American Psychologist, 7, 102.
13. Fisher, R. A. (1955). Statistical methods and scientific induction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 17, 69-78.
14. Gigerenzer, G. (2006). What's in a sample? A manual for building cognitive theories. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 239-260). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.
16. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball:On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295-314.
18. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The "science of the sophomore" revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191-207.
19. Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157-159.
20. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
21. Highhouse, S. (in press). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods.
22. Ilgen, D. R. (1986). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 257-267). Lexington, MA: Heath.
23. Judge, T. J., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 762-782.
24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, XVLII, 263-291.
25. Kardes, F. R. (1996). In defense of experimental consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 279-296.
26. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-544.
27. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
28. Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The two meanings of external invalidity. Human Relations, 66, 373-382.
29. Kubeck, J. E., Delp, N. D., Haslett, T. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Does job-related training performance decline with age? Psychology and Aging, 11, 92-107.
30. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements? In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 257-267). Lexington, MA: Heath.
31. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.
32. Lynch, J. G. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 109-111.
33. McNemar, Q. (1946). Opinion-attitude methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 43, 289-374.
34. Mook, D. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
35. Oakes, W. (1972). External validity and the use of real people as subjects. American Psychologist, 27, 959-962.
36. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450-461.
37. Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Whitney, D., & Smith, M. (1996). Individual differences in interviewer ratings: The impact of standardization, consensus discussion, and sampling error on the validity of a structured interview. Personnel Psychology, 49, 85-102.
38. Rosenthal, R. (1965). The volunteer subject. Human Relations, 18, 389-406.
39. Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
40. Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
41. Sagie, A. (1994). Participative decision making and performance: A moderator analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 227-246.
42. Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental design. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
43. Sherden, W. A. (1998). The fortune sellers: The big business of buying and selling predictions. New York: John Wiley.
44. Stone-Romero, E. F. (2002). The relative validity and usefulness of various empirical research designs. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 77-98). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics & biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.