Invalidating Factorial Survey Experiments Using Invalid Comparisons Is Bad Practice: Learning from Forster and Neugebauer (2024)

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Justin T. Pickett
{"title":"Invalidating Factorial Survey Experiments Using Invalid Comparisons Is Bad Practice: Learning from Forster and Neugebauer (2024)","authors":"Justin T. Pickett","doi":"10.15195/v12.a5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forster and Neugebauer's (2024) invalidation study is invalid. Their conclusion that factorial survey (FS) experiments 'are not suited for studying hiring behavior' (P. 901) is unjustified, because their claim that they conducted a field experiment (FE) and FS with 'nearly identical' designs is false (P. 891). The two experiments included: (1) different factor levels (for three factors), (2) different unvalidated applicant names (to manipulate ethnicity), (3) different applicant photos, (4) different fixed factors (e.g., applicant stories about moving), and (5) different experimental settings (e.g., testing, instrumentation, and conditions of anonymity). In the current article, I discuss each of these major design differences and explain why it invalidates Forster and Neugebauer's (2024) comparison of their FE and FS findings. I conclude by emphasizing that social scientists are better served by asking why FE and FS findings sometimes differ than by assuming that any difference in findings across the experimental designs invalidates FS.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Forster and Neugebauer's (2024) invalidation study is invalid. Their conclusion that factorial survey (FS) experiments 'are not suited for studying hiring behavior' (P. 901) is unjustified, because their claim that they conducted a field experiment (FE) and FS with 'nearly identical' designs is false (P. 891). The two experiments included: (1) different factor levels (for three factors), (2) different unvalidated applicant names (to manipulate ethnicity), (3) different applicant photos, (4) different fixed factors (e.g., applicant stories about moving), and (5) different experimental settings (e.g., testing, instrumentation, and conditions of anonymity). In the current article, I discuss each of these major design differences and explain why it invalidates Forster and Neugebauer's (2024) comparison of their FE and FS findings. I conclude by emphasizing that social scientists are better served by asking why FE and FS findings sometimes differ than by assuming that any difference in findings across the experimental designs invalidates FS.
使用无效比较的析因调查实验无效是不好的做法:从福斯特和纽格鲍尔(2024)学习
Forster和Neugebauer(2024)的无效研究是无效的。他们关于因子调查(FS)实验“不适合研究招聘行为”(P. 901)的结论是不合理的,因为他们声称他们进行了现场实验(FE)和具有“几乎相同”设计的FS是错误的(P. 891)。这两个实验包括:(1)不同的因素水平(三个因素),(2)不同的未经验证的申请人姓名(操纵种族),(3)不同的申请人照片,(4)不同的固定因素(如申请人关于搬家的故事),以及(5)不同的实验设置(如测试,仪器和匿名条件)。在当前的文章中,我将讨论这些主要的设计差异,并解释为什么它使Forster和Neugebauer(2024)对其FE和FS发现的比较无效。最后,我强调,社会科学家最好问一下,为什么FE和FS的结果有时不同,而不是假设在实验设计中发现的任何差异都使FS无效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信