You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal Protocol Analysis
Hannu Kuusela and Pallab Paul
The American Journal of Psychology
Vol. 113, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 387-404
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423365
Page Count: 18
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Verbalization, Consumer research, Concurrent conditions, Memory, Decision making, Research methods, Cognitive psychology, Consumer psychology, Psychology, Psychological research
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In verbal protocol analysis, verbalization can occur either during decision making (concurrent data) or after (retrospective data). Although both methods have advantages and disadvantages, no empirical research has focused on a direct comparison. This study compared the effectiveness of concurrent and retrospective data for revealing the human decision making process. In general, the concurrent protocol analysis method outperformed the retrospective method. Not only was the number of concurrent protocol segments elicited higher than that of retrospective protocol segments, but concurrent data provided more insights into the decision-making steps occurring between stimulus introduction and the final choice outcome. However, retrospective protocols offer an interesting advantage: More statements about the final choice are provided in retrospective protocols than in concurrent protocols.
The American Journal of Psychology © 2000 University of Illinois Press