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.
Confirmatory Versus Comparative Approaches to Judging Theory Tests
Brian Sternthal, Alice M. Tybout and Bobby J. Calder
Journal of Consumer Research
Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jun., 1987), pp. 114-125
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489247
Page Count: 12
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
This article examines the widely held view that manipulation checks, measures of process, and repeated operationalizations in different settings are frequently essential for rigorous tests of theory. This Confirmatory Approach to theory testing is contrasted with the Comparative Approach, which asserts that any procedures are adequate if they serve in demonstrating the superiority of one explanation to its rivals. Our analysis favors the Comparative Approach. It is shown that manipulation checks, measures of process, and repeated operationalizations are not necessary nor always sufficient for rigorous tests. They have no special status in relation to other convergence procedures that are accepted by the Comparative Approach for producing rigorous theory tests.
Journal of Consumer Research © 1987 Oxford University Press