If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

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
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Confirmatory Versus Comparative Approaches to Judging Theory Tests
Preview not available

Abstract

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.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
114
    114
  • Thumbnail: Page 
115
    115
  • Thumbnail: Page 
116
    116
  • Thumbnail: Page 
117
    117
  • Thumbnail: Page 
118
    118
  • Thumbnail: Page 
119
    119
  • Thumbnail: Page 
120
    120
  • Thumbnail: Page 
121
    121
  • Thumbnail: Page 
122
    122
  • Thumbnail: Page 
123
    123
  • Thumbnail: Page 
124
    124
  • Thumbnail: Page 
125
    125