Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:27:19.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stop Apologizing for Your Samples, Start Embracing Them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

Xiaoyuan (Susan) Zhu ,
Janet L. Barnes-Farrell  and
Dev K. Dalal
Xiaoyuan (Susan) Zhu*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Janet L. Barnes-Farrell
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Dev K. Dalal
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Xiaoyuan (Susan) Zhu, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020. E-mail: xiaoyuan.zhu@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Landers and Behrend (2015) call for editors and reviewers to resist using heuristics when evaluating samples in research as well as for researchers to cautiously consider choosing the samples appropriate for their research questions. Whereas we fully agree with the former conclusion, we believe the latter can be extended even further to encourage researchers to embrace the strengths of their samples for understanding their research rather than simply defending their samples. We believe that samples are not inherently better or worse but rather better suited for different research objectives. In this commentary, we identify three continua on which research goals can differ to demonstrate that all samples can inform science. Depending on the position of one's research on these continua, different samples exhibit different strengths; the continua described below can be used to anchor one's sample to demonstrate how it can benefit, rather than limit, research conclusions. As discussed in the focal article, researchers will often apologize for their convenience samples as one of a litany of limitations; we hope that researchers will move sampling issues out of the limitations section and into the main discussion.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 228 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2009). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In Lance, C. E. & Vandenberg, R. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 249–268). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Vaughn, L. A. (2002). The availability heuristic revisited: Ease of recall and content of recall as distinct sources of information. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 103–119). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, P. W., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). Sampling, selection, and recruitment. When to use what research design (pp. 126–129). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar