Conducting Research in Marketing with Quasi-Experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to broaden the understanding of quasi-experimental methods among marketing scholars and those who read their work by describing the underlying logic and set of actions that make their work convincing. The purpose of quasi-experimental methods is, in the absence of experimental variation, to determine the presence of a causal relationship. First, the authors explore how to identify settings and data where it is interesting to understand whether an action causally affects a marketing outcome. Second, they outline how to structure an empirical strategy to identify a causal empirical relationship. The article details the application of various methods to identify how an action affects an outcome in marketing, including difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, instrumental variables, propensity score matching, synthetic control, and selection bias correction. The authors emphasize the importance of clearly communicating the identifying assumptions underlying the assertion of causality. Last, they explain how exploring the behavioral mechanism—whether individual, organizational, or market level—can actually reinforce arguments of causality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it