Help please! (b) Despite the results being statistically significant, the authors stated in their article about the first study:"The field study did not support an examination of why more creative store windows led consumers to enter the stores. … The use of actual retailers' real store windows meant that the level of creativity was not the only variable that differed among the retailers and their windows."How does the second study address some of those drawbacks? Does either study suffer from a lack of realism? Choose the best explanation. A) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Neither study suffers from a lack of realism, since statistically significant results were obtained. B) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Both studies suffer from a lack of realism, because the study design does not duplicate the conditions of all retailers. Rather, we can only appropriately draw conclusions for similar retailers within this same geographic region. C) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study did not address these drawbacks, since the participants are random and their attributes are not controlled for. The first study does not suffer from a lack of realism, since it uses real stores. The second study does suffer from a lack of realism, since it uses images instead of real stores. D) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Both studies suffer from a lack of realism, because in real life you do not have researchers observing you. (a) Is this second study an observational study or an experiment?bothobservational studyneitherexperimentWhat are the explanatory and response variables in the second study?The explanatory variable is the desire to enter the store, and the response variable is the window display (more orless creative).O The explanatory variable is the window display (more or less creative), and the response variable is whether theshopper enters the store.The explanatory variables are the window display (more or less creative) and the desire to enter the store, and the6.response variables are the questions answered by the subjects.The explanatory variable is the window display (more or less creative), and the response variable is the desire toenter the store. Do more creative store-window displays affect shopper behavior? Six main-street retailers selling everyday fashion itemswere used in the study. Pretests with shoppers showed the six stores to be comparable on brands and consumerperceptions of value for the money. Three of the retailers had more creative windows in terms of displaying items in amore innovative and artistic manner versus the less creative windows, which had a more concrete focus on the items ondisplay. All display windows were of similar dimensions. Observers, in close proximity but out of sight of shoppers,watched their behavior as they passed the display windows, and for each shopper it was recorded whether they looked atthe window or entered the store. A total of 863 shoppers passed the more creative windows and 971 passed the lesscreative windows. The study found that a higher percentage of shoppers looked at and entered the stores with the morecreative windows, with the differences in shoppers' behavior between the more/less creative windows beingstatistically significant.In their paper, the authors of the study also reported the results of a second study to compare more/less creative windowdisplays. In this second study, the authors used the same retailer and displayed the same merchandise in exactly the sameway for both the more and less creative window displays. The differences between the window displays only involved thedesign surrounding the merchandise being more or less creative, not the content. Subjects, recruited from the retailer'scustomer database, were randomly assigned to view an image of one of the two window displays. After viewing theimage, subjects answered questions about whether the products in the display made them want to enter the store.

Name: Help please! (b) Despite the results being statistically significant,
Uploaded: 2024-03-20T07:07:50.000Z
Channel: Bartleby
Description: Help please! (b) Despite the results being statistically significant, the authors stated in their article about the first study:"The field study did not support an examination of why more creative store windows led consumers to enter the stores. … Th

a. Second study is an experimental study for example random assignment of customers to windows or…

Math

Statistics

Help please! (b) Despite the results being statistically significant, the authors stated in their article about the first study: "The field study did not support an examination of why more creative store windows led consumers to enter the stores. … The use of actual retailers' real store windows meant that the level of creativity was not the only variable that differed among the retailers and their windows." How does the second study address some of those drawbacks? Does either study suffer from a lack of realism? Choose the best explanation. A) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Neither study suffers from a lack of realism, since statistically significant results were obtained. B) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Both studies suffer from a lack of realism, because the study design does not duplicate the conditions of all retailers. Rather, we can only appropriately draw conclusions for similar retailers within this same geographic region. C) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study did not address these drawbacks, since the participants are random and their attributes are not controlled for. The first study does not suffer from a lack of realism, since it uses real stores. The second study does suffer from a lack of realism, since it uses images instead of real stores. D) The drawbacks in the first study were that it was an observational study and that it did not control for confounding variables (such as variations in merchandise and potential customers). The second study addresses these drawbacks by using the same retailer and the same merchandise, and by only changing the creativity of the window display. Both studies suffer from a lack of realism, because in real life you do not have researchers observing you.