Experience Sampling Methods: A Discussion of Critical Trends and Considerations for Scholarly Advancement

Abstract

In the organizational sciences, scholars are increasingly using experience sampling methods (ESM) to answer questions tied to intraindividual, dynamic phenomenon. However, employing this method to answer organizational research questions comes with a number of complex—and often difficult—decisions surrounding: (1) how the implementation of ESM can advance or elucidate prior between-person theorizing at the within-person level of analysis, (2) how scholars should effectively and efficiently assess within-person constructs, and (3) analytic concerns regarding the proper modeling of interdependent assessments and trends while controlling for potentially confounding factors. The current paper addresses these challenges via a panel of seven researchers who are familiar not only with implementing this methodology but also related theoretical and analytic challenges in this domain. The current paper provides timely, actionable insights aimed toward addressing several complex issues that scholars often face when implementing ESM in their research.

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

“…Following the recommendations of Gabriel et al. (), we included two additional sets of control variables to eliminate potential artifactual explanations for our results. First, we controlled for the prior measurement of each endogenous construct and the day of the study.…”

It's lonely at the bottom (too): The effects of experienced powerlessness on social closeness and disengagement

“…Despite several strengths of our studies, such as the field‐experimental nature of Study 1 and the replication of our model at both the within‐ and between‐person levels (Gabriel et al., ), our studies have several limitations that provide exciting avenues for future research. First, although we manipulated powerlessness, all other variables in our model were self‐reported, which raises potential concerns associated with common method and source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, ).…”

“…First, although we manipulated powerlessness, all other variables in our model were self‐reported, which raises potential concerns associated with common method and source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, ). Scholars have suggested that in experience sampling studies (such as the one employed in Study 1), participants are in the best position to rate their own behaviors, as no other employee is in a position to observe all interactions a participant has with others throughout the day (Courtright, Gardner, Smith, McCormick, & Colbert, ; Foulk et al., ; Gabriel et al., ). Furthermore, recent research that has compared self‐reported and other‐reported daily behaviors has found that both ways of measuring employee behaviors exhibit comparable accuracy (Vazire & Mehl, ).…”

“…Study 1 provides strong support for our theoretical model, and Study 2 builds on these results in several ways. First, we recognize that our hypotheses are not within‐person specific, and recently scholars have suggested that the most robust test of a phenomenon that is not expected to differ at the within‐ and between‐person levels of analysis is to test it at both (Gabriel et al., ). Thus, in Study 2 we test our model in a lab study using an older and more experienced sample than Study 1.…”

“…Thus, our field experiment provides enhanced ecological validity for our theoretical model. Second, it has been suggested that the relationship between power and social distance can be bidirectional (Trope & Liberman, ), therefore our experimental manipulation of experienced powerlessness, along with temporal separation of our variables, allows for enhanced confidence in the causal inferences drawn from our model (Gabriel et al., ). Finally, the field‐experimental nature of this study allowed us to observe employees throughout their entire day, both at work and at home, providing the opportunity to test the cross‐domain effects of reduced social closeness.…”