Global Mindset. Indian Roots.
Connect Face 2 Face with the Associate Dean, Faculty and Alumni of Great Lakes
Register Now!

NASMEI Doctoral Workshop

The course meets December 19-21, 2017. In the first two days, there will be four 1.5-hour sessions with a 15 minutes break in the middle of each: 9:30 - 12:45 and 2:00 -5:15. On the last day, participants will present their own research and obtain feedback from the two instructors and the rest of the class. Each session has a set of readings and some in-class exercises. Each session will start off with a lecture by Priya and/ or Shelly to provide a broader picture and will then be conducted "seminar style" requiring participation from all students attending.

Each student should have thoroughly read and thought about all the papers that have been assigned and come to class prepared with at least one thoughtful question or idea based on the readings. For each paper that is assigned, play the role of both a referee (who is critiquing the paper), and a student who is trying to use the paper to come up with a new testable idea. Thus, the idea of discussing the papers is to be constructively critical.

Topics to be covered

Day 1: December 19, 2017
 GoalLectureReadingsIn-class exercise
1. Introduction to the Research ProcessIntroducing participants to:
a. Process of Research,
b. Philosophy of Science,
c. Typology of Methods,
d. Introduction to Reliability, Validity, Generalizability,
e. Differences between correlation and causation,
f. Three types of data collection methods: exploratory, descriptive and experimental.
"Process and Content of Research," Shelly Jain and Priya Raghubir• Alba, Joseph W. (2012), "In Defense of Bumbling," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), April, 981-987.
• Greenwald, Anthony G. (2012), "There is nothing so Theoretical as a Good Method," Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (2), 99-108.
• Platt, John R. (1964), "Strong Inference," Science, 146 (October 16), 347-353.
• Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, (2011), "False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant," Psychological Science, 2011.
2. Questionnaire DesignImproving reliability with a good questionnaire"Questionnaire Design" Priya RaghubirSchwarz, Norbert (1999), "Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers," American Psychologist, February, 93-105.Form a group (2-3 people) and critique various questionnaires.
3. Scale Developmenta. Designing a scale"Scale Development" Shelly Jain• Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct." Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 341-352.
• Aaker, Jennifer (1997) "Dimensions of Brand Personality." Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Form a group (2-3 people) and discuss one idea sparked by this research.
a. Think of a variable/construct for which a measurement scale can be developed (like the ones you read in the above 2 papers).
b. Now, think how you might manipulate this variable/construct in the ‘laboratory'.
4. Experimental MethodsIntroducing participants to:
a. Pros and Cons of Within and Between subjects designs
b. Pros and Cons of Laboratory and Field experiments
c. Balancing Internal and External Validity
d. Building theory using Moderation and Mediation
e. Moving from One-way to two- and three-way factorial designs: When and Why
f. How many measures to include: Dependent, covariates, potential confound checks, manipulation checks, demographics, individual difference
g. Sample, Power, and Combining results of independent studies
"Experimental Design," Shelly Jain and Priya Raghubir• Cohen, J. (1992), "A Power Primer," Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
• Mook, D. G. (1983), "In defense of external invalidity," American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
• Rosenthal, Robert, (1979), "The "File-Drawer Problem" and Tolerance for Null Results," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 (3), 638-641.
• Rosenthal, Robert, (1978), "Combining the Results of Independent Studies," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85 (1), 185-193.

Day 2: December 20, 2017
 GoalLectureReadingsIn-class exercise
1. And 2 Consumer Psychology and Brand Strategya. Understanding the meaning of a brand from a consumer's perspective.
b. Examining consumer differences in responses to brand strategies
Shelly Jain• Jain, Mathur, Mao, Maheswaran, & Isaac (2017), "Consumers' Implicit Theories Influence Evaluations of Multi-Product Brand Extensions." Working paper.
• Mathur, Jain, and Maheswaran (2012), "Consumers' implicit theories about personality influence their brand personality judgments." Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4): 554-557.
• Escalas, J. E. and J. R. Bettman (2005), "Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning." Journal of Consumer Research 32(3): 378-389.
• Van Osselaer, Stijn M. J. and Chris Janiszewski (2001), "Two Ways of Learning Brand Associations," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 202-223.
• John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken, Kyeongheui Kim, and Alokparna Basu Monga (2006), "Brand Concept Maps: A Methodology for Identifying Brand Association Networks, Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (November), 549-563.
Form a group (2-3 people) and discuss one idea sparked by this research. This could be:
a. An alternative explanation of the results
b. Examining the influence of a moderating variable
c. Examining a mediating mechanism
d. Examining the generalizability of the effects
e. Examining the robustness of effects
f. Examining new domains where the effect may exist
3. Subjective Value of Moneya. Demonstrating how to design studies that sequentially build on each other
b. Demonstrating how to build a body of research
c. Discussion of the realities of the review process
"Subjective Value of Money," Priya Raghubir• Di Muro, Fabrizio and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2013), "Money Isn't Everything but It Helps If It Doesn't Look Used: How the Physical Appearance of Money Influences Spending," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (April), 1330-42.
• Seenivasan, Satheeshkumar, Manoj Thomas, Kalpesh Desai (2011), "How Credit Card Payments Increase Unhealthy Food Purchases: Visceral Regulation of Vices," Journal of Consumer Research, 38.1: 126-139.
• Raghubir, Priya and Joydeep Srivastava (2009) "The Denomination Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), December, 701-713.
• Raghubir, Priya and Joydeep Srivastava (2008) "Monopoly Money: The Effect of Payment Coupling and Form on Spending Behavior," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(3), September, 213-225.
4. Subjective Value of Pricesa. Substantive domain of price setting and price promotions
b. Theoretical domains of Inferencing and attribution theory
 Raghubir, Priya (2004) "Free Gift with Purchase: Promoting or Discounting the Brand?" Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), January, 181-185.
Raghubir, Priya, and Kim P. Corfman (1999), "When do Price Promotions Affect Brand Evaluations?" Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), May, 211-222.
Raghubir, Priya (1998), "Coupon Value: A Signal for Price?" Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), August, 316-324.
Inman, J. Jeffrey, Anil C. Peter, and Priya Raghubir (1997), "Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating Deal Value," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), June, 68-79.
Form a group (2-3 people) and discuss one idea sparked by this research. This could be:
a. An alternative explanation of the results
b. Examining the influence of a moderating variable
c. Examining a mediating mechanism
d. Examining the generalizability of the effects
e. Examining the robustness of effects
f. Examining new domains where the effect may exist

Day 3: December 21, 2017
Individual or Group Idea Presentations by all participants You have a choice of either presenting research that you have been working on during your PhD, or joining with another participant or two in class and coming up with a project idea that you will present. Let the instructors know of your choice by the end of Day 1 (individual or group presentation), and, if you will be presenting along with someone else, who your team/ group will be.

Depending on the size of the class, and the number of presentations scheduled for Day 3, we will allocate an equal number of minutes for each presentation. So, for example, if there are 40 individual presentations, to be completed in 6 hours, each presenter will be allotted 9 minutes: 5 minutes for presentation and 4 minutes for discussion. On the other hand, if there are 20 presentations, each with two people, then there will be 18 minutes per presenter: 10 minutes for presentation and 8 minutes for discussion. If there are 10 individual presentations, and 15 presentations by groups of 2, for a total of 25 presentations, then each presenter would get 12 minutes: 6 minutes each for presentation and discussion.
a. Practice coming up with a simple testable hypothesis
b. Practice pruning an idea till the "so what" component leaps out
c. Practice distilling literature and idea into a clear narrative
d. Practice in verbal communication
e. Practice in accepting constructive criticism
f. Practice in producing a one-pager that includes relevant literature/ hypotheses as well as research plan/ results.
Prepare an oral and written idea paper. It should be something that you can present in 5-10 mins and should be no longer than one-page long (single-spaced, 12 point font).
Each presentation will be followed by discussion by the whole class and suggestions for improvement going forward.
One pagers submitted by rest of the class