Manipulation in Organizational Research: On Executing and Interpreting Designs from Treatments to Primes


Journal article


Kira Schabram, Christopher G Myers, Ashley E Hardin
Organizational Research Methods, 2025

View PDF
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Schabram, K., Myers, C. G., & Hardin, A. E. (2025). Manipulation in Organizational Research: On Executing and Interpreting Designs from Treatments to Primes. Organizational Research Methods.


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Schabram, Kira, Christopher G Myers, and Ashley E Hardin. “Manipulation in Organizational Research: On Executing and Interpreting Designs from Treatments to Primes.” Organizational Research Methods (2025).


MLA   Click to copy
Schabram, Kira, et al. “Manipulation in Organizational Research: On Executing and Interpreting Designs from Treatments to Primes.” Organizational Research Methods, 2025.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{schabram2025a,
  title = {Manipulation in Organizational Research: On Executing and Interpreting Designs from Treatments to Primes},
  year = {2025},
  journal = {Organizational Research Methods},
  author = {Schabram, Kira and Myers, Christopher G and Hardin, Ashley E}
}

While other applied sciences systematically distinguish between manipulation designs, organizational research does not. Herein, we disentangle distinct applications that differ in how the manipulation is deployed, analyzed, and interpreted in support of hypotheses. First, we define two archetypes: treatments, experimental designs that expose participants to different levels/types of a manipulation of theoretical interest, and primes, manipulations that are not of theoretical interest but generate variance in a state that is. We position these and creative derivations (e.g., interventions and invariant prompts) as specialized tools in our methodological kit. Second, we review 450 manipulations published in leading organizational journals to identify each type’s prevalence and application in our field. From this we derive our guiding thesis that while treatments offer unique advantages (foremost establishing causality), they are not always possible, nor the best fit for a research question; in these cases, a non-causal but accurate test of theory, such as a prime design, may prove superior to a causal but inaccurate test. We conclude by outlining best practices for selection, execution, and evaluation by researchers, reviewers, and readers. 

Author Note

All three authors contributed equally and thus share first authorship