In this GB794 Unit 2 consumer study critique, Iyengar and Lepper's jam display is pulled apart so the number of options can be separated from everything else a larger table altered. Searches like "gb 794 unit 2 assignment example", "gb794 unit 2 sample" and "gb794 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GB794 Unit 2 consumer study critique looks like
Six pages in APA 7, moving from restatement to rival accounts, later evidence and implication. The restatement comes first and in plain words: at one upscale California grocery, a tasting table offered either 24 or 6 flavors from a single brand, shoppers who stopped received a dollar-off coupon, and purchases were counted from redeemed coupons. Table 1 sets the two reported rates side by side, 60 against 40 percent stopping and 3 against 30 percent of stoppers buying, then converts both into buyers per passerby. Table 2 lists what the larger display varied besides count: width, visual salience, scanning time and who chose to stop. The later evidence section reports the 2010 meta-analysis by Scheibehenne, Greifeneder and Todd, whose average effect sat close to zero. The last page returns to the bar aisle.
How a GB794 Unit 2 example is structured
The critique turns on the question the prompt poses in most sections, what did the manipulation actually vary, and each part answers it from a different side. Restatement leads because the abstract's phrase, extensive versus limited choice, compresses several differences into one label. The rates table tests a tempting objection: since the big display attracted more stoppers, perhaps casual browsers diluted its buyers. Converting to buyers per passerby shows the limited table still sold more, so that objection fails, and the critique says so openly. The confounds table does the remaining work, since salience and self-selection at the table travel together with count. Later evidence enters as a boundary, never a verdict; a near-zero average with wide variation leaves the jam result intact as an event and uncertain as a general law of consumer behavior.
The manipulation in plain words
Twenty-four flavors or six, one brand, one store, a coupon for everyone who stopped. Written without the authors' vocabulary, the restatement shows that choice itself was never measured; stopping and coupon redemption were, and each stands in for a different part of the claim.
Buyers per passerby
Multiplying stop rates by purchase rates gives roughly 1.8 buyers per hundred passersby at the large table and 12 at the small one. The arithmetic rules out one objection cleanly, which earns the critique credibility when it presses the objections that survive.
What else the big table changed
A display four times as crowded is louder, slower to scan and attracts a different mix of shoppers. None of those differences is the number of options as such, and the critique lists each with the evidence that could separate it from count.
Later evidence as a boundary
Scheibehenne and colleagues pooled 63 conditions from 50 experiments and found an average effect near zero with large spread. The critique reads that as a question about when the effect appears, not as proof the original shoppers behaved differently from what was reported.
Back to the bar aisle
A shelf of 140 bars is not a tasting table, and shoppers restocking a habitual bar are not sampling jam. The closing paragraph argues that the study licenses a test at Kestrel, not a cut, and names the Unit 3 design it motivates.
Where marks go in GB794 Unit 2
Critiques that summarize the jam study's findings and then praise or dismiss them give up what the unit offers, because the assignment concerns the manipulation, and the result only through it. Calling the study debunked on the strength of the meta-analysis draws margin comments; a near-zero average across varied settings says the effect is conditional, which is a different claim. The per-passerby arithmetic is where careful readers separate critiques, and one that leaves the dilution objection standing, or never raises it, has not engaged the numbers. Confounds listed without saying how each could be separated read as a checklist. Doctoral sections also mark down critiques that jump from a jam table to shelf policy without naming the differences between them. A restatement in fresh, ordinary language, recognizably unlike the abstract, is where grading usually starts.
Get a GB794 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the consumer study assigned in your section, or a behavior your organization wants explained where the topic is yours to pick, alongside the Unit 2 prompt and rubric. From those, the critique restates the manipulation in ordinary terms, tests what varied besides the intended factor and weighs later evidence honestly. First sample free, generally back in 24-48h.
GB794 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why restate the manipulation instead of quoting the authors?
Because the authors' label is a claim about how the two conditions diverged, and the critique's job is to check that claim. Writing the procedure out in ordinary words, who saw what and what was counted, exposes differences the label hides. Instructors in GB794 often read the restatement first to judge whether the writer has understood the study at all.
Is the jam study still worth critiquing after the meta-analyses?
It is a particularly good choice. The original remains a well-documented field result, and the later meta-analysis gives the critique something to reason with: an average near zero across very different settings. Explaining how one result can be real while the general effect is conditional is exactly the distinction doctoral marketing sections want a critique to handle.
How long should a GB794 consumer study critique be?
Five to eight pages is common, with the rubric setting the limit. Proportion matters more than length: a critique spending three pages on background and one on the design has the balance backward. The restatement, the confounds and the later evidence should carry most of the weight, and the implication for practice can stay brief if it is specific.