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

By Allison S. Gabriel, Nathan P. Podsakoff, D. Beal, Brent A. Scott, Sabine Sonnentag, John P Trougakos, M. Butts. Organizational Research Methods, 2018

597 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59ab672ffa446121716f61fff3c71cea7d6e7803

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Omitted Variable Bias: Examining Management Research With the Impact Threshold of a Confounding Variable (ITCV) (2021, background): “In micro-oriented management scholarship, researchers are often constrained in terms of the number of variables they can collect, so it is quite costly to secure more data after the initial process (Atinc, Simmering, & Kroll, 2012; Gabriel et al., 2019).”
Be smart, play dumb? A transactional perspective on day-specific knowledge hiding, interpersonal conflict, and psychological strain (2021, methodology): “…necessarily accord with those at the person level, scholars advise to explicitly test and report between-person relationships with within-person data and to contrast them with the respective within-person relationships (i.e., homology across levels; Gabriel et al., 2019; McCormick et al., 2020).”
Leaving Work at Work: A Meta-Analysis on Employee Recovery From Work (2019, background): “Going forward, studies testing the homology of recovery relationships across levels will likely provide limited novel insights into the phenomenon (Gabriel et al., 2018).”
Office Chit-Chat as a Social Ritual: The Uplifting Yet Distracting Effects of Daily Small Talk at Work (2020, background): “Although we temporally separated small talk and our mediating mechanisms from our outcomes of interest following best practices in ESM research (Gabriel et al., 2019), small talk, positive social emotions,andcognitiveworkengagementweremeasured atthesamepointintime,leadingtopossibleconcerns about…”