Replication in Advertising Research: 1977, 1978, 1979

Reid, Leonard N.; Soley, Lawrence C.; Winner, Roger D.

doi:10.1080/00913367.1981.10672750

Cited by 158 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty percent of the studies sup ported the original results, 20% provided partial support, and 60% conflicted. The suc cess of replication attempts in advertising was studied by Reid et al (1981). Of the 30 replications with extensions that they investigated, 40% supported the original result, 20% provided partial support, and 40% produced conflicting results.…”

Section: Do Replications and Extensions Confirm Original Results?mentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Graduate students in advanced econometrics courses at Ohio State University are required to replicate and extend a published study (Dewald et al, 1986). In marketing, Reid et al (1981) have argued in favor of granting more Master's theses and Ph.D. dissertations for replication and extension work. This policy is actively pursued in the Master's degree program in marketing at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.…”

Section: Other Ways To Encourage Replicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They concluded that only two percent of the articles were replications or extensions. Reid et al (1981) found that of 501 advertising articles published in major marketing and communications journals and proceedings during the years 1977 through 1979, six percent qualified as replications or extensions.…”

Section: Frequency Of Replications and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Reid et al (1981), an article was not classified as a replication or extension unless there was an explicit citation in the article to the original study. This does not mean, however, that the replicating authors had to formally identify their work as being a replication or extension.…”

Section: We Estimated the Incidence Of Replications And Replications mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary

Hubbard

Armstrong

1994

International Journal of Research in Marketing

328

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replication is rare in marketing. Of 1,120 papers sampled from three major marketing journals, none were replications. Only 1.8% of the papers were extensions, and they consumed 1.1% of the journal space. On average, these extensions appeared seven years after the original study. The publication rate for such works has been decreasing since the 1970s. Published extensions typically produced results that conflicted with the original studies; of the 20 extensions published, 12 conflicted with the earlier results, and only 3 provided full confirmation. Published replications do not attract as many citations after publication as do the original studies, even when the results fail to support the original studies. AbstractReplication is rare in marketing. Of 1,120 papers sampled from three major marketing journals, none were replications. Only 1.8% of the papers were extensions, and they consumed 1.1% of the journal space. On average, these extensions appeared seven years after the original study. The publication rate for such works has been decreasing since the 1970s. Published extensions typically produced results that conflicted with the original studies; of the 20 extensions published, 12 conflicted with the earlier results, and only 3 provided full confirmation. Published replications do not attract as many citations after publication as do the original studies, even when the results fail to support the original studies.

show abstract

Section: Do Replications and Extensions Confirm Original Results?mentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Other Ways To Encourage Replicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frequency Of Replications and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: We Estimated the Incidence Of Replications And Replications mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary

Hubbard

Armstrong

1994

International Journal of Research in Marketing

328

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Replication is so central to science that it may serve as a "demarcation criterion between science and nonscience" (Braude, 1979, p. 2). Even so, direct replications are seldom pursued in the behavioral sciences perhaps because they are deemed unpublishable as failures of novelty (Collins, 1985;Reid, Soley, & Wimmer, 1981;Schmidt, 2009).…”

Section: Practices That Can Increase the Proportion Of False Results mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Utopia

Nosek

Spies

Motyl

2012

Perspect Psychol Sci

1,055

421

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An academic scientist's professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive-getting it right-competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive-getting it published. This article develops strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.

show abstract

Replication in strategic management: scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies have shown that little replication and extension research is published in the business disciplines. This has deleterious consequences for the development of a cumulative body of knowledge in these same areas. It has been speculated, but never formally tested, that replication research is more likely to be published in lower tiers of the journal hierarchy. The present paper indicates very low levels of replication in management and strategic management journals, regardless of their prestige. Moreover, even those replications that are published tend not to be critical-odd in applied social sciences that are largely preparadigmatic and where extensibility, generalizability and utility of scientific constructs tend to be low. The goal of science is empirical generalization, or knowledge development. Systematically conducted replications with extensions facilitate this goal. It is clear, however, that many editors, reviewers, and researchers hold attitudes toward replication research that betray a lack of understanding about its role. Long-run strategies to dispel these misconceptions must involve changes in graduate training aimed at making the conduct of such vital work second nature. It is further suggested that journals in all tiers create a section specifically for the publication of replication research, and that top-tier journals take the lead in this regard.

show abstract

Replication in Advertising Research: 1977, 1978, 1979

Cited by 158 publications

References 19 publications

Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary

Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary

Scientific Utopia

Replication in strategic management: scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About