2015
DOI: 10.1080/10641734.2015.1023874
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Replication in Advertising Research, 1980–2012: A Longitudinal Analysis of Leading Advertising Journals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There have been many calls for more replication studies in marketing literature (Evanschitzky et al , 2007; Kwon et al , 2017; Park et al , 2015), especially exact replications. Further, when replication studies produce inconsistent findings, this is often attributed to common design flaws such as non-equivalent manipulations (Park et al , 2015; Shimp et al , 1991). As Study 2a tests a boundary condition of the dissociative group effect (Study 1), it is important to rule out potential confounds by replicating Study 1 as closely as possible.…”
Section: Choice Of Identity and Products Used Throughout Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been many calls for more replication studies in marketing literature (Evanschitzky et al , 2007; Kwon et al , 2017; Park et al , 2015), especially exact replications. Further, when replication studies produce inconsistent findings, this is often attributed to common design flaws such as non-equivalent manipulations (Park et al , 2015; Shimp et al , 1991). As Study 2a tests a boundary condition of the dissociative group effect (Study 1), it is important to rule out potential confounds by replicating Study 1 as closely as possible.…”
Section: Choice Of Identity and Products Used Throughout Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This observation has the capacity to inform the debate within the marketing literature on the very low published rates of replication of both types within the discipline (Hubbard and Armstrong, 1994; Hubbard and Vetter, 1996; Kerr et al, 2016; Lehmann and Bengart, 2016; Morrison et al, 2010; Park et al, 2015). Some of these concerns have been expressed with exceeding bluntness.…”
Section: Small Sample Sizes the Role Of Replication Life Science Anmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Even further, the lack of replication work among marketing scholarship has been characterized as a significant research fallacy (Hubbard and Armstrong, 1994), with the rate in leading journals dismal at best (e.g. <3 per cent) (Evanschitzky et al , 2007; Park et al , 2015). Simply stated, if replication is so important – why aren’t scholars engaging in this type of work?…”
Section: The Replication Paradoxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, replications remain an essential aspect of the scientific method critical for the development of theory with several marketing journals heeding the call through special sections and/or issues devoted to re-inquiry. What’s more, the academic community appears primed to embrace published scholarship dedicated for replication research (Eisend et al , 2016; Park et al , 2015; Uncles and Kwok, 2013).…”
Section: The Replication Paradoxmentioning
confidence: 99%