On the external validity of experiments in consumer research (original) (raw)

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IN MARKETING

Considering the growing number of scientific studies published in the marketing field and the development of unique theories of the area (Hunt, 2010), using experimental designs seems increasingly appropriate to investigate marketing phenomena. This article aims to discuss the main elements in conducting experimental studies and also to stimulate researchers to adopt this research method. Several international journals (e.g., JCR, JCP, JMR, JR, JBR) have been publishing articles based on experiments that not only demonstrate a relationship between two events, but also elucidate how they occur by means of mediation and moderation analyses. This article intents to be a roadmap for novice researchers on how to conduct experiments and to offer new perspectives in experimental research for experienced researchers.

Crowdsourcing Consumer Research

Data collection in consumer research has progressively moved away from traditional samples (e.g., university undergraduates) and toward Internet samples. In the last complete volume of the Journal of Consumer Research (June 2015–April 2016), 43% of behavioral studies were conducted on the crowdsourcing website Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The option to crowdsource empirical investigations has great efficiency benefits for both individual researchers and the field, but it also poses new challenges and questions for how research should be designed, conducted, analyzed, and evaluated. We assess the evidence on the reliability of crowdsourced populations and the conditions under which crowdsourcing is a valid strategy for data collection. Based on this evidence, we propose specific guidelines for researchers to conduct high-quality research via crowdsourcing. We hope this tutorial will strengthen the community's scrutiny on data collection practices and move the field toward better and more valid crowdsourcing of consumer research.

Replications and Extensions in Marketing – Rarely Published But Quite Contrary

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.