Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are scientific practices improving in consumer research? A glass half-full and half-empty

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this commentary, I propose a “big-picture” view of what good science is as a framework for evaluating scientific practices in consumer research. A big-picture view of science recognizes that scientific practices are not ends in themselves but tools to be used in the service of six epistemic ideals: veridicality, precision, transparency, generalizability, relevance, and insight. It is through a multidimensional contribution to these epistemic ideals that various scientific practices enable the production of evidence that is not only trustworthy but also useful. From this big-picture perspective, Krefeld-Schwalb and Scheibehenne’s results provide a decidedly mixed report card about the state of scientific practices in consumer research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As a caveat, it should be noted that the p-curve methodology has been criticized by McShane, Bockenholt, and Hansen (2016), who argue that the methodology is unreliable when the sample of studies is heterogeneous, as is the case in the KSS investigation. Simonsohn et al. (2014) maintain that p-curve analyses are valid even when samples are heterogeneous. However, this disagreement does materially qualify the general interpretation provided here.

  2. See, for example, https://openmkt.org/research/replications-of-marketing-studies/

References

  • Bazerman, M. (2012). Keynote address. Society for Consumer Psychology Conference, Las Vegas, February, 18, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 57–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J. J. (2012). The elephant not in the room: the need for useful, actionable insights in behavioral research. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. J. Zhu (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 40 (pp. 1–4). Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J., Campbell, M. C., Kirmani, A., & Price, L. L. (2018). Our vision for the Journal of Consumer Research: it’s all about the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

  • Jedidi, K., Schmitt, B. H., Sliman, M. B., & Li, Y. (2021). R2M index 1.0: Assessing the practical relevance of academic marketing articles. Journal of Marketing, 85(5), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krefeld-Schwalb, A., & Scheibehenne, B. (2023). Tighter nets for smaller fishes? Mapping the development of statistical practices in consumer research between 2008 and 2020. Marketing Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-022-09662-3

  • McShane, B. B., Böckenholt, U., & Hansen, K. T. (2016). Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: An evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 730–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann, C. C. (2014). Editorial regarding the new submission guidelines at the Journal of Consumer Psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Andrew, G., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1643–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Beltramini, R. F. (1985). A meta-analysis of effect sizes in consumer behavior experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M. T. (2013). The seven sins of consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, Michel Tuan (2012), email to the Membership of the society for consumer psychology announcing the appointment of a taskforce on scientific practices, July 2012.

  • Pham, M. T., & Travis Tae, O. (2021a). Preregistration is neither sufficient nor necessary for good science. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 163–176.

  • Pham, M. T., & Travis Tae, O. (2021b). On not confusing the tree of trustworthy statistics with the greater forest of good science: A comment on Simmons et al.’s perspective on pre-registration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 181–185.

  • Pham, Michel Tuan, Yinghao Alisa Wu, and Danqi Wang (2022), “Benchmarking consumer scholarship: a comparison of alternative metrics,” conditionally accepted at Journal of Consumer Research.

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534.

  • Wells, W. D. (1993). Discovery-oriented consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business in Marketing at Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 665 West 130th Street, 922 Kravis Hall, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Michel Tuan Pham

Authors
  1. Michel Tuan Pham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Tuan Pham.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Competing interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pham, M.T. Are scientific practices improving in consumer research? A glass half-full and half-empty. Mark Lett 34, 375–382 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-023-09679-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-023-09679-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation