Marketing Letters

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 171–187 | Cite as

Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Review and Publication Audit

  • J. Scott Armstrong
  • Roderick J. Brodie
  • Andrew G. Parsons

Abstract

We examined three approaches to research in marketing: exploratory hypotheses, dominant hypothesis, and competing hypotheses. Our review of empirical studies on scientific methodology suggests that the use of a single dominant hypothesis lacks objectivity relative to the use of exploratory and competing hypotheses approaches. We then conducted a publication audit of over 1,700 empirical papers in six leading marketing journals during 1984–1999. Of these, 74% used the dominant hypothesis approach, while 13% used multiple competing hypotheses, and 13% were exploratory. Competing hypotheses were more commonly used for studying methods (25%) than models (17%) and phenomena (7%). Changes in the approach to hypotheses since 1984 have been modest; there was a slight decrease in the percentage of competing hypotheses to 11%, which is explained primarily by an increasing proportion of papers on phenomena. Of the studies based on hypothesis testing, only 11% described the conditions under which the hypotheses would apply, and dominant hypotheses were below competing hypotheses in this regard. Marketing scientists differed substantially in their opinions about what types of studies should be published and what was published. On average, they did not think dominant hypotheses should be used as often as they were, and they underestimated their use.

advocacy competing hypotheses conditions dominant hypotheses exploratory studies induction marketing generalizations multiple hypotheses 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References for Appendix 2

  1. Agarwal MK, and VR Rao. (1996). “An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based Measures of Brand Equity,” Marketing Letters, 7, 237–248.Google Scholar
  2. Bult JR, and T Wansbeek. (1995). “Optimal Selection for Direct Mail,” Marketing Science, 14(4) 378–394.Google Scholar
  3. Foekens EW, PSH Leeflang, and DR Wittink. (1997). “Hierarchical Versus Other Market Share Models for Markets with Many Items,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 359–378.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson MD, EW Anderson, and C Fornell. (1995). “Rational and Adaptive Performance Expectations in a Customer Satisfaction Framework,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 695–707.Google Scholar
  5. Krafft M. (1999). “An empirical Investigation of the Antecedents of Sales Force Control Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 120–134.Google Scholar
  6. Mittal V, P Kumar, and M Tsiros. (1999). “Attribute-level Performance, Satisfaction, and Behavioural Intentions over Time: A Consumption System Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 88–101.Google Scholar
  7. Naik PA, MK Mantrala, and AG Sawyer. (1998). “Planning Media Schedules in the Presence of Dynamic Advertising Quality,” Marketing Science, 17, 214–235.Google Scholar
  8. Pechmann C, and C Shih. (1999). “Smoking Scenes in Movies and Antismoking Advertisements before Movies: Effects on Youth,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Szymanski DM, LC Troy, and SG Bharadwaj. (1995). “Order of Entry and Business Performance: An Empirical Synthesis and Reexamination,” Journal of Marketing, 59, 17–33.Google Scholar

References

  1. Abramowitz SI, B Gomes, and CV Abramowitz. (1975). “Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 187–200.Google Scholar
  2. AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought. (1988). “Developing, Disseminating, and Utilizing Marketing Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing, 52, 1–25.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson LM. (1994). “Marketing Science: Where's the Beef?” Business Horizons, (Jan–Feb), 8–16.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong JS. (1979). “Advocacy and Objectivity in Science,” Management Science, 25, 423–428.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong JS. (1980). “Advocacy as a Scientific Strategy: The Mitroff Myth,” Academy of Management Review, 5, 509–511.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong JS. (1988). “Research Needs in Forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, 4, 449–465.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong JS. (1991). “Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 251–256.Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong JS, and R. Hubbard. (1991). “Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 136–137.Google Scholar
  9. Bass FM. (1993). “The Future of Research in Marketing: Marketing Science,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 1–6.Google Scholar
  10. Begg CB, and JA Berlin. (1989). “Publication Bias and Dissemination of Clinical Research,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 81(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
  11. Ben-Shakar G, M Bar-Hillel, Y Bilu, and G Shefler. (1998). “Seek and Ye Shall Find: Test Results Are What You Hypothesize They Are,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 235–249.Google Scholar
  12. Bettman JR, N Capon, and RJ Lutz. (1975). “Cognitive Algebra in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 151–164.Google Scholar
  13. Bloom PN. (1987). Knowledge Development in Marketing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  14. Burger JM, and R Petty. (1981). “The Low-Ball Compliance Technique: Task or Person Commitment?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 492–500.Google Scholar
  15. Broad W, and N Wade. (1982). Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. Bruner J, and MC Potter. (1964). “Interference in Visual Recognition,” Science, 144, 424–425.Google Scholar
  17. Chamberlin TC. (1965). “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses,” Science, 148, 754–759. (Reprint of an 1890 paper).Google Scholar
  18. Chapman LJ, and JP Chapman. (1969). “Illusory Correlation as an Obstacle to the Use of Valid Psychodiagnostic Signs,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271–280.Google Scholar
  19. Cialdini RB, JT Cacioppo, R Bassett, and JA Miller. (1978). “Low-Ball Procedure for Producing Compliance: Commitment Then Cost,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463–476.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen J. (1994). “The Earth is Round (p < 0.05),” American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.Google Scholar
  21. Coursol A, and EE Wagner. (1986), “Effect of Positive Findings on Submission and Acceptance Rates: A Note on Meta-analysis Bias,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17,(No. 2), 137.Google Scholar
  22. Demsetz H. (1974). “Two Systems of Belief About Monopoly”. In H J Goldschmid, H M Mann, and J F Weston (eds.), Industrial Concentration: The New Learning. Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 164–184.Google Scholar
  23. Dunbar K. (1993). “Concept Discovery in a Scientific Domain,” Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.Google Scholar
  24. Dunbar K. (1995). “How Scientists Really Reason: Scientific Reasoning in Real-world Laboratories.” In R J Sternberg and J E Davidson (eds.), The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 365–395.Google Scholar
  25. Elaad E, A Ginton, and G Ben-Shakhar. (1994). “The Effects of Prior expectations and Outcome Knowledge on Polygraph Examiners' Decisions,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279–292.Google Scholar
  26. Farris H, and R Revlin. (1989). “The Discovery Process: A Counterfactual Strategy,” Social Studies of Science, 19, 497–513.Google Scholar
  27. Goldfarb RS. (1995). “The Economist-as-audience Needs a Methodology of Plausible Inference,” Journal of Economic Methodology, 2, 201–222.Google Scholar
  28. Goodstein LD, and KL Brazis. (1970). “Credibility of Psychologists: An Empirical Study,” Psychological Reports, 27, 835–838.Google Scholar
  29. Gorman ME, and ME Gorman. (1984), “A Comparison of Disconfirmatory, Confirmatory and Control Strategies on Wason's 2–4–6 Task,” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 629–648.Google Scholar
  30. Greenwald AG, AR Pratkanis, MR Leippe, and MH Baumgardner. (1986). “Under What Conditions Does Theory Obstruct Progress?” Psychological Review, 93, 216–229.Google Scholar
  31. Hogarth RM. (1978). “A Note on Aggregating Opinions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46.Google Scholar
  32. Hubbard R, and JS Armstrong. (1994). “Replications and Extensions in Marketing: Rarely Published but Quite Contrary,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248.Google Scholar
  33. Hubbard R, and JS Armstrong. (1992). “Are Null Results Becoming an Endangered Species?” Marketing Letters, 3, 127–136.Google Scholar
  34. Jones WH, and D Russell. (1980). “The Selective Processing of Belief Disconfirming Information,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 309–312.Google Scholar
  35. Klayman J, and Y Ha. (1987). “Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing,” Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.Google Scholar
  36. Klayman J, and Y Ha. (1989). “Hypothesis Testing in Rule Discovery: Strategy, Structure, and Content,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 596–604.Google Scholar
  37. Koehler JJ. (1993). “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgements of Evidence Quality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28–55.Google Scholar
  38. Leone RP, and R Schultz. (1980). “A Study of Marketing Generalizations,” Journal of Marketing, 44, 10–18.Google Scholar
  39. Libby R, and RK Blashfield. (1978). “Performance of a Composite as a Function of the Number of Judges,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 121–129.Google Scholar
  40. Lord CG, L Ross, and MR Lepper. (1979). “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
  41. Mahoney MJ. (1977). “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System,” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.Google Scholar
  42. McCloskey DN, and ST Ziliak. (1996). “The Standard Error of Regressions,” Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 97–114.Google Scholar
  43. McDonald J. (1992). “Is Strong Inference Really Superior to Simple Inference,” Synthese, 92, 261–282.Google Scholar
  44. McKenzie CRM. (1998). “Taking into Account the Strength of an Alternative Hypothesis,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 771–792.Google Scholar
  45. Mitroff I. (1972). “The Myth of Objectivity, or, Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science,” Management Science, 18, B613–B618.Google Scholar
  46. Mynatt C, ME Doherty, and RD Tweney. (1978). “Consequences of Confirmation and Disconfirmation in a Simulated Research Environment,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.Google Scholar
  47. Platt JR. (1964). “Strong Inference,” Science, 146, 347–353.Google Scholar
  48. Pollay RW. (1984). “Lydiametrics: Applications of Econometrics to the History of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising History, 1(2), 3–15.Google Scholar
  49. Rodgers R, and JE Hunter. (1994). “The Discard of Study Evidence by Literature Reviewers,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 329–345.Google Scholar
  50. Rust RT, DR Lehmann, and JU Farley. (1990). “Estimating the Publication Bias of Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 220–226.Google Scholar
  51. Sawyer AG, and JP Peter. (1983). “The Significance of Statistical Significance Tests in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 122–133.Google Scholar
  52. Wason PC. (1960). “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.Google Scholar
  53. Wason PC. (1968). “Reasoning About a Rule,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.Google Scholar
  54. Wells WD. (1993). “Discovery-oriented Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 489–504.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Scott Armstrong
    • 1
  • Roderick J. Brodie
    • 2
  • Andrew G. Parsons
    • 2
  1. 1.Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia
  2. 2.Department of MarketingUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations