Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Review and Publication Audit

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References for Appendix 2

  • Agarwal MK, and VR Rao. (1996). “An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based Measures of Brand Equity,” Marketing Letters, 7, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bult JR, and T Wansbeek. (1995). “Optimal Selection for Direct Mail,” Marketing Science, 14(4) 378–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Krafft M. (1999). “An empirical Investigation of the Antecedents of Sales Force Control Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought. (1988). “Developing, Disseminating, and Utilizing Marketing Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing, 52, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson LM. (1994). “Marketing Science: Where's the Beef?” Business Horizons, (Jan–Feb), 8–16.

  • Armstrong JS. (1979). “Advocacy and Objectivity in Science,” Management Science, 25, 423–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS. (1980). “Advocacy as a Scientific Strategy: The Mitroff Myth,” Academy of Management Review, 5, 509–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS. (1988). “Research Needs in Forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, 4, 449–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS. (1991). “Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bass FM. (1993). “The Future of Research in Marketing: Marketing Science,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bettman JR, N Capon, and RJ Lutz. (1975). “Cognitive Algebra in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom PN. (1987). Knowledge Development in Marketing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bruner J, and MC Potter. (1964). “Interference in Visual Recognition,” Science, 144, 424–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin TC. (1965). “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses,” Science, 148, 754–759. (Reprint of an 1890 paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cohen J. (1994). “The Earth is Round (p < 0.05),” American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dunbar K. (1993). “Concept Discovery in a Scientific Domain,” Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Farris H, and R Revlin. (1989). “The Discovery Process: A Counterfactual Strategy,” Social Studies of Science, 19, 497–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb RS. (1995). “The Economist-as-audience Needs a Methodology of Plausible Inference,” Journal of Economic Methodology, 2, 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein LD, and KL Brazis. (1970). “Credibility of Psychologists: An Empirical Study,” Psychological Reports, 27, 835–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Greenwald AG, AR Pratkanis, MR Leippe, and MH Baumgardner. (1986). “Under What Conditions Does Theory Obstruct Progress?” Psychological Review, 93, 216–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM. (1978). “A Note on Aggregating Opinions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hubbard R, and JS Armstrong. (1992). “Are Null Results Becoming an Endangered Species?” Marketing Letters, 3, 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones WH, and D Russell. (1980). “The Selective Processing of Belief Disconfirming Information,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 309–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klayman J, and Y Ha. (1987). “Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing,” Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klayman J, and Y Ha. (1989). “Hypothesis Testing in Rule Discovery: Strategy, Structure, and Content,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 596–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Leone RP, and R Schultz. (1980). “A Study of Marketing Generalizations,” Journal of Marketing, 44, 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McCloskey DN, and ST Ziliak. (1996). “The Standard Error of Regressions,” Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald J. (1992). “Is Strong Inference Really Superior to Simple Inference,” Synthese, 92, 261–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie CRM. (1998). “Taking into Account the Strength of an Alternative Hypothesis,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 771–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff I. (1972). “The Myth of Objectivity, or, Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science,” Management Science, 18, B613–B618.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Platt JR. (1964). “Strong Inference,” Science, 146, 347–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollay RW. (1984). “Lydiametrics: Applications of Econometrics to the History of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising History, 1(2), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers R, and JE Hunter. (1994). “The Discard of Study Evidence by Literature Reviewers,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 329–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust RT, DR Lehmann, and JU Farley. (1990). “Estimating the Publication Bias of Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 220–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer AG, and JP Peter. (1983). “The Significance of Statistical Significance Tests in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 122–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason PC. (1960). “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason PC. (1968). “Reasoning About a Rule,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells WD. (1993). “Discovery-oriented Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 489–504.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104

    J. Scott Armstrong

  2. Department of Marketing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Roderick J. Brodie & Andrew G. Parsons

Authors
  1. J. Scott Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roderick J. Brodie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew G. Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armstrong, J.S., Brodie, R.J. & Parsons, A.G. Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Review and Publication Audit. Marketing Letters 12, 171–187 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011169104290

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011169104290

Search

Navigation