Perspectives: replication is more than meets the eye

References

• Ang, L., C. Buzeta, M. Hirose, M.J.C. van Loggerenberg, G. van Noort, R. Uribe, and H.A.M. Voorveld. 2023. An international perspective of the Academic-Practitioner divide in advertising: An exploratory study into its causes and solutions. International Journal of Advertising 42, no. 1: 181–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L. 2020. Preregistration as a way to limit questionable research practice in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising 39, no. 7: 1172–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L. 2021. Measure proliferation in advertising research: Are standard measures the solution? International Journal of Advertising 40, no. 2: 311–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and K.Q. Zhou. 2016. Celebrity endorsements: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising 35, no. 4: 642–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2017. Construct measurement in advertising research. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 1: 129–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2019. Construct heterogeneity and proliferation in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising 38, no. 8: 1286–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2023. A comprehensive approach to the study of advertising execution and its effects. International Journal of Advertising 42, no. 1: 227–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, M.J., H. IJzerman, A. Dijksterhuis, F.J. Farach, J. Geller, R. Giner-Sorolla, J.A. Grange, M. Perugini, J.R. Spies, and A. van ‘t Veer. 2014. The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50, no. January: 217–24.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M., R.E. McGrath, and D.F. Sacco. 2022. Preliminary evidence for an association between journal submission requirements and reproducibility of published findings: A pilot study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE 17, no. 3: 267–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruner, G.C.II 1998. Standardization & justification: Do aad scales measure up? Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 20, no. 1: 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. 2015. The journal of advertising: Historical, structural, and brand equity considerations. Journal of Advertising 44, no. 1: 80–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. 2019. What’s next for registered reports? Nature 573, no. 7773: 187–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, K., L. Li, S. Diehl, and R. Terlutter. 2007. Consumers’ response to offensive advertising: A Cross-Cultural study. International Marketing Review 24, no. 5: 606–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, C.J., P. Connor, and C. Isch. 2023. Failing to replicate predicts citation declines in psychology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120, no. 29: E 2304862120.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J.T., M.B. Royne, and K.R. Pounders. 2020. Pride, guilt, and Self-Regulation in Cause-Related marketing advertisements. Journal of Advertising 49, no. 1: 34–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandall, C.S, and J.W. Sherman. 2016. On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66, no. September: 93–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, W.K, and J.-S. Lim. 1993. Assessing demand artifacts in consumer research: An alternative perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 20, no. 3: 489–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Pelsmacker, P. 2021. What is wrong with advertising research and how can We fix it? International Journal of Advertising 40, no. 5: 835–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dienlin, T., N. Johannes, N.D. Bowman, P.K. Masur, S. Engesser, A.S. Kümpel, J. Lukito., et al. 2021. An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication 71, no. 1: 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easley, R.W., C.S. Madden, and M.G. Dunn. 2000. Conducting marketing science: The role of replication in the research process. Journal of Business Research 48, no. 1: 83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M., G.R. Franke, and J.H. Leigh. 2016. Reinquiries in advertising research. Journal of Advertising 45, no. 1: 1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L.R., D.T. Wegener, and R.E. Petty. 2020. A Validity-Based framework for understanding replication in psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc 24, no. 4: 316–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flora, D.B. 2020. Thinking about effect sizes: From the replication crisis to a cumulative psychological science. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne 61, no. 4: 318–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friestad, M., and P. Wright. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21, no. 1: 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funder, D.C., J.M. Levine, D. Mackie, C.C. Morf, S.V. S.G. West. … Task Force on Publication and Research Practices, Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 2014. Notice: PSPB articles by authors with retracted articles at PSPB or other journals: Stapel, smeesters, and sanna. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 40, no. 1: 132–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D.T., G. King, S. Pettigrew, and T.D. Wilson. 2016. Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. b. Science (New York, N.Y.) 351, no. 6277: 1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giner-Sorolla, R. 2012. Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7, no. 6: 562–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grahe, J.E., A. Reifman, A.D. Hermann, M. Walker, K.C. Oleson, M. Nario-Redmond, and R.P. Wiebe. 2012. Harnessing the undiscovered resource of student research projects. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7, no. 6: 605–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamblin, J. 2018. September 24, ‘A Credibility Crisis in Food Science,’ available at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/what-is-food-science/571105/.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, R., and J.S. Armstrong. 1994. Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11, no. 3: 233–48.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. 2023. Explicating exact versus conceptual replication. Erkenntnis 88, no. 6: 2493–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hüffmeier, J., J. Mazei, and T. Schultze. 2016. Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66, no. September: 81–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2, no. 8: E 124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L.K., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23, no. 5: 524–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, G., D.E. Schultz, and I. Lings. 2016. ‘Someone should do something”: Replication and an agenda for collective action. Journal of Advertising 45, no. 1: 4–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N.L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc 2, no. 3: 196–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laroche, M., M.V. Nepomuceno, L. Huang, and M.-O. Richard. 2011. What’s so funny? Journal of Advertising Research 51, no. 2: 404–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, and Drenth Committee. 2012. Flawed Science: The Fraudulent Research Practices of Social Psychologist Diederik Stapel (English translation of the Dutch report ‘Falende wetenschap: De frauduleuze onderzoekspraktijken van social-psycholoog Diederik Stapel’).
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., and K. Oberauer. 2020. Low replicability can support robust and efficient science. Nature Communications 11, no. 1: 358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, N.A.Jr, 2020. Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how. Communication Methods and Measures 14, no. 2: 71–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machery, E. 2020. What is a replication? Philosophy of Science 87, no. 4: 545–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maner, J.K. 2014. Leťs put our money where our mouth is: If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3: 343–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maner, J.K. 2016. Into the wild: Field research can increase both replicability and Real-World impact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66, no. September: 100–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNiven, M.D., D.M. Krugman, and S.F. Tinkham. 2012. The big picture for Large-Screen television viewing: For both programming and Journal of Advertising Research 52, no. 4: 421–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J., and R. Ulrich. 2022. Optimizing research output: How can psychological research methods be improved? Annual Review of Psychology 73: 691–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, C.R, and R.B. Cialdini. 2010. Full-Cycle social psychology for theory and application. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4, no. 1: 53–63.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The science of science communication III: Inspiring novel collaborations and building capacity. Proceedings of a colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B.A, and T.M. Errington. 2020. What is replication? PLoS Biology 18, no. 3: E 3000691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B.A., J.R. Spies, and M. Motyl. 2012. Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7, no. 6: 615–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nosek, B.A., C.R. Ebersole, A.C. DeHaven, and D.T. Mellor. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, no. 11: 2600–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B.A., T.E. Hardwicke, H. Moshontz, A. Allard, K.S. Corker, A. Dreber, F. Fidler., et al. 2022. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology 73: 719–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, no. 28 August: 349.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park, J.H., O. Venger, D.Y. Park, and L.N. Reid. 2015. Replication in advertising research, 1980–2012: A longitudinal analysis of leading advertising journals. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 36, no. 2: 115–35.
   Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., and C.R. Harris. 2012. Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7, no. 6: 531–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peer, E., L. Brandimarte, S. Samat, and A. Acquisti. 2017. Beyond the turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70, no. May: 153–63.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. 2021. Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters. London: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, L.N. 2014. Green grass, high cotton: Reflections on the evolution of the journal of advertising. Journal of Advertising 43, no. 4: 410–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, L.N., L.C. Soley, and R.D. Winner. 1981. Replication in advertising research: 1977, 1978, 1979. Journal of Advertising 10, no. 1: 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Royne, M.B. 2018. Why We need more replication studies to keep empirical knowledge in check: How reliable is truth in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 58, no. 1: 3–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarstedt, M., P. Bengart, A.M. Shaltoni, and S. Lehmann. 2018. The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising 37, no. 4: 650–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, A.G, and J.P. Peter. 1983. The significance of statistical significance tests in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research 20, no. 2: 122–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaller, M. 2016. The empirical benefits of conceptual rigor: Systematic articulation of conceptual hypotheses can reduce the risk of Non-Replicable results (and facilitate novel discoveries too). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66, no. September: 107–15.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F.L. 1992. What do data really mean? Research findings, Meta-Analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist 47, no. 10: 1173–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, D.E., G. Kerr, and P. Kitchen. 2022. Replication and george the Galapagos tortoise. Journal of Marketing Communications 28, no. 3: 313–28.
   Google Scholar
• Serra-Garcia, M., and U. Gneezy. 2021. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Science Advances 7, no. May: 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J.P., L.D. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2011. False-Positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22, no. 11: 1359–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, D.J. 2014. The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science : a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 9, no. 1: 76–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smits, T., and I. Cuykx. 2017. Reflectie: Replicatie als wetenschapseducatie. Tijdschrift Voor Communicatiewetenschap 45, no. 2: 145–6.
   Google Scholar
• Stroebe, W. 2016. Are most published social psychological findings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66, no. September: 134–44.
   Google Scholar
• Stroebe, W., and F. Strack. 2014. The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science : a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 9, no. 1: 59–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Varan, D., M. Nenycz-Thiel, R. Kennedy, and S. Bellman. 2020. The effects of commercial length on advertising impact: What short advertisements can and cannot deliver. Journal of Advertising Research 60, no. 1: 54–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacholder, S., S. Chanock, M. Garcia-Closas, L. El Ghormli, and N. Rothman. 2004. Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 96, no. 6: 434–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, W.D. 2001. The perils of N = 1. Journal of Consumer Research 28, no. 3: 494–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarantonello, L., K. Jedidi, and B. Schmitt. 2013. Functional and experiential routes to persuasion: an analysis of advertising in emerging versus developed markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 30, no. 1: 46–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., and B.D. Gelb. 1996. Matching advertising appeals to culture: The influence of products’ use conditions. Journal of Advertising 25, no. 3: 29–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar