Author: Aaron Charlton
Updating your CB (Consumer Behavior) course to reflect the replication crisis
According to Evanschitzky et al. (2007), teachers should ignore findings until they have been replicated. Unfortunately, only a very small portion of all marketing studies have withstood the scrutiny of direct, preregistered replication. Moreover, a lot of things came to light in 2021 that should give us pause before we blindly endorse the collective works […]
2021 marketing meta-science year in review
Okay so we are starting to learn that there could be some issues with the way that we are doing research currently. That’s okay. It’s part of the process. We can take a hard look, make changes, and come out better for it. Specifically, it looks like there may be a lot of noise mining […]
Using Qualtrics survey logic to eliminate redundancy in simple experiments
I just reviewed a Qualtrics survey for a 3×2 between subjects experiment which repeated 3 times within subjects. The survey designer was fairly inexperienced so it’s not surprising that they used 36 blocks with 5-8 questions each and had incredibly complex logic to accomplish this. Unfortunately, there was so much redundancy and complexity that I […]
About that metaphor priming paper…
I recently reported this paper for impossible means [link]. A few notes about the process and paper: I was very pleased with how Patricia Bauer, the editor of Psych Science handled everything. She was super appreciative and kind. And Greg Francis did an excellent job on the analysis and writeup I thought. I have zero […]
Designing, running and analyzing survey data during one class period
Today in my undergraduate Marketing Research class my students and I designed a survey to collect their opinions of State Farm’s decision to pull Aaron Rodgers ads. We were able to design the survey in Qualtrics, get students’ responses, and analyze the data during a 75-minute class period. This was made possible through the use […]
Conflicts between Dan Ariely’s statement and Footnote #14 (DataColada #98)
So cool that another fraudulent paper was discovered and outed. I noticed that there were conflicts between the author’s statement (he seems to blame his industry partner?) and other facts of the case. I just wanted to highlight the conflicts here because these are things that we need explained better if we are going to […]
Rampant speculation is the outcome of institutional silence around retractions and firings
I noticed that after two marketing researchers (Nicole Coleman and Ping Dong) lost their jobs and got a series of retractions, there has been a wave of speculation. Not gossip about the two researchers as I would expect, but distrust of institutions; feelings of “who is the next junior researcher to be thrown under the […]
The salvaging of a Ping Dong paper at Journal of Marketing
Ping Dong resigned from Northwestern and disappeared, ghosting her coauthors. She had numerous articles retracted, including 3 from top marketing journals [link]. Somehow, her coauthors of one JM article convinced JM to drop her as 1st author, let them rerun all the studies (except for the first one which was a field study) and republish […]
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money
This 2013 Marketing Letters paper was retracted in 2016. This article has been retracted at the suggestion of journal Editors-in-Chief, Peter N. Golder and Joel H. Steckel. The article’s authors unanimously requested retraction of Study 3 based on unexplained anomalies in the data and coding errors. As a result, the editors deem it appropriate to […]
