Marketing research has lately been plagued by replication failures and evidence of systemic bias. This makes it difficult to obtain something useful from the scientific literature in the field of marketing. As a partial solution, I’ve created this list of marketing studies that meet modern scientific ideals: (a) all or most of the studies in the paper are preregistered, (b) the data is published and available, and (c) p-values are not too close to p < .05, indicating the studies probably aren’t p-hacked.
|Citation||Open science||Critical p-values||Journal||Year published|
|Reeck, C., Posner, N. A., Mrkva, K., & Johnson, E. J. (2023). Nudging App Adoption: Choice Architecture Facilitates Consumer Uptake of Mobile Apps. Journal of Marketing.||All data, analysis scripts, pre-registrations, and exact copies of the experiment materials are publicly available at https://osf.io/6qyk5/?view_only = 0734057fae4544118cc61f3b1cf242a6. All six experiments preregistered (but not the field experiment).||<.001, <.001, <.001, .015, .005, <.001||JM||2023|
|Evangelidis, I., Levav, J., & Simonson, I. (2022). The Upscaling Effect: How the Decision Context Influences Tradeoffs between Desirability and Feasibility. Journal of Consumer Research.||All studies preregistered. Preregistrations, materials, and data can be accessed at https://researchbox.org/55&PEER_REVIEW_passcode=EJVSK||.001, .072, .003, .008, <.001, <.001, .05||JCR||2023|
|Brough AR, Norton DA, Sciarappa SL, John LK. EXPRESS: The Bulletproof Glass Effect: Unintended Consequences of Privacy Notices. Journal of Marketing Research. February 2022. doi:10.1177/00222437211069093||5/7 studies preregistered. Data available on OSF: https://osf.io/7cz3s/||<.001, .020, <.001, .042, <.001, <.001, <.001; also not that indirect effects not too close to zero generally speaking||JMR||2022|
|Sokolova, T. (2022). Days-of-the-week effect in temporal judgments. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac044||All studies reported in the paper were preregistered. The anonymized data files, syntax files, study stimuli, and study preregistrations are available at https://researchbox.org/537.||.006, <.001, <.001, <.001, <.001, <.001, <.001.||JCR||2022|
|Donnelly, K., Compiani, G., & Evers, E. R. (2022). Time periods feel longer when they span more category boundaries: Evidence from the lab and the field. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 821-839.||Design, hypotheses, sample size and analyses of all experimental studies reported in the paper were pre-registered. For all studies, authors report all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures. Preregistrations, materials, data and code can be found at https://osf.io/dav53/?view_only=71e175b98e024cf7a321d07ac4ea5d24.||.002, .001, .005, <.001, .015, <.001||JMR||2022|
|André, Q., Reinholtz, N., & De Langhe, B. (2021). Can Consumers Learn Price Dispersion? Evidence for Dispersion Spillover Across Categories. Journal of Consumer Research. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucab030/6263834?redirectedFrom=fulltext||3 out of 8 studies are preregistered. Data, code, materials and preregistrations available: https://osf.io/hvxje/||<.001, .002, .002, <.001, .22||JCR||2021|
|Gunadi, M. P., & Evangelidis, I. (2021). The Impact of Historical Price Information on Purchase Deferral. Journal of Marketing Research, 00222437211060359. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222437211060359||All 6 studies are preregistered. All data and materials also available at the following link: https://researchbox.org/402&PEER_REVIEW_passcode=IVIRNT||All 6 studies are p < .001||JMR||2021|
|Mrkva, K., Posner, N. A., Reeck, C., & Johnson, E. J. (2021). Do nudges reduce disparities? Choice architecture compensates for low consumer knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 0022242921993186.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022242921993186||pre-registered all studies at aspredicted.org, except Study 3 which used an existing dataset. Data, pre-registrations, and analysis scripts are available at https://osf.io/a7b32/?view_only=f4df788f178844f6b26e5274a9cbdab1, with the exception of Study 3 which was from a syndicated panel that we do not have permission to share.||SES: <.001, .004, <.001, .021; Financial literacy: <.001, .015, <.001, .582 (NS was predicted in Study 4); Numeracy: <.001, .785, .010; There is a mediation model in study 4 w/RP=.18, a decent score||JM||2021|
|Evan Polman, Ignazio Ziano, Kaiyang Wu, Anneleen Van Kerckhove, Consumers Believe That Products Work Better for Others, Journal of Consumer Research, 2021;, ucab048, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab048||9/15 preregistered; all data and materials available: https://osf.io/tjgma/?view_only=d9cb35f5c1984edaac208aa90a072ec5||1: .02, 2: all 4 p-values <.001; 3a <.001, 3b: <.001, .042, .006||JCR||2021|
|Ximena Garcia-Rada, Mary Steffel, Elanor F Williams, Michael I Norton, Consumers Value Effort over Ease When Caring for Close Others, Journal of Consumer Research, 2021;, ucab039, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab039||All study materials, preregistration documents, and data (except for study 7 where the authors did not receive individuallevel data) are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/jr4zw/||.003, <.001, <.001, .001, .009, .019, .001, .001, <.001||JCR||2021|
|Sokolova, T., & Krishna, A. (2021). Pick your poison: Attribute trade‐offs in unattractive consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 319-328.||Study 1: https://osf.io/68pfz Study 2: https://osf.io/86qdp Study 3: https://osf.io/ftu5y Study 4: https://osf.io/qkdym Study qsf files, data files, syntax files: https://osf.io/gtpdf/||<.001, .002, <.001, .011||JCP||2021|
|O’Donnell, M., & Evers, E. R. (2019). Preference reversals in willingness to pay and choice. Journal of consumer Research, 45(6), 1315-1330.||Most experiments preregistered. Preregistration documents, materials, and data can be found at the Open Science Framework page for this article: osf.io/grxy8||<.001, .02, <.001, <.001, .009, <.001, <.001, <.001, .03, <.001||JCR||2019|
|Graf, L. K., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 393-411.||Study 1 and 2 preregistered (but not the pilot study) on the “Open Science Framework” platform. All data and data analysis scripts for full transparency and reproducibility (see: https://osf.io/wyvrx/).||1a, 1c marginally significant; 1b,1d p < .001; In study 2, most indirect effects not close to zero.||JCP||2018|
Inclusion criterion: Paper appears in a marketing journal (journals with the word “consumer” or “marketing” in the title). Papers must include multiple preregistered studies. If the critical p-values don’t look good (possible p-hacking) they will be filtered out.