All respondent samples reported during a 10-year span of the JMR were examined individually. On the basis of nine specific criteria, such as sex, age, and occupation, respondent samples were found to be poorly and incompletely specified. Thus major difficulties are suggested in attempts to replicate, and thereby to verify, much of the marketing research reported in the literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertBernard. “Non-Businessmen as Surrogates for Businessmen in Behavioral Experiments,” Journal of Business, 40 (April1967), 203–7.
2.
American Psychological Association.Publication Manual, second edition. Washington, D.C., 1974.
3.
CopelandRonald M., FranciaArthur J., and StrawerRobert H.. “Students as Subjects in Behavioral Business Research,” The Accounting Review, 48 (April1973), 365–72.
4.
CunninghamWilliam H., AndersonW. T., and MurphyJohn H.. “Are Students Real People?” Journal of Business, 47 (July1974), 399–409.
5.
EnisBen M., CoxKeith K., and StaffordJames E.. “Students as Subjects in Consumer Behavior Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February1972), 72–4.
6.
EvansFranklin B. “Psychological and Objective Factors in the Prediction of Brand Choice,” Journal of Business, 32 (October1959), 340–69.
7.
GreenglassEsther and StewartMary. “The Under-Representation of Women in Social Psychological Research,” The Ontario Psychologist, 5 (1973), 21–9.
8.
HigbeeKenneth L. and WellsM. G.. “Some Research Trends in Social Psychology During the 1960's,” American Psychologist, 27 (October1972), 963–6.
9.
KassarjianHarold H. “Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (November1971), 409–18.
10.
KheraInder P. and BensonJames D.. “Are Students Really Poor Substitutes for Businessmen in Behavioral Research?” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (November1970), 529–32.
OakesWilliam. “External Validity and the Use of Real People as Subjects,” American Psychologist, 27 (October1972), 959–62.
13.
RaneyJ. F. “A Plea and a Plan for Replication,” American Psychologist, 25 (October1970), 1176–7.
14.
ReifF. “The Competitive World of the Pure Scientist,” Science, 134 (December1961), 1957–62.
15.
RosnowR. L. and RosenthalR.. “Volunteer Effects in Behavioral Research,” in New Directions in Psychology, Vol. 4. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
16.
SchultzDuane P. “The Human Subject in Psychological Research,” Psychological Bulletin, 72 (September1969), 214–28.
17.
ShethJagdish N. “Are There Differences in Dissonance Reduction Behavior Between Students and Housewives?” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (May1970), 243–5.
18.
ShethJagdish N. “The Multivariate Revolution in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 35 (January1971), 13–9.
19.
SmartR. “Subject Selection Bias in Psychological Research,” Canadian Psychologist, 7a (1966), 115–21.
20.
SmithNathaniel C. “Replication Studies: A Neglected Aspect of Psychological Research,” American Psychologist, 25 (October1970), 970–97.
21.
SmithO. W., SmithP. C., BaumgarteR., GlinerJ., and GoodaleJ.. “Psychology of the Scientist: XXX. Replication: What is it?” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33 (December1971), 691–7.
22.
TukeyJ. W. “Analyzing Data: Sanctification or Detective Work,” American Psychologist, 24 (January1969), 83–91.
23.
WheatleyJohn J. “Research Methodology—How Much Emphasis?” Journal of Marketing, 37 (April1973), 58–9.
