Introduction and outline of the book

Focus on Authors

Focus on Authors

About Our Authors

Focus on Authors

Bither, Stewart W. (1977), Resistance to Persuasion: Inoculation and Distraction, in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, eds. Arch Woodside, Jagdish Sheth, and Peter Bennett, New York: North-Holland, pp. 243-50. , Dolich, Ira, and Nell, Elaine (1971), The Application of Attitude Immunization Techniques in Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 56-61. Hovland, Carl, Lumsdaine, A. A., and Sheffield, F. D. (1949), Experiments on Mass Communication, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jacoby, Jacob, Speller, Donald E., and Kohn, Carol A. (1974), Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 63-70. Mazis, Michael (1977), Theoretical and Empirical Examination of Comparative Advertising, working paper, Department of Marketing, University of Florida. McGuire, William (1961), The Effectiveness of Supportive and Refutational Defenses in Immunizing and Restoring Beliefs Against Persuasion, Sociometry, 24, 184-97. Morrison, Donald (1967), Statistical Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill. Peter, John, and Tarpey, Lawrence (1975), Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 29-37. Prasad, V. Kanti (1976), Communications-Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising: A Laboratory Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 128-37. Rosenberg, Milton J., Hovland, Carl I., McGuire, William J., Abelson, Robert P., and Brehm, Jack W. (1960), Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Roy, S. N. (1957), Some Aspects of Analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Szybillo, George, and Heslin, Richard (1973), Resistance to Persuasion: Inoculation Theory in a Marketing Context, Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 396-403. Wilkie, William, and Farris, Paul (1975), Comparison Advertising: Problems and Potential, Journal of Marketing, 39, 7-15. Wind, Yoram, and Denny, Joseph (1974), Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Research on the Effectiveness of TV Commercials, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 136-42.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of replications for science, and in particular the knowledge development process.Design/methodology/approachDescriptive research on the disclosure of sample parameters which are needed for replication was conducted. The analysis includes 2,982 studies from four top-tier marketing journals.FindingsPublished parameters are insufficient for replication and, therefore, impede knowledge development.Originality/valueThe paper offers a unique data set for further investigation. In total, 2,982 studies from the defined journals (Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing ResearchandMarketing Science) were analyzed. Hereby this paper enables insights into reporting practices of current marketing research and highlights the role of replication research in validating earlier research. It empirically shows, to the authors' best knowledge for the first time, that the insufficient reporting is one of the major reasons for the lack of replications.

The qualitative research aims to develop an understanding of how consumers view the celebrity as a brand and also to measure and compare the celebrity equities. This research applies associative network theory to identify the celebrity association networks residing in the minds of the consumers using Brand Concept Maps (BCMs) methodology. It also measures the celebrity equity by measuring the relative strength, favourability and uniqueness of the associations. Three celebrities from different professions are selected for this study. Data for the construction of BCMs have been obtained from 50 respondents. The associations are shown on BCMs, and their structure has been analysed using general and central characteristics. Celebrity equity is measured using Krishnan (1996, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 389–405) methodology. The results reveal that consumers link five categories of associations with a celebrity, namely professional associations, public-image-related associations, social responsibility- and ethics-related associations, lifestyle associations and negative associations. Further, the celebrities are found to have strong brand equities, but their relative equities differ from each other. This study reveals that the managers need to consider a wide range of associations for measuring celebrity equity. It also provides academicians and celebrity managers with a new methodology for measuring celebrity equity.

Previous article No AccessMore on Collusion and Advertising: A ReplyHarold DemsetzHarold Demsetz Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Law and Economics Volume 19, Number 1Apr., 1976 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/466864 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 3Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1976 The University of Chicago Law SchoolPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Namwoon Kim, Philip M. Parker Collusive conduct in private label markets, International Journal of Research in Marketing 16, no.22 (Jun 1999): 143–155.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(99)00005-1Philip Parker, Namwoon Kim National brands versus private labels: An empirical study of competition, advertising and collusion, European Management Journal 15, no.33 (Jun 1997): 220–235.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00003-0 John R. Carter Collusion, Efficiency, and Antitrust, The Journal of Law and Economics 21, no.22 (Oct 2015): 435–444.https://doi.org/10.1086/466930

International Transactions in Operational ResearchVolume 11, Issue 3 p. 361-364 Free Access IFORS' Operational Research Hall of Fame John D. C. Little Richard C. Larson, Richard C. LarsonSearch for more papers by this author Richard C. Larson, Richard C. LarsonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 May 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2004.00463.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Selected original works Little, J.D.C., 1961. A Proof for the Queuing Formula: L=λW. Operations Research, 9, 383– 7. Little, J.D.C., Murty, K.G., Sweeney, D.W., Karel, C., 1963. An Algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem. Operations Research, 11, 972– 89. Little, J.D.C., 1966. The Synchronization of Traffic Signals by Mixed-Integer Linear Programming. Operations Research, 14, 568– 94. Little, J.D.C., 1966. A Model of Adaptive Control of Promotional Spending. Operations Research, 14, 1075– 98. Little, J.D.C., Lodish, L., 1969. A Media Planning Calculus. Operations Research, 17, 1– 35. Little, J.D.C., 1970. Managers and Models: The Concept of a Decision Calculus. Management Science, 16, B466– 85. Little, J.D.C., 1979. Decision Support Systems for Marketing Managers. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 9– 26. Little, J.D.C., Cohen, S., 1982. The MAXBAND Program for Arterial Signal Timing Plans. Public Roads, 46(2), 61– 5. Guadagni, P.M., Little, L.D.C., 1983. A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data. Marketing Science, 2, 203–238. Little, J.D.C., 1998. Integrated Measures of Sales, Merchandising, and Distribution. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 473– 85. Little, J.D.C., 2002. Philip M. Morse and the Beginnings. Operations Research, 50, 146– 8. Citing Literature Volume11, Issue3May 2004Pages 361-364 ReferencesRelatedInformation

This paper compares recycling attitudes and behaviours of key participants in Pakistan's plastics recycling supply chains. It involved mainly cross sectional surveys of 360 households and 51 scrap dealers, and multiple case studies with 26 plastics pre-processors and 28 plastics recyclers (moulders/converters) at seven cities in Pakistan. Guided by the model of consumer recycling behaviour proposed by Thogersen (International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1994, 11, pp. 145-163) this paper found a mix of different attitudes and behaviours. It appears that households lacked awareness of the process involved after plastics recyclables are collected and they lacked opportunity to participate; furthermore their recycling behaviour was largely motivated by financial benefits. Material recovery facilities provided by the government appeared to be inadequate. For other private-sector participants (scrap dealers, re-processor and moulders), they lacked investment in equipments for sorting and storage of plastics waste. We further explain the roles of social norms, ability to recycle, opportunity to recycle and motivation (awareness or monetary) and extend Thogersen's model to include not just households but also scrap dealers, re-processors and moulders. The developed measurement instrument is useful to study other recycling supply chains.

Empirical work on the causes and effects of inventive activity has had difficulty in finding measures that can indicate when and where changes in either inventive inputs or inventive output have occurred. The recent computerization of the U.S. Patent Office's data base may prove helpful in this context, but there is the problem that a priori we do not know the relationships between patent applications and economically meaningful measures of these inputs and outputs. To help solve this problem, this paper investigates the dynamic relationships among the number of successful patent applications of firms, a measure of the firm's investment in inventive activity (its R & D expenditures),\tand an indicator of its inventive output (the stock market value of the firm).

The Journal of Marketing Research has now reached almost four decades of growth since its initiation in 1964. It continues to be a rich source of innovative ideas in research methodology and knowledge diffusion for both practitioners and academics. This article pays tribute to the many scholars who have contributed to the Journal of Marketing Research's success and continued service to marketing researchers worldwide. The authors describe the early years of the Journal of Marketing Research and illustrate how it has become the premier journal in marketing research methodology. In so doing, they discuss its important role in the dissemination of knowledge through the Advanced Research Techniques Forum and other special interest marketing groups. The authors also stress the significant role of software development in the implementation of the increasingly complex computations associated with advanced marketing research methods.

This article studies the research productivity of scholars and institutional departments in the field of marketing, by examining data of published articles in four premier marketing journals (Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Marketing Science) from 2010 to 2019. Two different metrics are used to evaluate scholar productivity: the total count of publications and a fractional publication score which considers the number of authors in an article. Using these same metrics, research productivity of higher institution marketing departments around the world is also measured. Adapting the methodology used in previous studies, we provide a snapshot of today’s most productive marketing scholars and marketing departments. Our findings may help academics with major professional decisions like admission choices in a doctoral program, Ph.D. advisor selection, career choices, job placement, promotion, potential collaboration ideas and mobility issues. Interestingly, we find the size of marketing faculty in our top schools has only a moderate effect on their research productivity.

Purpose This study aims to determine the extent to which the use of coordinating conjunctions enhances or impairs definitional clarity. Design/methodology/approach In two studies, a sample of 736 construct definitions from the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a 30-year period was judged for ambiguity and vagueness by both academic and lay judges. Findings The authors demonstrate that constructing definitions using both “and” and “or” increases the ambiguity and vagueness of the construct’s meaning. The most frequently used conjunction is “and” which appeared in 42 per cent of the definitions. A significant percentage (26 per cent) contain the conjunction “or.” Research limitations/implications A framework for understanding alternative interpretations of “and” or “or” is developed. Five recommendations are proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists in all academic fields should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition. Practical implications A five-step process is proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition. Originality/value This is the first exploration of how specific wording patterns used in construct definitions in academic research affect the clarity of the definition.

Despite the diversity of all those involved within the marketing discipline, all have a stake in maximizing the advancement of marketing knowledge. Without a specific analysis it is difficult to reflect on where a field has been or where it might be heading. The purpose of this chapter is to examine who and what marketing scholars have been researching over the period 1977–2002 using content analysis. This chapter provides longitudinal benchmarking of the “inputs” (authors and institutions) and “outputs” (articles) examining the marketing literature in the four major marketing journals: the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Consumer Research, and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.