Have We Progressed Marketing Knowledge? A Meta-Meta-Analysis of Effect Sizes in Marketing Research

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Networks, ecosystems, fields, market systems? Making sense of the business environment (2020, unknown): “Examples are: (1) the lack of practical relevance to key managerial problems, or the “theory-praxis” gap (Åge, Cederlund, & Gummesson, 2014; Brennan, Tzempelikos, & Wilson, 2014; LaPlaca & da Silva, 2016; Nenonen, Brodie, Storbacka, & Peters, 2017; Reibstein, Day, & Wind, 2009; Slater, Hult, & Olson”
Pleasant Ambient Scents: A Meta-Analysis of Customer Responses and Situational Contingencies (2020, background): “For instance, a correlation of .15 corresponds to an explained variance of 2%, leaving 98% unaccounted for, a potentially misleading reflection of the importance of an effect relative to the percentage change in the outcome (Eisend 2015).”
A Meta-Analysis of When and How Advertising Creativity Works (2020, background): “Although we cannot test the validity of different assessments, we propose that the best measure of advertising creativity should explain more variance in outcome response variables than alternative measures of creativity, leading to stronger effect sizes (for a similar argument, see Eisend 2015).”