Perspectives: Measure proliferation in advertising research: are standard measures the solution?

References

• Agarwal, M. K., and V. R. Rao. 1996. An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity. Marketing Letters 7, no. 3: 237–47.
   Google Scholar
• Ang, L., and M. Eisend. 2018. Single versus multiple measurement of attitudes toward advertisements: Meta-analysis of advertising studies validates the single-item measure approach. Journal of Advertising Research 58, no. 2: 218–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartunek, J. M., and G. M. Spreitzer. 2006. The interdisciplinary career of a popular construct used in management: Empowerment in the late 20th century. Journal of Management Inquiry 15, no. 3: 255–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, H., and C. Homburg. 1996. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: a review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13, no. 2: 139–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L. 2015. Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay. Marketing Letters 26, no. 3: 245–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L. (in press). Preregistration as a way to limit questionable research practice in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2017. Construct measurement in advertising research. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 1: 129–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2019a. Construct heterogeneity and proliferation in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising 38, no. 8: 1286–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and T. Langner. 2019b. Four steps toward more valid and comparable Self-Report measures in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising: 1–18. doi:10.1080/02650487.2019.1665398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and J. R. Rossiter. 2007. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 44, no. 2: 175–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergkvist, L., and C. R. Taylor. 2016. Leveraged marketing communications: a framework for explaining the effects of secondary brand associations. AMS Review 6, no. 3–4: 157–75.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, G. C. II. 1998. Standardization & justification: Do aad scales measure up? Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 20, no. 1: 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, and C. Feng Kao. 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, no. 3: 306–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churchill, G. A. Jr. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, no. 1: 64–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandall, C. S., and J. W. Sherman. 2016. On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66: 93–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2015. Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing 79, no. 3: 23–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gangestad, S. W., and M. Snyder. 2000. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 4: 530–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, L. K. M., S. Mayer, and J. R. Landwehr. 2018. Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology 28, no. 3: 393–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsikeas, C. S., N. A. Morgan, L. C. Leonidou, and G. T. M. Hult. 2016. Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing 80, no. 2: 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohli, A. K., B. J. Jaworski, and A. Kumar. 1993. MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30, no. 4: 467–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, and Drenth Committee. 2012. Flawed Science: The Fraudulent Research Practices of Social Psychologist Diederik Stapel (English translation of the Dutch report ‘Falende wetenschap: De frauduleuze onderzoekspraktijken van social-psycholoog Diederik Stapel’).
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz. 1989. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing 53, no. 2: 48–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden, T. J., C. T. Allen, and J. L. Twible. 1988. Attitude toward the ad: an assessment of diverse measurement indices under different processing sets. Journal of Marketing Research 25, no. 3: 242–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, L. D., J. P. Simmons, and U. Simonsohn. 2018. Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology 69, no. 1: 511–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C., and I.H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ptok, A., R. P. Jindal, and W. J. Reinartz. 2018. Selling, general, and administrative expense (SGA)-based metrics in marketing: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 46, no. 6: 987–1011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossiter, J. R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19, no. 4: 305–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossiter, J. R. 2011. Measurement for the social sciences: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rossiter, J. R. 2016. How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures. European Journal of Marketing 50, no. 11: 1924–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossiter, J. R. 2017. Optimal standard measures for marketing. Journal of Marketing Management 33, no. 5–6: 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salzberger, T., M. Sarstedt, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2016. Measurement in the social sciences: Where C-OAR-SE delivers and where it does not. European Journal of Marketing 50, no. 11: 1942–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spears, N. E., and S. N. Singh. 2004. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26, no. 2: 53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Weijters, B., E. Cabooter, and N. Schillewaert. 2010. The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27, no. 3: 236–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weijters, B., M. Geuens, and H. Baumgartner. 2013. The effect of familiarity with the response category labels on item response to likert scales. Journal of Consumer Research 40, no. 2: 368–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen, T. J., E. Kim, L. Wu, and N. A. Dodoo. (2020). Activating persuasion knowledge in native advertising: the influence of cognitive load and disclosure language. International Journal of Advertising 39, no. 1: 74–93. 10.1080/02650487.2019.1585649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J. 2019. The impact of self-construal and message frame valence on reactance: a cross-cultural study in charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising 38, no. 3: 405–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn, S., and W. Shin. 2020. Adolescents’ responses to social media newsfeed advertising: the interplay of persuasion knowledge, benefit-risk assessment, and ad scepticism in explaining information disclosure. International Journal of Advertising 39, no. 2: 213–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12, no. 3: 341–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1994. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising 23, no. 4: 59–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar