Ioannis Evangelidis

***TPM2026 in Barcelona, June 6–8 – Call for Papers***

The conference webpage & call for papers for the Theory + Practice in Marketing (TPM) Conference, which will be hosted by ESADE Business School in Barcelona (June 6–8), are now available at: tpmesade.com.

Submission Deadline: January 15, 2026

Colada[128] The Best Audit Study and its interesting shortcoming
datacolada.org/128

Don't assume, plot
datacolada.org/126

Join us on May 27, 2025, for the third annual SJDM Doctoral Symposium!

Link to register:
stonybrookuniversity.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...

Looking forward to “seeing” you there!

2025 Doctoral Symposium Committee
Margaret Echelbarger
Ioannis Evangelidis
Ellen Evers

Title Authors Abstract (Decision under Risk are Decisions Under Complexity: Comment)

A new working paper with Daniel Banki, @urisohn.bsky.social and Robert Walatka, just submitted to SSRN.

The paper is comment on Ryan Oprea's recent AER paper.

The paper is processing, but you, my friends, get early entry.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Never thought about it. You describe inferences about a magnitude based on a categorical variable. In the paper we study inferences about one magnitude based on another (inferences about liking differences based on consensus). Perhaps there is less ambiguity, but inferential processes may be similar

People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B. Are They Wrong? Abstract. We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent t

Full paper (open access): academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-...

P.S. This is Graham's dissertation paper during his PhD at Bocconi, supervised by Joachim Vosgerau and myself. It's a special one.

You're probably misunderstanding people's preferences derived from polling results (e.g., 70% of people prefer A over B). In a new paper led by Graham Overton, we discuss this issue and how you can better calibrate your understanding.

Short summary: spsp.org/news/charact...

Not a review paper but this one may be useful. It reexamines some conclusions from previous research doi.org/10.1037/0096...

We (i.e., the marketing department at ESADE) are looking for PhD students. Please spread the word:

If you want estimates of main effects either use a different coding (-1 and 1 instead of 0 and 1) or run a regression model without interaction term(s). This should be common knowledge by now, but I keep encountering this issue in papers that I review and sometimes even in accepted papers.

Another reminder that in a regression with 2 dummy-coded independent variables (X1,X2) and their interaction [Y=b1*X1+b2*X2+b3*X1*X2, where X1(0=group 1,1=group 2), X2(0=group 1, 1=group 2)], b1 and b2 are NOT main effects. They are conditional effects of each variable when the other=0.

Went through JMR's and JCR's latest issues. Not counting qualitative studies and analyses of secondary data, 5 out of 37 (13.5%) studies at JMR were preregistered, while 5 out of 26 (19.2%) studies at JCR were preregistered. Also, no paper wherein all studies were preregistered.

Chocolates are becoming smaller, potato chip bags have more air, and toilet paper rolls are slimming down. We’ve all seen it and we all hate it.

Happy to share my new Marketing Science paper on "shrinkflation aversion" with the world. Preprint here: tinyurl.com/shrinkflatio...

Spotted in the wild (JEPG):

"Analysis scripts are publicly accessible at (osf link). Data is accessible upon reasonable request. The materials used in this study are widely available."

🤔

Not trying to defend Wansink, but this feature of the study should influence the magnitude of the effect size. It is an important mechanical aspect that is not really discussed anywhere in the replication 3/3

This is consistent with the fact that the difference in mean ounces of soup consumed between original and replication is larger in the treatment group than in the control group 2/3

Reading the soup bowl study replication. I'm wondering whether the smaller effect size in the replication could partly be attributed to the soup in the replication having more calories per ounce (22 vs 18 in original). If food is heavier, people have lower potential to eat 1/3

Also see osf.io/preprints/ps...

JCR retraction: academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-...

"The authors state that the hypothesized link between power and consumption deserves future empirical consideration before the field draws any firm conclusions about this relationship."

Nope. No future empirical consideration is deserved.

Cool findings. Congrats!

New paper in PNAS (with Anna Paley)! 2 contributions:
1)      People have many more subscriptions than they think they have, and if they know this they intend to cancel some
2)      We use crowdsourcing to generate and evaluate nudges, and find that they performed better than those made by experts

I reviewed a paper with 3 experiments, small samples & not preregistered. I asked for 1 preregistered replication in my review. Authors responded that they didn't run more studies because the paper would become too long. I recommended rejection. Paper is conditionally accepted. Lol

If you were choosing between hotels A (price per night: 79, 3 stars) and B (price per night: 109, 4 stars), would your choice be influenced by adding C (price per night: 109, 3 stars)? Our new paper that answers this question is now free for a limited time at: academic.oup.com/jcr/article/...