Using Bibliometrics to Evaluate the Journal of Consumer Research: Suggested Future Consumer
Research Directions
Brian R. Chabowski, The University of Tulsa, USA
Charles M. Wood, The University of Tulsa, USA
G. Tomas M. Hult, Michigan State University, USA
ABSTRACT
The academic discipline of consumer research continues to de-
velop and grow. Many recent trends offer to enrich and enliven the
field in almost endless ways, and a renewed sense of the fields scope
and direction has been proposed recently (Deighton et al. 2010; Ma-
cInnis and Folkes 2010). Such future-looking views are needed to
advance the field. It has been 21 years since Hoffman and Holbrook
(1993) published their bibliometric study of the Journal of Con-
sumer Research (JCR) that helped to solidify the unique contribu-
tors and intellectual structure of consumer research. This provided
a foundational understanding of influential consumer research that
set the tone until today. More recently, an examination of 20 years
of research highlighted the emergence of consumer culture theory
(Arnould and Thompson 2005, 868). However, uncertainty about the
future direction and unique contribution of consumer research is ever
present. As such, our understanding of its intellectual structure as a
field requires a fresh take on the uniquely important and significant
theoretical perspectives in the domain.
In that spirit, we conduct a complete analysis of all JCR articles
from 1998 through 2011. The purpose of this study is to reliably as-
sess and establish the scope and contribution of mainstream consum-
er research and to offer suggestions concerning promising opportu-
nities and emerging directions based on past research. We base our
bibliometric analysis on 27,510 citations from 651 JCR articles and
rely on the sociology of philosophies literature to provide a basis for
interpreting our findings and offer possible suggestions to research-
ers. Our study follows the rationale of intellectual historians who
seek to identify and track the key networks of ideas that have shaped
disciplines over time to provide important information to research-
ers, editors, reviewers, and academic leaders of a discipline. Collins
(1998) stated, Creativity is not random among individuals, it builds
up in intergenerational chains. The social structure of intellectual
attention is fluidly emergent and can be seen only in retrospec-
tive mode (6, 15). This applies to the advancement of consumer
research, as well. Only by examining past contributions in a system-
atic way can past research contribute to future work. With the studys
limitations in mind, our research offers a review of consumer re-
search that is anchored in multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis.
Such an approach is important because consumer research has
evolved into its own epistemic community of shared knowledge. At
the outset, the historical analysis of the discipline has developed over
time and has served an important part of the fields development
(Hoffman and Holbrook 1993). For example, Wells (1993) discussed
the relative positioning of JCR among the top marketing journals,
citing its strong business orientation and its increasingly interdis-
ciplinary nature. Tellis, Chandy, and Ackerman (1999) evaluated
JCR and found it historically less diverse than other top marketing
journals. In fact, they called for research to determine whether the
emerging pattern of diversity using naturalistic inquiry would hold
up over time. A rejoinder stated that JCR articles are more likely to
rely on sources that are more conceptually distinct from marketing
and business (Bettencourt and Houston 2001, 313) but called for
more research to confirm this claim and to include an expanded time
frame. Responding to these expressed concerns and using a concep-
tual thinking approach critical to the advancement of any research
298
domain (MacInnis 2011), the discipline itself is the object of analysis
in this study.
METHOD
To evaluate the intellectual structure of recent consumer re-
search, we used 27,510 citations from 651 articles published in JCR
from 1998 through 2009. Importantly, we excluded 20102011 which
allowed us to examine recent published works in JCR by evaluating
this two-year period in light of our established findings. Addition-
ally, standard protocol in intellectual structure research was carried
out and the data were gathered from the Thomson Reuters Web of
Science (WOS) database. Ancillary research material was excluded
to focus the study on developments in mainstream peer-reviewed
consumer research.
To effectively illustrate the recent intellectual structure of JCR,
the citation data required purification and development for co-citation
analysis. This step is critical since the conclusions gleaned from cita-
tion data on their own are minimal. In contrast, co-citation analysis
allows researchers to evaluate the interrelationships between distinct
units of analysis (e.g., articles or ideas). Though authors (Hoffman
and Holbrook 1993) and journals (Baumgartner and Pieters 2003)
have been levels of analysis in previous research, this study empha-
sizes the thematic relationships between the most influential publica-
tions in JCR. This is distinct from other types of analysis. Though
other approaches such as content analysis are valuable in evaluating
a research domain, the importance of MDS is that the method allows
for the relational analysis of published articles. In other words, the
ability to determine the closeness or distance between research ideas
permits additional understanding of the nature of consumer research.
We were able to identify the 27 most cited influential works
during the period of this study. The basis for this analysis configu-
ration is two-fold: (1) unequal citation patterns among influential
works and (2) maintaining the periods stress value below the ac-
cepted threshold to retain good fit. The stress value for the co-citation
data used was .09, thus providing a clear indication that the period
had good model fit (Ramos-Rodrguez and Ruz-Navarro 2004).
In addition, to maintain interpretability of the results, a stan-
dardized distance of .275 was used to indicate research groups and
cliques in the MDS results. Typically, research groups are comprised
of two publications and note an integral research topic within a gen-
eral intellectual structure (e.g., JCR). Research cliques are known as
an advanced form of research group as they possess three or more
influential publications in a given research domain (Alba and Moore
1983; Tsai and Wu 2010; Wasserman and Faust 1994). The terminol-
ogy used in our study for research groups, cliques, and areas is based
on: (1) the influential publications themselves, (2) the JCR articles
citing the included influential publications, (3) the influential publi-
cations found in the same or related research groups, and (4) the JCR
thirty-year subject index.
RESULTS
Similar to the citation-based tradition evaluating JCR (Bet-
tencourt and Houston 2001; Cote, Leong, and Cote 1991; Hoffman
and Holbrook 1993; Leong 1989; Tellis et al. 1999; Zinkhan, Roth,
and Saxton 1992), we build on recent research providing boundar-
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 41, 2013
 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 41) / 299

ies and opportunities to consumer researchers (MacInnis and Fol- Figure 1: JCR Intellectual Structure, 1998-2009
kes 2010). In fact, by using bibliometric analysis for this study, we
survey the predominant research themes published in JCR over 14
years (Deighton et al. 2010; Kuhn 1962). As indicated in the Table
and Figure, three broad research areas were found during the 1998
2009 period. To permit this generalization of mainstream consumer
research and extend our application of the bibliometric method used,
the connectedness of research groups was the basis for determining Group 12 Group 1
each distinct research area.
Group 11 Group 13 Group 2
Table 1: Overview of Generalized Research Areas and Related
Research Groups in JCR, 1998-2009 Group 3
Group 10
Information Processing and Choice Models
Group 9
1) Information Processing Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Group 5
Group 4
Moderation & Mediation Baron and Kenny 1986 Group 8
Effects
2) Adaptive Decision Moderation Baron and Kenny 1986;
Group 7
& Mediation Effects Payne, Bettman, and Johnson
1993 Group 6
3) Adaptive Information Bettman, Luce, and Payne
Processing 1998; Payne, Bettman, and
Johnson 1993
4) Contextual Information Bettman, Luce, and Payne
Processing and Choice 1998; Simonson 1989;
Notes: Stress value: .09; Standardized distance: .275; Bolded lines indicate
Models Simonson and Tversky 1992
research clique
5) Contextual Choice Models Huber, Payne, and Puto
1982; Simonson 1989; V1 = Aaker and Lee 2001; V2 = Alba and Hutchinson 1987; V3
Simonson and Tversky 1992 = Baron and Kenny 1986; V4 = Belk 1988; V5 = Belk, Wallendorf,
and Sherry 1989; V6 = Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998; V7 =
Behavioral Decision Theory and Kahneman and Tversky Chaiken 1980; V8 = Dhar 1997; V9 = Feldman and Lynch 1988;
Choice* 1979; Thaler 1985; Tversky V10 = Festinger 1957; V11 = Firat and Venkatesh 1995; V12 =
and Kahneman 1991 Fournier 1998; V13 = Friestad and Wright 1994; V14 = Hoch
and Loewenstein 1991; V15 = Holt 1997; V16 = Holt 1998; V17
= Huber, Payne, and Puto 1982; V18 = Kahneman and Tversky
Sociological Analysis and Symbolic Consumer Behavior
1979; V19 = Mick and Buhl 1992; V20 = Muniz and OGuinn
1) Sociological Analysis and Belk, Wallendorf, and 2001; V21 = Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993; V22 = Schouten
Postpositivism Sherry 1989; Holt 1997; and McAlexander 1995; V23 = Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999; V24 =
Holt 1998 Simonson 1989; V25 = Simonson and Tversky 1992; V26 = Thaler
2) Sociological Analysis and Firat and Venkatesh 1995; 1985; V27 = Tversky and Kahneman 1991
Consumer Culture Holt 1997; Holt 1998 Group 1 (V2 and V3): Information Processing Moderation
3) Consumer Culture and Firat and Venkatesh 1995; and Mediation Effects; Group 2 (V3 and V21): Adaptive Decision
Consumption Schouten and McAlexander Moderation and Mediation Effects; Group 3 (V6 and V21): Adap-
1995 tive Information Processing; Group 4 (V6, V24, and V25): Con-
4) Consumer Culture and Mick and Buhl 1992; textual Information Processing and Choice Models; Group 5 (V17,
Advertising Effects Schouten and McAlexander V24, and V25): Contextual Choice Models; Group 6 (V18, V26, and
1995 V27): Behavioral Decision Theory and Choice; Group 7 (V5, V15,
and V16): Sociological Analysis and Postpositivism; Group 8 (V11,
5) Brand Community and Mick and Buhl 1992; Muniz
V15, and V16): Sociological Analysis and Consumer Culture; Group
Advertising Effects and OGuinn 2001
9 (V11 and V22): Consumer Culture and Consumption; Group 10
6) Relational Consumer Branding Fournier 1998; Muniz and (V19 and V22): Consumer Culture and Advertising Effects; Group
OGuinn 2001 11 (V19 and V20): Brand Community and Advertising Effects;
7) Relational Consumer Branding Belk 1988; Fournier 1998 Group 12 (V12 and V20): Relational Consumer Branding; Group
and Identity 13 (V4 and V12): Relational Consumer Branding and IdentityWe
should note that every work highlighted in the Table and Figure has
Notes: Generalized research areas are indicated in underlined italic text made key contributions to the consumer research literature via JCR.
while their respective related research groups are indicated below each The three bold zones in the Figure represent research cliques con-
research area;
taining the most influential research streams. The first consists of
Research cliques are indicated in bolded text;
* - one research group identified in research area (research area bears name
Groups 4 and 5 the most influential research related to information
of specified research group). processing and choice models. The second is comprised of Group
6 the research that developed the concept of behavioral decision
theory and choice. The third consists of Groups 7 and 8 works that
300 / Using Bibliometrics to Evaluate the Journal of Consumer Research: Suggested Future Consumer Research Directions
helped develop sociological analysis and symbolic consumer behav-
ior research.
As shown in the Figure, the three general research areas can
be identified as comprised of individual research groups. First, one
research area included five specific research groups: (1) information
processing moderation and mediation effects (Group 1), (2) adap-
tive decision moderation and mediation effects (Group 2), (3) adap-
tive information processing (Group 3), (4) contextual information
processing and choice models (Group 4), and (5) contextual choice
models (Group 5). Supported by two research cliques, the combined
focus of these research groups indicates a research area emphasizing
information processing and choice models.
The second area of research consists of a single research clique.
The emphasis of this distinct research topic relates to behavioral de-
cision theory and choice. Driven by both economic and consumption
considerations, this topic incorporates the behaviors and risks related
to consumer choices that can be made in a competitive landscape.
Finally, the last research area includes seven research groups.
The themes for this research topic relate to: (1) sociological analysis
and postpositivism (Group 7), (2) sociological analysis and consum-
er culture (Group 8), (3) consumer culture and consumption (Group
9), (4) consumer culture and advertising effects (Group 10), (5)
brand community and advertising effects (Group 11), (6) relational
consumer branding (Group 12), and (7) relational consumer brand-
ing and identity (Group 13). In effect, these research groups indicate
a research area emphasizing sociological analysis and symbolic con-
sumer behavior.
DISCUSSION
The implications related to the MDS findings covering can be
discussed in two distinct sections. First, the broad-based set of re-
sults points to the development of an integrative consumer research
framework on which to base possible studies in the future. Based on
recent recommendations concerning the development of consumer
research (Deighton et al. 2010; MacInnis and Folkes 2010), we relate
this framework to the research areas of consumer research identi-
fied in the 1998-2009 period: (1) information processing and choice
models, (2) behavioral decision theory and choice, and (3) sociologi-
cal analysis and symbolic consumer behavior.
Second, we develop suggestions for possible future consumer
research by indicating gaps to date in published JCR articles. After
evaluating research published in JCR through 2011 for this portion
of the study, the potential research syntheses are presented as oppor-
tunities based on the foundations and recent trends of consumer re-
search. Taken together, this provides the basis for continued theory-
based consumer research development and suggests possibilities for
innovative research insights yet to emerge (Kuhn 1962).
An Integrative Consumer Research Framework
Information Processing and Choice Models. JCR articles con-
firm this research area and point to the need for expanded consumer
research on the topic. For instance, some research indicates that in-
formation structure is more predictive of information overload than
information amount (Lurie 2004). Findings related to this topic indi-
cated that information processing mediates the relationship between
information structure and overload. Also, based on an analysis of
consumer responses to websites, the influence of priming and exter-
nal search has been assessed in novice and expert consumer choices
(Mandel and Johnson 2002). As such, results indicate that, in a net-
worked environment, novice consumer choices are mediated by ex-
ternal search while experts are not. Finally, the advantages and dis-
advantages of information flow control in consumer decision quality,
memory, knowledge, and confidence are very applicable to infor-
mation processing and choice models (Ariely 2000). In fact, while
consumers may make better decisions in contexts of information
flow control, consumer information processing can be compromised
when information demands exceed capacity. Taken together, these
recent research developments support the changing and adaptive na-
ture of consumer processing in an increasingly networked economy.
Therefore, its place as the first dimension in our parsimonious con-
sumer research framework indicates its continued importance.
Behavioral Decision Theory and Choice. One example of the
application of behavioral decision theory and choice relates to per-
ceived value differences among buyers and sellers (Carmon and Ari-
ely 2000). More specifically, the focus of loss aversion as well as the
willingness to exchange was found to be different between buyers
and sellers. Another recent article indicated the prevalence of inter-
nal budgetary parameters typically used by consumers on purchase
visits to the grocery store (Stilley, Inman, and Wakefield 2010). The
two different aspects of a consumers mental budget (itemized and
in-store slack) reflect the behavior and decisions made in the mar-
ketplace. Taken further, the balance between monetary and temporal
costs in consumer purchases has been examined (Soster, Monga, and
Bearden 2010). Findings indicate that monetary costs are considered
across time while temporal costs terminate at the end of a speci-
fied time cycle. Further, the shift of a tangibly-valued attribute to
zero creates ambiguity in the consumer choice process (Palmeira
2011). Based on these developments, the nature of consumer-firm
exchanges shows that behavioral decision theory and choice must be
included as the second dimension in our framework.
Sociological Analysis and Symbolic Consumer Behavior.
Though the extent of this research area in elite consumer-focused
research is considerable, current articles in particular synthesize both
aspects of this research area to denote its importance as a dimension
in integrative consumer research. First, a conceptual overview of
consumer culture theory provides a clear indication of the domains
boundaries (Arnould and Thompson 2005). However, recently, JCR
research has emphasized the importance of sociological analysis and
consumer symbolism. For instance, themes such as the role of inner
dialog in consumer decision-making (Bahl and Milne 2010), the rel-
evance of a signature as an indication of self-identity with a product
or consumption group (Kattle and Haubl 2011), and the altered prac-
tices of an individual vested in a particular consumption community
(Arsel and Thompson 2011) show this continued examination. How-
ever, equally prevalent has been a focus on different facets of a con-
sumption community. The latest issues have related to the use and
meaning of objects (Epp and Price 2010; Fernandez and Lastovicka
2011), the formation of consumption beliefs in light of an established
legal or belief structure (Humphreys 2010; Karababa and Ger 2011),
and the construction, development, and advancement of a consump-
tion community when different perspectives and interpretations may
exist (Belk 2010; Berger and Ward 2010; Luedicke, Thompson, and
Giesler 2010; Sandikci and Ger 2010). Taken together, it is obvious
that this research area is critical to an inclusive consumer research
perspective.
Possible Integrative Research Directions
Based on the bibliometric-supported framework suggested, we
build on established consumer research areas to advance the field
(Deighton et al. 2010). By emphasizing the recombination of sub-
disciplines in this domain, we suggest a generalized perspective
from which to develop future research (MacInnis and Folkes 2010).
However, since the primary co-citation analyses were conducted
through 2009, it is imperative to evaluate the most current consumer

research as well. Accomplishing this will provide critical informa-
tion concerning two main issues with regards to establishing our
suggested research directions: (1) it allows us to categorize recent
consumer research and assess the extent that our framework has been
used already, and (2) it permits us to identify the possible gaps in
current research such that future framework-related topics may be
suggested. Additionally, we acknowledge limitations related to the
research conducted. However, first, we examine the current consum-
er research trends published in JCR assimilating specific elements
of our integrative framework. Then, we suggest future research op-
portunities which may encourage the advancement of the field. The
result is a clarified perspective on the possibilities which exist in the
consumer research domain.
The first combination which has been integrated to some de-
gree would relate to aspects of the information processing and choice
models as well as the behavioral decision theory and choice research
areas. First, after comparing situations of increased and decreased
consumer options, results indicated that the relationship between as-
sortment and choice is moderated by product availability (Chernev
2003). Also, findings have shown that an increased frequency of
price discounts tends to increase consumer processing errors but can
lead to increased firm profitability as well (Chen and Rao 2007).
Another area regarding the competitive marketplace reflects recent
findings that consumers opt for product specialization choices even
in cases of identical product attributes between specialized and all-
in-one products (Chernev 2007). Lastly, results indicate that the role
of important and unique categorical product attributes in dominated
consumer options can reduce the attraction effect (Ha, Park, and Ahn
2009). Taken together, these studies have combined various elements
of information processing, behavioral decision theory, and choice.
The second integrative topic is one which examines the socio-
logical analysis and symbolic consumer behavior as well as the be-
havioral decision theory and choice research areas in tandem. One
example studied the importance of consumer time with (rather than
consumer money spent for) a product (Mogilner and Aaker 2009).
By evaluating consumer perspective as well as experience after the
purchase has been made, increased temporal understanding of the
consumer experience is critical to assessing long-term relational
(as well as branding) considerations. Another recent study showed
that the establishment of relational norms between two consumers
tended to increase the willingness of a partner to accept the terms of
a consumer exchange with a firm (Aggarwal and Zhang 2006). This
identifies the social element to consumer interaction and provides
richness to the purchase context not possible when evaluating only
the consumer-firm interaction. In addition, pricing and social inter-
action were explored to find variation across four distinct relational
types: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and
market pricing (McGraw, Tetlock, and Kristel 2003). These findings
indicated that market pricing provided the most stable results to sup-
port the notion that other relational types seeking to improve on con-
sumer pricing have complex ramifications yet to be fully examined.
Also, a genetic basis for consumer judgment and choice has been
forwarded as requiring focused research (Simonson and Sela 2011).
However, heritable effects have not been detected to any significant
degree. Instead, a construct related to risk aversion (prudence) has
been advanced as showing future research potential.
Another combination of two research areas includes sociologi-
cal analysis and symbolic consumer behavior and integrates facets
of information processing and choice models. However, contrary to
the other advances in consumer research, this facet appears to have
mainly conceptual and qualitative underpinnings. For instance, one
approach acknowledges that consumer knowledge can become a
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 41) / 301
form of human capital. With this in mind, the knowledge possessed
by consumers is related to life cycle patterns and various aspects of
consumer behavior (Ratchford 2001). In addition, another approach
presents a framework to examine the opportunities regarding perfect
product-consumer fit. By evaluating the likelihood of a holistic ex-
perience, examining and quantifying heightened consumer intimacy
appears to have been established (Allen 2002). As such, the combi-
nation of these two research areas has yet to be fully realized. Un-
doubtedly, this creates considerable opportunity for future research.
Granted, there are many possibilities not discussed here to in-
tegrate consumer research in different ways. However, we focused
only on particular exemplars which synthesized research based on
the framework suggested in this study. Undoubtedly, there are other
generalized opportunities and exemplars which may best spur future
integrative studies, as well.
LIMITATIONS
As with any study, there are limitations to this research. First,
the interpretation of MDS results can be subjective and based on
the researchers own perspective. As such, there could be multiple
interpretations to the data summarized in the Table and displayed in
the Figure. Therefore, other researchers may come to different con-
clusions regarding the specific nature of the research groups, cliques,
and areas identified in our analysis.
The second limitation identified in this study relates to the
method used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intel-
lectual structure and the most influential research topics as published
in the premier peer-reviewed consumer research journal. A widely
accepted approach to accomplish this is to use MDS as a basis for
analysis and discussion. Still, there are many different types of anal-
ysis which may be used to evaluate the nature of JCR. For example,
content analysis may be used to gain an idea of the major themes in
the journal. Similarly, to evaluate JCRs intellectual structure, factor
analysis or cluster analysis could be used instead of the MDS ap-
proach employed here. As such, there are a variety of distinct meth-
ods which may be used to evaluate the influence of specific topics in
consumer research.
Finally, another limitation in this study is based on the sample
drawn for analysis. As the objective of this study was to evaluate
JCR in specific, there may be other influences in consumer research
which went unnoticed. Specifically, related yet distinct consumer
research is published in other leading journals. Therefore, to gain
a better understanding of the domains intellectual structure, future
researchers may seek to include journals such as the Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
which are known to publish quality consumer research. This would
allow for a more complete understanding of the domains intellec-
tual structure and could provide additional insights for subsequent
analysis.
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Meng Zhang (2006), The Moderating Effect
of Relationship Norm Salience on Consumers Loss Aversion,
Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 413-19.
Alba, Richard D. and Gwen Moore (1983),Elite Social Circles, in
Applied Network Analysis, ed. Ronald S. Burt and Michael J.
Minor, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications: 245-61.
Allen, Douglas E. (2002), Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice
as Sociohistorically Shaped Practical Experience: The Fits-
Like-a-Glove (FLAG) Framework, 28(4), 515-32.
302 / Using Bibliometrics to Evaluate the Journal of Consumer Research: Suggested Future Consumer Research Directions
Ariely, Dan (2000), Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on
Consumers Decision Making and Preferences, Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(2), 233-48.
Arnould, Eric J. and Craig J. Thompson (2005), Consumer
Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research, Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(4), 868-82.
Arsel, Zeynep and Craig J. Thompson (2011), Demythologizing
Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-
Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace
Myths, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 791-806.
Bahl, Shalini and George R. Milne (2010), Talking to Ourselves: A
Dialogical Exploration of Consumption Experiences, Journal
of Consumer Research, 37(1), 176-95.
Baumgartner, Hans and Rik Pieters (2003), The Structural
Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the
Discipline and its Subareas Over Time, Journal of Marketing,
67(2), 123-39.
Belk, Russell (2010), Sharing, Journal of Consumer Research,
36(5), 715-34.
Berger, Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010), Subtle Signals of
Inconspicuous Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research,
37(4), 555-69.
Bettencourt, Lance A. and Mark B. Houston (2001), Reference
Diversity in JCR, JM, and JMR: A Reexamination and
Extension of Tellis, Chandy, and Ackerman (1999), Journal
of Consumer Research, 28(2), 313-23.
Carmon, Ziv and Dan Ariely (2000), Focusing on the Foregone:
How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyer and Sellers,
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 360-70.
Chen, Haipeng (Allan) and Aksay R. Rao (2007), When Two
Plus Two Is Not Equal to Four: Errors in Processing Multiple
Percentage Changes, Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3)
327-40.
Chernev, Alexander (2003), When More Is Less and Less Is
More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in
Consumer Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2),
170-83.
________ (2007), Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product
Differentiation and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer
Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430-44.
Collins, Randall (1998), The Sociology of Philosophies, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Cote, Joseph A., Siew Meng Leong, and Jane Cote (1991),
Assessing the Influence of Journal of Consumer Research:
A Citation Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3),
402-10.
Deighton, John, Debbie MacInnis, Ann McGill, and Baba Shiv
(2010), Broadening the Scope of Consumer Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1-3.
Epp, Amber M. and Linda L. Price (2010), The Storied Life
of Singularized Object: Forces of Agency and Network
Transformation, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 820-
37.
Fernandez, Karen V. and John L. Lastovicka (2011), Making
Magic: Fetishes in Contemporary Consumption, Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(2), 278-99.
Ha, Youn-Won, Sehoon Park, and Hee-Kyung Ahn (2009), The
Influence of Categorical Attributes on Choice Context
Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 463-77.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Morris B. Holbrook (1993), The
Intellectual Structure of Consumer Research: A Bibliometric
Study of Author Cocitations in the First 15 Years of the
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer
Research, 19(4), 505-17.
Humphreys, Ashlee (2010), Semiotic Structure and the
Legitimation of Consumption Practices: The Case of Casino
Gambling, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 490-510.
Karababa, Eminegl and Gliz Ger (2011), Early Modern Ottoman
Coffeehouse Culture and the Formation of the Consumer
Subject, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 737-60.
Kettle, Keri L. and Gerald Hubl (2011), The Signature Effect:
Signing Influences Consumption-Related Behavior by Priming
Self-Identity, Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 474-89.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Leong, Siew Meng (1989), A Citation Analysis of the Journal of
Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4),
492-97.
Luedicke, Marius K., Craig J. Thompson, and Markus Giesler
(2010), Consumer Identity Work as Moral Protagonism:
How Myth and Ideology Animate a Brand-Mediated Moral
Conflict, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1016-32.
Lurie, Nicholas H. (2004), Decision Making in Information-Rich
Environments: The Role of Information Structure, Journal of
Consumer Research, 30(4), 473-86.
MacInnis, Deborah J. (2011), A Framework for Conceptual
Contributions in Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 75(4),
136-54.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Valerie S. Folkes (2010), The
Disciplinary Status of Consumer Behavior: A Sociology
of Science Perspective on Key Controversies, Journal of
Consumer Research, 36(6), 899-914.
Mandel, Naomi and Eric J. Johnson (2002), When Web Pages
Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and
Novices, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 235-45.
McGraw, A. Peter, Philip E. Tetlock, and Orie V. Kristel (2003),
The Limits of Fungibility: Relational Schemata and the Value
of Things, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219-29.
Mogilner, Cassie and Jennifer Aaker (2009), The Time vs. Money
Effect: Shifting Product Attitudes and Decisions through
Personal Connection, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2),
277-91.
Palmeira, Mauricio M. (2011), The Zero-Comparison Effect,
Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 16-26.
Ramos-Rodrguez, Antonio Rafael and Jos Ruz-Navarro
(2004), Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic
Management Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic
Management Journal, 1980-2000, Strategic Management
Journal, 25(10), 981-1004.
Ratchford, Brian T. (2001), The Economics of Consumer
Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 397-411.
Sandikci, zlem and Gliz Ger (2010), Veiling in Style: How
Does a Stigmatized Practice Become Fashionable? Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(1), 15-36.
Simonson, Itamar and Aner Sela (2011), On the Heritability of
Consumer Decision Making: An Exploratory Approach for
Studying Genetic Effects on Judgment and Choice, Journal
of Consumer Research, 37(6), 951-66.

Soster, Robin L., Ashwani Monga, and William O. Bearden (2010),
Tracking Costs of Time and Money: How Accounting Periods
Affect Mental Accounting, Journal of Consumer Research,
37(4), 712-21.
Tellis, Gerard J., Rajesh K. Chandy, and David S. Ackerman
(1999), In Search of Diversity: The Record of Major
Marketing Journals, Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1),
120-31.
Tsai, Wenpin and Chia-hung Wu (2010), Knowledge Combination:
A Cocitation Analysis, Academy of Management Journal,
53(3), 441-50.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 41) / 303
Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust (1994), Social Network
Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wells, William D. (1993), Discovery-Oriented Consumer
Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 489-504.
Zinkhan, George M., Martin S. Roth, and May Jane Saxton (1992),
Knowledge Development and Scientific Status in Consumer-
Behavior Research: A Social Exchange Perspective, Journal
of Consumer Research, 19(2), 282-91.
Copyright of Advances in Consumer Research is the property of Association for Consumer
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.