Rejoinder: fractures in the edifice of PLS

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to provide a response to the commentary by Yuan on the paper “Marketing or Methodology” in this issue of EJM.Design/methodology/approachConceptual argument and statistical discussion.FindingsThe authors find that some of Yuan’s arguments are incorrect, or unclear. Further, rather than contradicting the authors’ conclusions, the material provided by Yuan in his commentary actually provides additional reasons to avoid partial least squares (PLS) in marketing research. As such, Yuan’s commentary is best understood as additional evidence speaking against the use of PLS in real-world research.Research limitations/implicationsThis rejoinder, coupled with Yuan’s comment, continues to support the strong implication that researchers should avoid using PLS in marketing and related research.Practical implicationsMarketing researchers should avoid using PLS in their work.Originality/valueThis rejoinder supports the earlier conclusions of “Marketing or Methodology,” with additional argumentation and evidence.