JCP: The next mile

We are honored to serve as Editors of the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP), accepting the baton from Lauren Block, Jennifer Argo, and Tom Kramer and continuing down the path of excellence that they and their predecessors have forged for the journal. Prior editors sought to define the journal's scope (e.g., Block et al., 2020; Wyer & Shavitt, 2002), improve its operational efficiency (e.g., Maheswaran, 2006; Wyer & Shavitt, 2003), and introduce impact initiatives (e.g., Maheswaran, 2006), including alternative formats that support diverse research contributions (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2018). Their efforts, as well as those of prior editors, associate editors, reviewers, and authors, have helped make JCP the journal that it is today – a premier outlet for research that advances knowledge of consumer psychology.

In our initial editorial, we share our thoughts about where the journal is now and the direction we plan to follow, acknowledging the need for us to address other important issues in future editorials. Because this initial editorial builds on the ideas and efforts of the incredible scholars who preceded us as editors, or describes distinctive features of the journal that we plan to continue, we borrow words and phrases from past editorials or the journal website, believing there are limited ways to describe similar perspectives and practices.

We embrace the notion articulated most recently by our immediate predecessors that consumer psychology involves an understanding of the science underlying consumer behavior (Block et al., 2020). It encapsulates understanding consumers' thoughts, feelings, or behaviors as they interact with products, services, or ideas in the marketplace and beyond (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2007; Peter & Olson, 2017; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2000). We share previous editors' inclusive perspective of consumer psychology and echo their sentiments that while consumer psychological research needs to provide insights about consumers and consumption, it does not have to be constrained to the marketplace alone or be limited in terms of its relevance to a narrow set of stakeholders. While consumers make important decisions in retail settings, not all consumer decisions or consumption activities take place in stores. For example, how consumers process information could be of importance even if it does not directly translate into an observable outcome. In other contexts, the decision may occur at home, but could have downstream marketplace consequences. Ultimately, as long as the research provides insights about the psychology of consumption, whether or not these insights inform managerial practice, consumer welfare, or public policy, we believe it may be appropriate for JCP.

Consistent with the journal's focus on consumers and the psychology of consumption, issues that are relevant to people in their role as consumers are also relevant to JCP. While the global pandemic may have receded, consumers still live in a world where many of their basic needs are unmet. Many live in poverty without food, shelter, or health care for their families. We are still fighting for justice and equality and to eradicate racism and discrimination of all forms, impacting consumers' efforts to belong, find companionship, and make responsible decisions. We are also in the throes of geopolitical conflicts, in the midst of climate change and on the cusp of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution. As consumers grapple with the societal challenges facing them, the field of consumer psychology has opportunities to advance understanding of how consumers process and react to these challenges, and how each impacts them and their decisions. Although we encourage examinations of these topics, we also continue to welcome submissions that address the breadth of topics previously published in JCP.

Following an inclusive perspective of consumer psychology, we believe that the topic, not method, should determine relevancy. While we expect experimental approaches to represent a significant majority of JCP submissions, as they have since the journal's inception, we are open to a wide range of methodologies, as long as they are well suited to address the research question. These could range from empirical analyses of secondary data to text mining and ethnographic approaches.

Our perspective is that research needs to be valid and the contribution substantial.

The Validity Network Schema (VNS; Brinberg & Brinberg, 2019; Brinberg & McGrath, 1985) provides a useful framework to assess validity. The VNS argues that validity is not only restricted to the methodological domain alone but also occurs at the conceptual stage. In stage 1, validity relates to assessing the “worth of specific goals/desiderata” and involves specifying the goals of the research and the conceptual relationships that will be studied. Stage 2 refers to the “doing” of the research where the researcher assesses how the empirical investigation will allow the researcher to make the sought-after inferences. Finally, in stage 3, validity represents “efforts to establish the credibility/generalizability/robustness of the empirical findings with respect to the elements, relations among the elements, and context in each research domain.”

Assessments of contribution, involve consideration of the research's importance—that is, its potential to change beliefs (Lynch et al., 2012). However, importance of research can only be assessed in conjunction with its goal—is the goal to build theory or understand a phenomenon and the approach used a deductive or non-deductive approach? We ascribe to Lynch et al.'s (2012) perspective that beliefs can be updated in a variety of domains, including: “(a) construct-to-construct links; (b) construct-to-observable links; (c) observable-to-observable links; and (d) beliefs that some phenomenon ‘exists’ in the world.” While documenting or explaining construct-to-construct linkages using a hypothetico-deductive approach makes an important contribution, this is not the only way to alter beliefs. Beliefs can also be altered in other ways. Thus, efforts to maintain high standards of excellence are not well served by using identical criteria to evaluate research with different goals and approaches.

Finally, to extend a quote about how good company enhances a journey, we are fortunate to be accompanied by the amazing scholars who accepted our invitations to join our team as we carry the baton for the next mile of JCP's journey. In addition to the associate editors and editorial review board members who graciously agreed to be in step with us, we are fortunate to have Sandy Osaki, the Managing Editor of JCP, continue as the anchor for the journal. Ultimately, the continued success of JCP will depend on a broader community of scholars to continue to submit interesting and rigorous articles that advance the science of consumer psychology.