【文献速递】2026年第45期，Journal of Consumer Psychology，36卷，第4期，2026年10月

小提示：点击上面蓝色“营销电商文献速递”即可一键关注

2026年10月Journal of Consumer Psychology（FT50）的6篇文章，主题有保质期对食品感知与购买决策的影响、消费者判断中的时间外推、问句形式表述的标题、论证研究进展的三种策略、生成式扎根理论等。

1.Naturalness against environment-friendliness: The impact of shelf life on food perceptions and purchase decisions

天然性与环境友好性的权衡：保质期对食品感知与购买决策的影响

2.The continuity heuristic: Temporal extrapolation in consumer judgment

连续性启发式：消费者判断中的时间外推

3.Titles framed as questions reduce reader engagement

以问句形式表述的标题会降低读者参与度

4.Three strategies for claiming research progress

论证研究进展的三种策略

5.Generative grounded theory (GGT): Inductive theory building in the age of generative AI

生成式扎根理论（GGT）：生成式人工智能时代的归纳式理论构建

6.Commentaries on “Generative grounded theory (GGT): Inductive theory building in the age of generative AI”

摘要

1.Naturalness against environment-friendliness: The impact of shelf life on food perceptions and purchase decisions

天然性与环境友好性的权衡：保质期对食品感知与购买决策的影响

作者：Dan Liu、Yann Cornil和Xiaobing Xu

Abstract: We study the impact of shelf-life information on consumers' expectations about food healthiness, naturalness, and environmental friendliness, as well as purchase decisions. Through seven studies (and four additional studies reported in the appendix), we demonstrate that shelf-life information produces divergent effects: foods with a longer shelf life are perceived as less wasteful and more environmentally friendly but also as less natural and less healthy. Accordingly, we demonstrate that emphasizing naturalness or healthiness (vs. waste reduction or environmental friendliness) increases consumers' preference for foods with a shorter (vs. longer) shelf life. This happens even when foods with different shelf lives have nearly identical ingredients and nutritional quality, or when the longer shelf life can objectively be attributed to better packaging rather than the food itself, unless consumers are explicitly prompted to elaborate on why the foods differ in shelf life. Theoretically, these findings contribute to the literature on shelf life as a determinant of food choice and deepen understanding of perceptions of naturalness and environmental friendliness. Practically, our research provides insights on how consumers' preference for naturalness can ultimately lead to more waste by increasing the appeal of foods with shorter shelf lives.

摘要：本研究考察保质期信息对消费者关于食品健康性、天然性和环境友好性的预期以及购买决策的影响。通过七项研究（另有四项补充研究报告于附录中），我们发现，保质期信息会产生方向不同的影响：保质期较长的食品被认为更不易造成浪费、更环境友好，但同时也会被认为更不天然、更不健康。与此一致，我们发现，相较于强调减少浪费或环境友好性，强调天然性或健康性会增强消费者对保质期较短（相对于较长）食品的偏好。即使不同保质期食品的成分和营养品质几乎完全相同，或者较长的保质期在客观上可以归因于更优的包装而非食品本身，上述效应仍然存在；除非明确提示消费者进一步思考不同食品保质期存在差异的原因。在理论层面，这些发现为将保质期作为食品选择决定因素的文献作出了贡献，并深化了对天然性和环境友好性感知的理解。在实践层面，本研究揭示了消费者对天然性的偏好如何通过提升保质期较短食品的吸引力，最终导致更多的食物浪费。

2.The continuity heuristic: Temporal extrapolation in consumer judgment

连续性启发式：消费者判断中的时间外推

作者：Matthew Fisher和Adam H. Smiley

Abstract: From choosing an established brand over a newcomer to deciding when to replace a product or commit to a subscription, consumers routinely make judgments about how much longer things will last. Across 24 studies (N=9718), this research introduces and tests the continuity heuristic, an intuitive forecasting strategy in which consumers use how long something has lasted as a basis for predicting how long it will continue. This temporal extrapolation shapes judgments across a diverse set of consumer domains, including brand heritage, product obsolescence, subscription retention, and trend forecasting. Even when quality is held constant, and age is not explicitly mentioned, past duration predicts future longevity expectations. We propose a question-substitution account, where consumers faced with the difficult question “How long will it last?” often rely on the easier and more accessible “How long has it lasted?” This substitution explains why the effect weakens for technology products, where clear lifespan norms provide direct answers to the target question, and for expert consumers, who can draw on domain knowledge to estimate longevity without relying on past duration. This research contributes to the psychology of temporal judgment and provides marketers with a tool for predicting preference, loyalty, and perceived durability.

摘要：从选择成熟品牌而非新品牌，到决定何时更换产品或是否订阅某项服务，消费者日常都会对“事物还能持续多久”作出判断。通过24项研究（N = 9,718），本研究提出并检验了“连续性启发式”，即一种直觉性的预测策略：消费者以某事物已经持续了多久为依据，来预测它还将持续多久。这种时间外推会影响消费者在多个不同领域中的判断，包括品牌传承、产品淘汰、订阅留存以及趋势预测。即使在产品质量保持不变且未明确提及其存在时长的情况下，过去持续时间仍然能够预测消费者对其未来持续时间的预期。本研究提出“问题替代”机制，即当消费者面对“它还能持续多久？”这一困难问题时，往往会借助一个更容易回答且更易获取的问题——“它已经持续多久了？”——来形成判断。这种问题替代机制解释了为什么连续性启发式效应在科技产品和专家型消费者中会减弱：对于科技产品而言，明确的产品寿命规范能够为目标问题提供更直接的答案；对于专家型消费者而言，他们能够利用相关领域知识估计事物的持续时间，而无须依赖其过去的持续时长。本研究拓展了时间判断心理学领域的相关研究，并为营销人员预测消费者偏好、忠诚度以及感知耐用性提供了工具。

3.Titles framed as questions reduce reader engagement

以问句形式表述的标题会降低读者参与度

作者：David Fang和S. Christian Wheeler

Abstract: People typically read the titles of content (e.g., an article or post) before deciding whether to consume it. Titles can be composed as a statement (e.g., “Green Tea Has Health Benefits”) or a question (e.g., “Does Green Tea Have Health Benefits?”). Question titles are common and are believed by journalists to increase engagement. The present research examines whether this is the case. Four studies—including archival analyses of Reddit posts (N=53,030) and academic articles (N=3,078,791), online news headline experiments (N=22,743 A/B experiments), and a pre-registered lab study (N=400)—indicate that question-framed titles reduce reader engagement because they are viewed as less informative. These findings suggest that those wishing to maximize engagement with written content should avoid using questions in their titles.

摘要：人们通常在决定是否阅读某项内容（如文章或帖子）之前，会先阅读其标题。标题既可以采用陈述句形式（例如，“绿茶有益健康”），也可以采用问句形式（例如，“绿茶有益健康吗？”）。问句式标题十分常见，并且新闻从业者普遍认为这种标题能够提高读者参与度。本研究旨在检验这一观点是否成立。通过四项研究——包括对 Reddit 帖子（N = 53,030）和学术论文（N = 3,078,791）的档案数据分析、在线新闻标题实验（N = 22,743项 A/B 实验），以及一项预注册实验室研究（N = 400）。研究结果表明，以问句形式表述的标题会降低读者参与度，其原因在于读者认为此类标题所提供的信息量较少。这些发现表明，对于希望最大限度提升书面内容读者参与度的内容创作者而言，应避免在标题中采用问句形式。

4.Three strategies for claiming research progress

论证研究进展的三种策略

作者：David Gal、Bobby Calder和Brian Sternthal

Abstract: Researchers are increasingly challenged by this question: On what basis can they claim their work contributes to research progress? We propose that contemporary consumer research relies on three broad strategies for warranting such claims. An establishing-an-effect strategy claims progress based on confidence that a focal relationship between variables X and Y reliably replicates. A theory-of-the-effect strategy claims progress based on confidence that a local mechanistic account specifies when and how a particular effect occurs. A theoretical framework strategy instead claims progress based on confidence in an explanation that transcends any single effect paradigm. We (a) clarify how these strategies differ in their core logic, methodological emphases, and vulnerabilities; (b) document via a coding of recent articles in leading consumer research journals that the field relies overwhelmingly on the theory-of-the-effect strategy and rarely advances theoretical frameworks; and (c) develop actionable guidance for progressing from theories of effects to frameworks. We argue that recognizing the merits and vulnerabilities of each strategy—and deliberately leveraging the strategies in combination—provides a stronger basis for claiming research progress.

摘要：研究者日益面临这样一个问题：他们凭什么声称自己的研究推动了研究进展？本文提出，当代消费者研究主要依赖三种策略来为此类主张提供依据。第一种是“确立效应”策略，即基于对核心变量X与Y之间关系能够得到可靠重复验证的信心来声称研究进展。第二种是“效应理论”策略，即基于对局部机制解释的信心来声称研究进展，该解释旨在明确某一特定效应在何种条件下以及如何发生。第三种是“理论框架”策略，其研究进展声称建立在对一种能够超越任何单一效应范式的解释的信心之上。本文：（a）阐明这三种策略在核心逻辑、方法论侧重点及其潜在局限方面的差异；（b）通过对近期发表于消费者研究领域顶级期刊的论文进行编码分析，发现该领域在很大程度上依赖“效应理论”策略，而较少推进理论框架的发展；（c）进一步提出从“效应理论”迈向“理论框架”的可操作性指导。本文认为，认识每种策略各自的优势与局限，并有意识地将这些策略结合起来运用，能够为研究者论证其研究推动了学术进展提供更加坚实的基础。

5.Generative grounded theory (GGT): Inductive theory building in the age of generative AI

生成式扎根理论（GGT）：生成式人工智能时代的归纳式理论构建

作者：Bernd Schmitt、Shuyi Hao、Michel Tuan Pham和Reto Hofstetter

Abstract: This paper introduces generative grounded theory (GGT), an AI-enhanced method for inductive theory building that adapts grounded theory—and qualitative research procedures more broadly—to contemporary digital and algorithmic research conditions. GGT integrates generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into grounded-theory analysis while preserving human interpretive authority and theoretical responsibility. The method specifies a step-by-step process that supports systematic comparison and structured engagement with qualitative data. We demonstrate the method by outlining two new consumer-psychology studies and reanalyzing two established grounded-theory studies. We also address concerns surrounding GenAI use and outline future developments in the use of GenAI for qualitative analyses. GGT enables greater scale and efficiency in working with qualitative data, which are increasingly heterogeneous and multimodal, while supporting rigorous and precise theory construction and enhancing transparency and traceability. GGT can also be extended to other qualitative approaches that rely on similar analytic procedures.

摘要：本文提出了生成式扎根理论（generative grounded theory，GGT），这是一种由人工智能增强的归纳式理论构建方法，旨在使扎根理论乃至更广泛的定性研究程序适应当代数字化与算法化的研究环境。GGT将生成式人工智能（GenAI）整合到扎根理论分析过程中，同时保留人类研究者的解释主导权和理论责任。该方法提出了一套循序渐进的分析流程，以支持研究者对定性数据进行系统比较和结构化处理。本文通过概述两项新的消费者心理学研究，并重新分析两项已有的扎根理论研究，对GGT方法进行了示范。此外，本文还讨论了使用GenAI所引发的相关问题，并展望了GenAI在定性分析中的未来发展方向。面对日益异质化和多模态化的定性数据，GGT能够提高定性数据分析的规模与效率，同时支持严谨、精确的理论构建，并增强研究过程的透明度与可追溯性。此外，GGT还可以拓展应用于其他采用类似分析程序的定性研究方法。

6.Commentaries on “Generative grounded theory (GGT): Inductive theory building in the age of generative AI”

对《生成式扎根理论（GGT）：生成式人工智能时代的归纳式理论构建》的评论

作者：Geoff Tomaino、David A. Schweidel、Pierre-Yann Dolbec、Eileen Fischer、Andrew N. Smith、Stefano Puntoni、Niels Schillewaert、Joel Huber和Martin Reimann

Abstract: The rapid growth of generative AI has generated excitement about its potential and concern about its effects on psychological research. Schmitt, Hao, Pham, and Hofstetter (2026) offer Generative Grounded Theory (GGT) as a seven-step framework for incorporating generative artificial intelligence into inductive theory building. It uses AI to support corpus formation, data structuring, coding, conceptual clustering, abstraction, theoretical integration, and the assessment of saturation, while reserving interpretive authority and theoretical responsibility for the researcher. These Commentaries of this Methods Dialogue respond to the accepted, revised version of the lead article by Schmitt et al. (2026), which incorporated feedback from open, collaborative reviews by established researchers. Following acceptance, the review teams provided four independent assessments of the value of GGT. Tomaino proposes that GGT is particularly suited for experimental researchers who are generating rich conversational data through AI-mediated studies, as GGT can possibly reveal mechanisms, generate new research questions, and unearth competing explanations. Schweidel emphasizes the researcher's indispensable role as a “cognitive operator.” He acknowledges that GGT's traceability facilitates replication, digital-twin exploration, and coordination across qualitative–quantitative researchers, but only if researchers resist sycophancy, cognitive offloading, and the temptation to delegate the entire process to an autonomous agent. Dolbec, Fischer, and Smith expand the focus on the responsibility of the GGT researcher, arguing that the ease of AI-assisted analysis may create a “fallacy of facility” in which plausible output is mistaken for expertise. They propose that methodological simulacrums can produce polished but weakly grounded research unless investigators actively harness substantial qualitative method expertise to control AI's distorting capability. Finally, Puntoni and Schillewaert shift attention upstream from analysis to data collection. They argue that using AI moderation may relax the long-standing separation between qualitative depth interviews and standardized variable assessment. If so, AI-adaptive interviews could integrate sampling and analysis by offering a “living” grounded theory, while raising new questions about saturation and reproducibility. Together, these commentaries acknowledge that GGT could extend the reach of inductive inquiry and facilitate automated theorizing, but it is a method that demands critical judgment, transparent record-keeping, and human control.

原文链接：https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15327663/2026/36/4

—END—

声明：本公众号每周一和每周三定期更新，根据需要会不定期增加更新频次。因时间和水平所限，中文译文可能存在不准确之处，欢迎反馈意见给我们。本文版权归原作者及原出处所有，内容为作者观点，并不代表本公众号赞同其观点及对其真实性负责。如涉及版权等问题，请及时与我们联系，我们立即更正或删除相关内容。本公众号拥有对此声明的最终解释权。