我们很荣幸开始担任《消费者心理学杂志》的编辑。我们感激地接受了来自Anirban Mukhopadhyay，Christian Wheeler和Priya Raghubir精干的火炬传递，并感谢他们为该杂志做出的杰出贡献。

在全球大流行中，我们继承了这一责任，这一大流行将我们的国家震撼到了核心。这场危机不仅引起我们社会，经济和卫生系统systems可危的警报，而且也使我们警惕获得基于科学的指导，解决方案和领导能力。作为学者和科学家，我们感到苦恼的是，循证科学在神经科学，政治学和修辞学方面处于后座。我们知道，只有通过系统地评估和重新评估服务于科学的知识，才能取得社会进步。确实，许多最初被科学界拒绝甚至完全拒绝的想法后来被证明是科学突破。我们现在不言而喻地认为，在检查患者之前洗手可以降低死亡率（Ignaz Semmelweis），疾病是由细菌传播的（路易斯·巴斯德），世界是圆形的（亚里斯多德）。必须通过接受非常规思维过程以及传统范式来实现科学发现。在培养消费者心理学方面，我们必须对破坏或挑战我们现有信念的新思想流派开放。

心理学涉及行为科学，并且作为对消费者心理学感兴趣的学者，我们就定义而言对消费者行为科学感兴趣。考虑到这一定义，我们接受在科学探究的所有接触点研究消费者的概念。通过这种方式，我们意味着消费者可以成为调查的起点或动力，也可以成为分析的单位。它们可以是重点结果，也可以是导致结果的过程的关键；消费者的环境可以是上下文或主要元素。我们拥护《消费心理学期刊》的哲学，即意义在于对科学本身的追求，并呼应即将卸任的编辑们的观点，尽管《消费心理学期刊》论文需要与消费者相关，并非所有论文都需要告知管理实践，消费者福利或公共政策。我们承认并接受各种形式的智力贡献。

我们希望通过鼓励对各种研究方法进行科学探究来培养广泛的智力贡献。通过在受控实验室实验中隔离变量和构造并在自然环境中进行观察（即现场研究）来研究消费者，一直是消费者心理学的主要传统。该消费者心理学将继续寻求能够对消费者的思想，感受和行为进行高质量实验和现场分析的手稿。但是，我们也认识到，除传统方法外，还有其他方法在历史上在期刊中的足迹较小，但也对这些相同的消费者结果提供了独特的理解。我们鼓励这种多样性，并欢迎提交的材料，无论其方法论方法和理论范式如何。

我们对各种理论领域，方法论和研究对象的渴望，这些发现将对这些理论领域，方法论和研究对象产生影响或受到影响，这反映在《日刊》的结构中。我们将提供五种不同类别的文章。这样，我们的希望是，我们也许可以向一些读者介绍他们可能没有意识到的直接导入他们自己作品的理论，方法或社区。

这种结构构架了我们的目标，即发表有关概念思想和实证研究结果的文章，以促进有关消费者心理学的集体智慧。我们认为我们是智慧的提供者，而不是智慧的预言者。为此，我们将继续执行先前的编辑团队设定的目标，即保持作者友好并在审核过程中消除教条主义，以确保出色的构想和严格的研究不会成为任意“规则”的牺牲品。并非所有论文都必须测量调解，然后进行调解以显示过程证据。并非所有论文都必须使用相同的统计软件来测试调解。适当地进行与研究探究有关的实地研究，非常好。将现场研究作为相关性标准并作为“在一组随机的，在外面的人中进行的实验室研究”进行时，则不太那么理想。我们认为，在论文结构中强制实行同质性可能扼杀创造力并抑制科学进程。教条主义的方法将忽略那些违反规范但以有意义的方式推动科学前进的可能性。

我们坚信，通过接受可用的理论领域和方法论的多样性，并且不对手稿施加“模板样式”标准，我们将能够拓宽对消费者行为科学的理解，从而增加影响力该的消费者心理学。作为起点，我们很高兴在本期中发表文章，这些文章扩展了我们对实践中的科学哲学，数据收集规范以及我们在小仓库之外的影响力的思考。在我们的新方法对话部分中，Calder，Brendl，Tybout和Sternthal以及Schwarz交流了有关设计研究的思想，以利用区分变量和变量，假设和预测以及效果的能力。Simmons，Nelson和Simonsohn以及Pham和Oh之间的“研究对话”中对使用预注册解决社会科学中的可复制性危机进行了辩论。我们的第一份《研究评论》借鉴了消费者心理学的见解，以解释社会运动如何成功地创造社会变革。在这份研究评论中，Nardini，Rank‐Christman，维护者，为成功的社会运动提供基层动力的人。作者以黑人生活问题运动的成长为例来说明他们的框架。通过这次审查，我们还迎来了JCP与消费者心理学协会和JCP的出版商Wiley的合作，以促进和促进奖学金的发展，从而推动我们在公平，代表权和包容性方面的对话，并欢迎在这些领域进行的研究。

最后，我们期待在未来三年内领导《消费者心理学杂志》。我们拥有一支由经验丰富，超级聪明和尽职尽责的副编辑组成的优秀团队，我们衷心感谢他们愿意加入我们为《消费者心理学杂志》社区提供服务。我们有一个了不起的社论审查委员会，我们感谢他们为期刊提供的服务。我们谨代表《消费者心理学杂志》社区（编辑，审稿人和作者）向我们的编辑经理Sandra Osaki表示衷心的感谢，他使整个企业顺利运转。同时，我们感谢您选择《消费者心理学杂志》作为表达您的声音的渠道。对于所有人，我们举杯敬酒：“为您服务，为科学服务。谢谢。”

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

We are honored to begin serving as the Editors of the Journal of Consumer Psychology. We gratefully accept this passing of the torch from the capable hands of Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Christian Wheeler, and Priya Raghubir and thank them for their committed and exceptional stewardship of the journal.

We inherit this responsibility in the midst of a global pandemic that is shaking our nations to the core. This crisis raises the alarm not only of the precariousness of our social, economic, and health systems, but also of our access to science‐based guidance, solutions, and leadership. As academics and scientists, we watched in distress as evidence‐based science took a back seat to nescience, politics, and rhetoric. We know that societal progress is only achieved through the systematic appraisal and reappraisal of knowledge in the service of science. Indeed, many ideas that were initially resisted or even completely rejected by the scientific community were later proven to be scientific breakthroughs. We now accept as self‐evident that hand washing before examining patients reduces mortality (Ignaz Semmelweis), that diseases are spread by germs (Louis Pasteur), and that the world is round (Aristotle). Scientific discoveries must be enabled by an acceptance of non‐conventional thought processes alongside the traditional paradigms. In fostering the science of consumer psychology, we must be open to new schools of thought that disrupt or challenge our existing set of beliefs.

Psychology involves the science of behavior, and as academics interested in consumer psychology, we are by definition interested in the science of consumer behavior. With this definition in mind, we embrace the notion of studying consumers at all touchpoints of scientific inquiry. By this, we mean that consumers can be the starting point or impetus for the investigation or they can be the unit of analysis; they can be the focal outcome or critical to the process leading up to the outcome; and the consumer’s environment can be the context or the principal element. We embrace the Journal of Consumer Psychology’s philosophy that meaningfulness resides in the pursuit of science itself and echo the outgoing editors’ sentiments that while all Journal of Consumer Psychology papers need to be relevant to consumers, not all papers need to inform managerial practice, consumer welfare, or public policy. We recognize and embrace all forms of intellectual contribution.

We wish to foster a wide range of intellectual contributions by encouraging scientific inquiry across a variety of research methodologies. Studying consumers by isolating variables and constructs in controlled laboratory experiments and observing them in natural environments (i.e., field studies) has been the dominant tradition in consumer psychology. The Journal of Consumer Psychology will continue to seek manuscripts that present high‐quality experimental and field analyses of consumers’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, we also recognize that there are methodologies beyond these traditional approaches that have historically had a smaller footprint in the journal, but also offer a unique understanding of these same consumer outcomes. We encourage this diversity and welcome submissions irrespective of their methodological approaches and theoretical paradigms.

Our desire for a variety of theoretical domains, methodologies, and constituencies who will be informed or affected by the findings is reflected in the structure of the Journal. We will offer five distinct categories of articles. In doing so, our hope is that we can perhaps introduce some readers to theories, methods, or communities that they might not have realized have direct import to their own work.

This structure frames our goal to publish contributions in conceptual thought and empirical findings that advance the body of collective wisdom on consumer psychology. We view our role as purveyors but not prognosticators of wisdom. To that end, we continue the goals set by the previous editor team to remain author‐friendly and to eliminate dogmatism in the review process to ensure that great ideas and rigorous research do not fall prey to often arbitrary “rules.” Not all papers must measure mediation and then moderate it in order to show process evidence. Not all papers must use the same statistical software to test for mediation. Field studies, when appropriately conducted and relevant to the research inquiry, are fabulous. Field studies when imposed as a criterion for relevance and conducted as a “lab‐study‐done‐on‐a‐random‐group‐of‐people‐outside” are less fabulous. It is our view that enforced homogeneity in the structure of papers can stifle creativity and inhibit the scientific process; dogmatic approaches will ignore possibilities that violate the norm but that move science forward in a meaningful way.

We strongly believe that by embracing the multiplicity of theoretical domains and methodologies available, and by not imposing a “template style” standard to manuscripts, we will be able to broaden our understanding of the science of consumer behavior and, in turn, increase the impact of the Journal of Consumer Psychology. As a starting point, we are thrilled to publish articles in this issue that stretch our thinking about philosophy of science as we practice it, about the norms for data collection, and about our influence outside our small silo. Introducing our new Methods Dialogue section, Calder, Brendl, Tybout and Sternthal, and Schwarz exchange thoughts on designing research to exploit the power of distinguishing constructs from variables, hypotheses from predictions, and theory from effects. The use of pre‐registration as a solution to the reproducibility crisis in social science is debated in the Research Dialogue between Simmons, Nelson and Simonsohn, and Pham and Oh. Our first Research Review draws on insights from consumer psychology to explain how social movements succeed in creating social change. In this Research Review, Nardini, Rank‐Christman, Bublitz, Cross, and Peracchio identify the consumer psychology mechanisms that motivate collective action and encourage people to transform from bystanders to upstanders, those who provide the grassroots momentum for successful social movements. The authors illustrate their framework with examples from the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement. With this review, we also usher in JCP’s collaboration with the Society for Consumer Psychology and JCP’s publisher, Wiley, to foster and promote scholarship that advances our conversations about equity, representation, and inclusion, and welcome research conducted in these spheres.

To conclude, we look forward to leading the Journal of Consumer Psychology for the next three years. We have an outstanding team of experienced, super‐smart, and conscientious Associate Editors, and we thank them from the bottom of our hearts for their willingness to join us in serving the Journal of Consumer Psychology community. We have an amazing Editorial Review Board, and we thank them for their service to the journal. On behalf of the Journal of Consumer Psychology community—the editors, the reviewers, and the authors—we offer a huge thank you to Sandra Osaki, our Editorial Manager, who makes the whole enterprise run smoothly. And, we thank you, the authors, for choosing the Journal of Consumer Psychology as an outlet to get your voice heard. To all of you, we raise our glass and offer a toast: “To working with you in the service of science. Thank you.”