Three strategies for claiming research progress

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.