Borrowed Longevity
New research from 24 studies involving nearly 10,000 people reveals a clear cognitive pattern: people expect the latest product to outperform the older one, regardless of actual quality. The implications for how brands launch new products, how they position them, and the order in which they bring them to market are structural rather than merely a matter of marketing.
There's been a bias that researchers have been circling for years without quite being able to name it. It's at the intersection of temporal reasoning and consumer judgment (the idea that something new is more likely to last). Fisher and Smiley crystallized it in 2026 as the continuity heuristic, and the volume of evidence they assembled makes it very hard to ignore as an oddity that only works in the lab.
Across 24 studies and 9,718 participants, the finding was extremely consistent. Consumers judge the longevity, durability and endurance of a product based on how recent it is rather than on any quality signals. A product launched this year is judged to be far more future-proof than one launched five years ago, even if the five-year-old product has a very well-established record of reliability and the new one has none. The researchers refer to this as temporal extrapolation (the mind extrapolating forward in time from a point in the past), and the more recent the point in time, the further the extrapolation.
The mechanism isn't unusual once you've given it a name. It's a version of the same cognitive bias that leads people to think that a building they've just seen under construction will be better than the one next door, or that the person who just walked in has more energy than the one who's been in the room for hours. Recency implies forward motion. It's a heuristic that operates so frequently in everyday life that it tends to generalize into areas where it simply shouldn't.
Consumers project longevity from recency rather than from reliability data. The line drawn from the more recent starting point will always be longer.
What the finding changes
The practical effect is on several strategic decisions that most brand teams would make on instinct rather than through a formalized process. The first of these is sequencing. If you're introducing a new product into an existing product line, it doesn't just compete on its own merits. It comes with a longevity premium that the existing product can never match, no matter what its track record. That's why teams who have spent time trying to work out why a flagship product will lose its perceived relevance faster than its actual performance would have a partial explanation now.
The second effect is in how the upgrade is presented. An upgrade doesn't automatically get the longevity premium of the original. It's down to whether it's perceived as being new enough. The version number, the naming convention and the way the launch is handled all affect whether the upgrade is seen as a continuation of a product that's been on the market for a while or as a genuinely new product. Fisher and Smiley's data indicate that the notion of being new has a real effect on how the product is viewed in the future.
The third is the use of heritage as a positioning tool. So many brands will go for the heritage angle, 'we've been around since 1952', 'we've been in this business for decades' etc. as a trust signal. The continuity heuristic is the problem here. Heritage language invokes age, and age in that context is automatically associated with the expectation of decline. The brand manager who is using heritage as a positioning tool whilst also trying to maintain consideration in a category being actively entered by new players is working against the grain.
What the finding does not settle
Fisher and Smiley are very careful about scope. The continuity heuristic is an expectation, not a purchase outcome. It wasn't the case that the longevity premium would in fact lead to acquisition, loyalty or willingness to pay. The 24-study dataset is very rich on the bias itself; it's quite thin on what breaks it and what takes advantage of it.
The most important constraint for practitioners is category variation. Some product categories have explicit durability signals (warranties, certifications, independent testing) that may, in fact, outweigh the heuristic. The issue isn't whether the heuristic operates in those categories at all; it's how strong a counter signal would need to be to shift the balance. The research doesn't tell us that. It establishes the baseline pull; practitioners will still have to determine the counter-signals in their own category.
There's also a potential interaction with brand architecture decisions that the study design doesn't fully isolate. If a new product is launched under a well-established parent brand name, does the new product's longevity premium carry over to the parent brand? Or does the parent brand's age in itself impose a drag? The data suggests the question is open, which is probably the most commercially relevant gap in the current evidence.
Heritage positioning implies age, and age is precisely what leads you to expect decline.
The more precise question this opens
The question practitioners should be asking is not whether the continuity heuristic affects their category (the evidence suggests it does broadly) but at which stage in the purchase sequence it has the most influence. It seems most likely to be at the early stage of consideration, when the consumer is forming their initial impression of quality and recency signals are being assessed in the absence of much other data.
Later in the funnel, the heuristic will probably compete with more concrete evidence (price comparisons, review volume, in-store experience, word-of-mouth from actual owners). The longevity premium may then be the deciding factor rather than the primary driver. If that is the case, the brands most vulnerable to this bias will be those in categories with long consideration periods and diffuse quality signals: durables, premium services, technology platforms and complex B2B purchases.
The continuity heuristic also raises the question of portfolio communication, which is generally a tactical rather than a strategic exercise. If the latest product in the range draws on the range's continuity through its recency, what happens when that product ages? At what point does the cycle restart, and what causes the restart? A formal refresh? A new campaign? A name change? Any team that doesn't have an answer to that question is probably going to be discovering it the hard way in their brand tracking.
The finding actually reframes the old 'why is our established product continually being outperformed by the new entrants despite being demonstrably more reliable' complaint as a cognitive pattern rather than a marketing execution failure. That's a very different proposition and requires a very different response.
Fisher, M., & Smiley, A.H. (2026). The continuity heuristic: Temporal extrapolation in consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.70032. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70032
Some ideas are worth discussing in the context of your organization.
