Writing Style: APA Theory-Paper Register (psychrev-writing-style)

Polish after the derivations stand up (psychrev-argument-development) and the contribution is differentiated (psychrev-contribution-framing). Prose cannot rescue a theory whose logic does not hold.

When to trigger

• The theory, derivations, and figures are in place; the draft needs its final voice
• The prose reads like a literature review or an empirical report, not a theoretical argument
• You are unsure of APA conventions for a theory paper with no methods/results
• Reviewers (anticipated) will say "well written but I can't find the argument"

The Psychological Review introduction arc

A Review introduction moves: the phenomenon/tension → the standing theories and what they cannot do → the move this paper makes (the model/mechanism) → the contribution, stated early → a brief roadmap. State what the paper delivers within the first page or two; do not bury the theoretical move under a survey. The arc is the same disciplined shape used in the worked example in resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.

Register: the vocabulary is theory, not data

The single most common tell of a wrong-register draft is empirical vocabulary. At Psychological Review you write about a model, its assumptions, mechanisms, parameters, predictions, and scope — not about "the study," "we found," "results," "significant," or "p < .05" (you ran no experiment). Existing data are evidence the model confronts, never the contribution.

APA house-style essentials

• APA 7th-edition formatting: double-spaced, 12-pt, 1-inch margins, author–date citations, full reference list (verify the current edition on the author page; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Abstract within the journal's limit (250 words, verify) — state the problem, the theoretical move, and the contribution; no data/results language.
• Define every construct/parameter on first use and use the term consistently thereafter (construct clarity, in the spirit of APA theory-paper norms).
• Equations numbered and referenced in text; notation defined at first use and kept consistent.
• Plain, precise, mechanism-first sentences; avoid hedging chains and decorative jargon.
• Headings organize by theory, not by IMRaD — there is no Method or Results section; typical spine is problem → model → derivations/confrontation → scope → general discussion.

Checklist

• Introduction follows phenomenon/tension → standing theories' gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap
• No empirical-report vocabulary ("we found," "results," "significant," "study")
• Existing data framed as evidence the model confronts, never as the contribution
• Every construct/parameter defined on first use and used consistently
• Equations numbered; notation defined and consistent
• Abstract within the limit; states problem, move, contribution; no results language
• APA 7th citations/references; headings organized by theory, not IMRaD

Anti-patterns

• A dictionary/survey opening ("X has been studied extensively...") instead of the tension
• Empirical-report register in a theory paper (the wrong-journal tell)
• Burying the contribution on page 10 under a literature review
• Inconsistent notation or undefined parameters
• Decorative formalism — equations that add symbols but no theoretical content
• Over-signposted roadmaps doing the work the argument should do

Output format

【Intro arc】tension → standing-theory gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap: yes / fix
【Register】no empirical vocabulary; data = evidence, not contribution: yes / fix
【Definitions/notation】constructs & parameters defined once, used consistently: yes / fix
【APA】7th-ed citations; abstract ≤ limit; theory-organized headings: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-submission (Editorial Manager preflight)