Theory Development, Phenomenon-First (jm-theory-development)

When to trigger

• The phenomenon and question are set; you need a defensible conceptual argument
• Reviewers will ask "why does this happen?" and "what is the mechanism?"
• You have a strong empirical pattern but no organizing logic (empirics-first)
• You are tempted to bolt a generic theory onto a marketing finding

JM's theory stance: serve the substantive question

Unlike theory-first flagships, JM does not reward theoretical machinery for its own sake. Its bar is substantive insight into a real marketing question. Theory in a JM paper earns its place by explaining a consequential marketing phenomenon and yielding predictions that, when tested, change how managers, policy makers, or society understand the market. The official editorial guidelines frame JM as a bridge between scholarly and practical stakes, so build the minimum sufficient conceptual structure that makes the phenomenon intelligible and the predictions sharp.

Two legitimate routes into JM

1. Theory-first: a clear mechanism generates predictions, then data test them. Standard, accepted.
2. Empirics-first: a robust, surprising real-world pattern leads, and the conceptual account is developed to explain why it occurs. JM actively solicits empirics-first work (dedicated special issue and editorials) grounded in real-world phenomena. This is encouraged here in a way that is unusual among top journals — but the pattern must still be explained, not merely reported.

Decide which route you are on and signal it honestly; do not disguise an empirics-first paper as theory-first (a HARKing risk).

Build the conceptual logic

• Anchor in the phenomenon: state the marketing fact the theory must explain (e.g., why a pricing, advertising, channel, or brand move produces an unexpected market response).
• Specify the mechanism: the process linking marketing action/condition to the consequential outcome. Name boundary conditions (when it holds, when it reverses).
• Derive predictions at the level you can measure (consumer, segment, brand, firm, market) and that map to outcomes managers/policy makers care about.
• Moderation/mediation: predict the process and the contingencies, not just a main effect, so the substantive story is mechanism-rich.
• Managerial logic: carry the implication through — if the mechanism holds, what should a decision maker do differently?

Checklist

• The phenomenon the theory must explain is stated explicitly
• Route declared (theory-first vs. empirics-first) and handled honestly
• Mechanism named, with boundary conditions
• Predictions at a measurable level, tied to consequential outcomes
• Moderators/mediators predicted, not just a main effect
• Managerial/policy/societal implication of the mechanism articulated
• Conceptual structure is as simple as the substantive insight allows

Anti-patterns

• Theory theater: elaborate framework that adds no substantive insight.
• HARKing: presenting post-hoc explanations of an empirics-first pattern as a priori theory.
• Main-effect-only logic: no mechanism, no contingencies.
• Borrowed-theory veneer: a generic psychological/economic theory pasted on without fit to the marketing phenomenon.
• Mechanism with no managerial consequence: process that no decision maker can act on.

Output format

【Phenomenon to explain】[...]
【Route】theory-first / empirics-first (declared honestly)
【Mechanism】[...]; boundary conditions: [...]
【Predictions】H1...Hk at level [...] → outcome [...]
【Process / contingencies】mediators: [...]; moderators: [...]
【Managerial logic】if mechanism holds → decision maker should [...]
【Next step】jm-literature-positioning