Theory & Hypotheses (jpsp-theory-and-hypotheses)
JPSP's first gate is theoretical innovation: reviewers ask whether the paper's underlying ideas
are interesting and generative enough, often independent of how strong the data are. A package of
well-run studies with a thin idea will not clear the bar. This skill builds the theory and the
hypotheses each study tests; the studies themselves are designed in jpsp-study-design.
When to trigger
- Turning a positioned gap into a precise theoretical account
- Deriving hypotheses that map onto specific studies in the package
- A reviewer questioned the novelty, mechanism, or generativity of the idea
Ways a JPSP paper can be theoretically innovative
(Adapted from JPSP section guidance; verify per section.) A contribution can:
- develop a new theory and provide evidence for it;
- use an existing theory to explain a new phenomenon;
- make novel connections between two theories to address new questions;
- use a theory to integrate previously unconnected phenomena;
- offer a new mechanism for an established phenomenon;
- specify moderators that reconcile conflicting predictions or define when an effect occurs;
- introduce and validate a new construct and show it matters;
- examine an existing theory or phenomenon in an understudied population.
Building the argument
-
State the core claim in one sentence, then the mechanism (the why).
-
Derive hypotheses that distinguish your account from alternatives. Each hypothesis should be
one a competing theory would not predict — that is what makes the test diagnostic.
-
Map hypotheses to studies. H1 → Study 1 (establish), H2 → Study 2 (mechanism/mediation),
H3 → Study 3 (moderation/boundary), etc. The package should build cumulatively.
-
Pre-empt salient alternative explanations (construct validity, alternative mediators,
alternative causal models) and design at least one study to rule them out.
-
State scope and generalization — to which populations/contexts the theory should and should
not extend.
Anti-patterns
- Hypotheses so vague any result confirms them (unfalsifiable)
- A "mechanism" that merely restates the effect in different words
- Studies that all test the same hypothesis instead of building cumulatively
- HARKing: presenting exploratory findings as if they were predicted (see
jpsp-data-analysis)
- Ignoring the obvious alternative account a reviewer will raise
Clearing the innovation gate: a worked derivation
Illustrative — invented to model diagnostic hypotheses, not a real theory.
Claim: incidental gratitude broadens construal because it shifts attention toward self-transcendent goals. The diagnostic test is what separates this from a "clean effect" that fails the gate:
-
H1 (establish, S1). Gratitude raises abstract construal vs. neutral. A pure-affect account predicts the same, so H1 alone is not diagnostic.
-
H2 (mechanism, S2). Self-transcendence mediates the effect — a prediction a generic positive-affect account does not make. This is the diagnostic hypothesis.
-
H3 (boundary, S3). The effect attenuates under time pressure, which taxes the goal-shift but not affect — separating mechanism from mood.
Each hypothesis maps to one study, and H2/H3 are built so a competing theory predicts otherwise; that diagnosticity is what an ASC reviewer means by "theoretically generative" — the difference between a JPSP package and a demonstration.
Operating pass for Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the construct validity, study sequence, power/robustness plan, and boundary conditions; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: psychology reviewers who need a theoretical construct, validated measurement, and cumulative-study logic.
-
Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
-
Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
-
Sibling guard: compare against Psychological Science for shorter general-interest findings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin for field scope, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology for experiment-centered claims; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
-
Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Core claim】one sentence
【Mechanism】the "why"
【Innovation type】new theory / new mechanism / integration / moderator / new construct / …
【Hypotheses → studies】H1→S1, H2→S2 (mechanism), H3→S3 (boundary) …
【Diagnostic vs alternatives】which alternative each test rules out
【Scope / generalization】where the theory applies
【Next】jpsp-study-design
Supplementary resources
