Literature Positioning (spq-literature-positioning)

An SPQ paper has to land inside a conversation in sociological social psychology, not in psychology broadly or in macro sociology. Reviewers are drawn from the field's traditions and theoretical programs; they expect you to engage the right ones. Positioning is where you show the paper belongs at SPQ.

When to trigger

• Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
• A reviewer said you "missed the relevant social-psychological literature" or framed the paper too psychologically
• Your empirical work is solid but it isn't connected to an SPQ-recognized program
• You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers in the field

How SPQ wants the literature engaged

1. Engage a program, not a pile of citations. Place the paper in a recognizable tradition (symbolic interaction, SSP, group processes, identity theory, affect control / expectation states) and the live debate within it. Cite the works that define that debate.
2. Speak as a sociologist of the self. Frame the contribution around the structure–individual link. A purely individual-cognition framing (JPSP/Psychological Science style) reads as off-field at SPQ.
3. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured, under-theorized, or untested in this program, and why resolving it matters for the field's understanding of the self, interaction, or group.
4. Position the contribution as a move in the program. "Identity theory predicts X via verification; we show it is conditional on structural position C," or "expectation-states theory implies Y; our experiment adjudicates between M and M′."
5. Pre-empt the obvious objection. SPQ reviewers know the theory; acknowledge the strongest rival account and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to spq-research-design).

Cross-tradition engagement (a distinctive SPQ demand)

Micro-rewrite: off-field vs. SPQ-ready

Before (reads as individual psychology): "Prior research shows self-esteem buffers stress, but the moderating role of group membership remains understudied."

After (SPQ register): "Identity theory holds that verification of role identities sustains self-worth; what remains contested within SSP is whether structural position — here, occupational standing — conditions the verification process itself, a question that bears directly on how stratification enters the self."

Why the second version lands: it names the program (identity theory, SSP), states what is contested rather than merely unstudied, and puts the structure–individual link in the sentence's spine — the first thing an SPQ reviewer scans the opening pages for. The "before" sentence could open a JPSP paper unchanged; that is the tell that it will lose the sociological reviewers.

Anti-patterns

• A "literature dump" with no organizing program or debate
• Framing the paper as individual psychology (loses the sociological reviewers)
• Citing only macro-sociology and ignoring the social-psychological program (loses the SPQ frame)
• Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competitor paper
• Self-citation that breaks masking (SPQ is masked — see spq-submission)

Output format

【Tradition / program】where the paper sits
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question in that program
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it
【Structure–individual link foregrounded?】[Y/N]
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】spq-theory-building

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — SPQ scope and sociological-social-psychology framing