By name: jpsp-literature-positioning description: Use when positioning a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) manuscript against the literatures its section's readers expect, building the long-format introduction and literature review that precede the multi-study package. Sharpens the gap and contribution; it does not write the literature review for you.
Literature Positioning (jpsp-literature-positioning)
In JPSP the introduction and literature review are long and load-bearing — they justify the whole
multi-study package and set up the theory. Reviewers in your section judge whether you have engaged
the right literatures and located a real, non-trivial gap. This skill positions the paper; the
argument itself lives in jpsp-theory-and-hypotheses.
When to trigger
- Drafting or restructuring the introduction / literature review
- A reviewer said the contribution is "incremental" or "misses key work"
- Reconciling competing findings the paper claims to resolve
What the long-format introduction must do
- Engage the section's core literatures. ASC readers expect the attitudes/social-cognition canon; IRGP readers expect the relationships/groups literatures; PPID readers expect the personality/individual-differences traditions. Cite the work the editor will expect to see.
- Locate a specific gap or tension. Not "X is understudied" but a precise puzzle: conflicting predictions, an unexplained boundary condition, a missing mechanism, an untested construct.
- Frame the contribution as theoretical. State early what the paper adds to theory, then let the studies serve that claim.
- Acknowledge points of connection and disconnection to related theories — JPSP reviewers reward honest mapping of where your account agrees with and departs from existing accounts.
- Set up the multi-study logic. Foreshadow why it takes several studies (e.g., establish the effect, then mechanism, then boundary conditions, then generalization).
Positioning checklist
- Section's key literatures cited; no obvious canonical omission
- Gap is specific and consequential, not a generic "more research needed"
- Contribution framed as a theoretical advance, stated up front
- Competing/alternative accounts named and contrasted
- Introduction foreshadows the study set without over-promising
- Self-citations neutralized for masked review (see
jpsp-submission)
Anti-patterns
- A literature review that summarizes everything but argues nothing
- Citing only your own subfield niche and missing the section's main debates
- Burying the contribution until the General Discussion
- A long introduction that the studies never actually deliver on
- Ignoring work that predicts the opposite of your claim
"Incremental" — the reviewer charge and the section-specific fix
"The contribution is incremental" is the most common JPSP positioning rejection. The fix differs by what the reviewer distrusts:
| Charge beneath "incremental" | Fix that reads as JPSP-scale |
|---|---|
| "Known effect in a new sample" | Reframe around a mechanism or moderator prior work could not specify |
| "You ignore the canonical debate" | Cite the section's core conversation (ASC cognition; IRGP groups; PPID traits) and locate your tension inside it |
| "A short-report journal owns this" | Show why the claim needs several converging studies |
Worked example: sharpening a PPID gap statement
Illustrative — invented to show the move, not a real literature.
Weak: "Self-control and well-being are understudied together" — a PPID reviewer reads a topic, not a gap. Sharper: "Trait self-control predicts well-being, yet whether it does so by avoiding temptation or resisting it is unresolved — two process accounts make opposite predictions in high-temptation contexts." This names the construct, the tension, and a diagnostic test, and foreshadows the multi-study package needed to dissociate the two processes.
Positioning 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: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, 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.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Section literatures engaged】list the 3–5 the editor will expect
【Gap / tension】one precise sentence
【Theoretical contribution】one sentence, stated up front
【Competing accounts】named + how the paper adjudicates
【Study-set foreshadow】why N studies are needed
【Next】jpsp-theory-and-hypotheses
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— reference managers + APA 7th formatting../../resources/official-source-map.md— section remits and house format