---
name: cogpsych-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) manuscript against the field, especially against rival models and prior empirical programs. In a long-form, model-driven venue, positioning means showing what theoretical question your model adjudicates and why prior accounts fall short. Stakes the contribution against the right contrast class; it does not write the full literature review.
---

# Literature Positioning (cogpsych-literature-positioning)

Cognitive Psychology gives you room for a substantial introduction — but length is a trap if it becomes
a catalogue. Positioning here is about the **theoretical contrast class**: which models or accounts you
adjudicate, what they predict, and why the existing evidence cannot settle the question your program
settles. Position against **rival models and prior programs**, not against a long chronology.

## When to trigger

- Drafting the Introduction / theoretical framing
- A reviewer said the contribution is "incremental," "already shown," or "not clearly novel relative to
  model X"
- You have a large literature and must organize it around the theoretical question
- Connecting a specific model comparison to a broad question about cognition

## How to position in a model-driven venue

1. **Open with the theoretical question**, framed as a live debate between accounts — not a textbook
   history of the phenomenon.
2. **Name the rival accounts precisely** and state what each predicts. The reader should see the fork
   the field is stuck on.
3. **Show why existing evidence cannot settle it.** Prior studies confound the accounts, lack a model
   fit, or test only one design point — make the gap a *theoretical* gap, not "little is known."
4. **State the contribution early.** By the end of the Introduction the reader knows the question, the
   model(s), the discriminating design, and what is new (adjudication, formalization, boundary, or a
   new model).
5. **Cite to anchor the debate**, not to pad. The works that *define* the rival accounts and the
   closest prior programs earn slots; exhaustive background does not.

## Reviews, replications, and extensions

- An integrative review must reorganize the field around a theoretical claim, not list studies.
- Frame a replication/extension around the **theoretical stakes** (which model it tests, why the prior
  result's design was inconclusive), not as a bare repetition.

## Positioning triage (organize around the debate)

| Candidate citation role | Keep? | Why it earns a slot in Cognitive Psychology |
|-------------------------|-------|---------------------------------------------|
| Defines a rival account you adjudicate | always | the contrast class; without it the fork is invisible |
| Closest prior program you beat/extend | always | this is the contribution's benchmark |
| Establishes the discriminating signature | usually | reviewers check the prediction is real |
| Model/method provenance | usually | construct and modeling validity are scrutinized |
| Background-completeness citation | cut first | length is not an excuse for a catalogue |

## Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A recognition-memory program positions against the dual-process tradition. Weak framing: "Recognition
memory has been studied for decades (refs 1-40)." Venue-fit framing:

```
Question: Does recognition rest on one continuous strength signal or on a
          distinct threshold recollection process?
Rivals:   UVSD (single continuous signal) vs. DPSD (familiarity + threshold
          recollection); they predict different z-ROC shapes.
Why unsettled: most prior tests fit one model only, or use designs where the
          z-ROC shape is not diagnostic, so the fork persists.
Contribution (stated in the Introduction):
          Three experiments engineered to make the z-ROC shape diagnostic,
          with both models fit and compared, adjudicate the debate.
Breadth:  the answer constrains models of memory used across cognitive aging,
          eyewitness, and decision research.
```

## Positioning-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix

| Reviewer pushback | Cognitive Psychology fix |
|-------------------|--------------------------|
| "Contribution is incremental" | name the theoretical fork you close, not a longer literature tour |
| "Already shown by model X" | state what X cannot account for and how your design discriminates it |
| "Reads as a catalogue" | reorganize the Introduction around the rival accounts and the discriminating prediction |
| "First to show" overclaim | downgrade to "first to adjudicate X vs. Y under a diagnostic design"; cite priors honestly |

## Anti-patterns

- A long chronological review that never names the rival accounts or the fork
- Burying the model comparison and the contribution after pages of phenomenon history
- Positioning against effects rather than against the theories/models that explain them
- "First to show" claims that ignore the closest prior model or program
- Citing exhaustively to seem thorough instead of anchoring the debate

## Output format

```
【Theoretical question】the live debate between accounts
【Rival accounts】what each predicts
【Why unsettled】how prior evidence fails to discriminate them
【Contribution】adjudication / formalization / boundary / new model — stated early?
【Anchor citations】the works that define the rivals + closest priors
【Breadth】who across cognition inherits the answer
【Next】cogpsych-study-design
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — scope, article length, and house style