---
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

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **Frame the contribution as theoretical.** State early what the paper adds to *theory*, then let
   the studies serve that claim.
4. **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.
5. **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 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

```
【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`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reference managers + APA 7th formatting
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — section remits and house format