Writing Style (jcp-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction opens with an effect or a context, not the psychological process
• The abstract reports "X affects Y" and never names the mechanism
• The theory section reads as a literature list rather than an argument toward a mediator
• Reviewers say the paper is "hard to follow" or "the contribution is buried"
• The prose is the bottleneck — but only after design and process evidence are stable

Write the mechanism as the protagonist

JCP papers are stories about the consumer's mind. The reader should learn, early, which mental process the paper is about and why it matters — then watch each study tighten the case. The house voice is APA-scientific: precise, hypothesis-driven, economical. Unlike JCR's longer, more discursive intros, JCP prose is tight and process-forward, and the Research Report format (<4,000 words; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) rewards severe economy. Do the writing last: an intro that promises a mechanism cannot be finalized until the mediation/moderation evidence is settled.

The process-led introduction

A JCP intro typically moves in four beats:

1. The puzzle — a consumer phenomenon or a tension between what we'd expect and what happens.
2. The process gap — what the field thinks the mechanism is, and why that's incomplete or wrong.
3. The contribution — "We propose that [antecedent] affects [outcome] because it [changes mental state M]," with the theory-predicted moderation that tests it.
4. The roadmap — what each study establishes (effect → process → boundary).

Lead with the mechanism, not "Marketing managers care about…". The managerial hook can come after the theoretical contribution, never before it.

The abstract

The abstract must name the effect, the process, and the boundary in a few sentences: what shifts, the mental mechanism that drives it, the moderator that proves the mechanism, and the contribution. Reviewers and the editor decide fit from the abstract; an abstract that reports only an effect signals an effect-only paper.

Sentence-level craft

• Name the construct, then use its logic — invoke a process by its established meaning, not as a label.
• Hypotheses stated cleanly (H1, H2…), each tied to a study and a link in the chain.
• No HARKing in the prose: present a priori predictions as predictions, post-hoc insights as exploratory.
• Active, economical voice; cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that…").
• APA mechanics: tense (past for completed studies), statistics formatted per APA, hedge appropriately ("suggests," "is consistent with") when evidence is correlational.

Checklist

• [ ] The intro names the psychological process within the first page
• [ ] The abstract states effect + process + boundary + contribution
• [ ] The contribution is process-led ("because [M]"), not effect-led, throughout
• [ ] Hypotheses are clean, a priori, and mapped to the study chain
• [ ] Managerial relevance is present but subordinate to the theoretical process
• [ ] Voice is tight, APA-scientific; Research Reports respect the word ceiling
• [ ] No HARKing; correlational claims are hedged appropriately

Anti-patterns

• Effect-first opening: an intro that leads with the finding or the context, not the mechanism
• Managerial cold open: opening with what firms should do before the theory
• Process-free abstract: reporting "X affects Y" with no mechanism
• Literature-list theory: paragraphs of citations with no argument toward the mediator
• Bloated prose: discursive, hedge-heavy writing that buries the contribution (and busts the Report limit)
• Tense/HARK slippage: post-hoc accounts written as if predicted a priori

Output format

【Intro lead】process named on page 1? [Y/N]
【Abstract】effect + process + boundary + contribution present? [Y/N]
【Contribution thread】process-led and consistent across intro/abstract/discussion? [Y/N]
【Hypotheses】clean, a priori, mapped to studies? [Y/N]
【Voice】APA-scientific, economical; Report within word limit? [Y/N]
【Next skill】jcp-submission