---
name: arpsych-writing-style
description: Use when drafting or polishing prose for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so it lands the authoritative-yet-accessible house voice for a broad psychology readership. Shapes voice, abstract, and intro; it does not design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or run final checks (arpsych-submission).
---

# Writing Style — The ARPsych Voice (arpsych-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The framework, balance, and exhibits are settled; it is time to write (or rewrite) prose
- A draft is technically correct but reads like a grant report or a primary-paper method section
- The abstract and introduction need to be written (do these *last*)
- A non-specialist test reader gets lost in jargon or cannot find the argument

## What the ARPsych voice is

ARPsych reviews are read across all of psychology and by adjacent fields. The register is **authoritative but accessible**: written by a leading expert, readable by a smart psychologist outside the subfield, and usable in a graduate seminar. The two failure poles are (1) a dense specialist treatise only insiders can parse, and (2) a chatty overview with no analytical edge. Aim between them: deep but legible.

| Principle | In practice |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Argument forward** | Every section advances the spine; the reader always knows where they are in the framework |
| **Define on first use** | Spell out constructs, paradigms, and acronyms for the adjacent reader |
| **Show the mechanism** | Explain *why* an effect occurs, not just that N studies found it |
| **Synthesize, don't list** | Discuss cell-defining work; cluster confirmatory studies in citations |
| **Calibrated confidence** | "Robust", "mixed", "contested", "unknown" used precisely (ties to balance) |
| **Active, concrete prose** | Prefer plain verbs over nominalizations; one idea per sentence |

## Write the abstract and introduction LAST

The introduction must promise exactly what the review delivers — so write it once the spine is final. A strong ARPsych intro:
1. **Hooks** with why this topic matters now to a broad readership.
2. **Frames the organizing question** (not the topic label).
3. **States the spine** — "We organize this literature around …".
4. **Previews the contribution** — what the reader will understand differently after.
5. **Closes** by foreshadowing the future-directions agenda.

The **abstract** is the most-read paragraph: organizing question, the framework, the headline synthesis, and the open agenda — no method-section throat-clearing.

## The future-directions close (do not skip it)

ARPsych reviews are expected to **end by pointing forward**: the open questions, the methodological needs, the contradictions awaiting resolution — ideally the *empty cells* of your framework (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This section is a large part of why the field reads the review; it is not a perfunctory wrap-up.

## One voice for multi-author reviews

A co-authored review must read as one author. Assign a single integrator to do a unifying pass; differing section voices are a common reviewer complaint.

## Checklist

- [ ] Every section visibly advances the framework (no orphan sections)
- [ ] Constructs/paradigms/acronyms defined on first use for the adjacent reader
- [ ] Mechanisms explained, not just effects tallied
- [ ] Confidence language calibrated (robust/mixed/contested/unknown used precisely)
- [ ] Abstract + introduction written last; intro states the organizing question and spine
- [ ] Future-directions section is substantive and tied to the framework's open cells
- [ ] A non-specialist psychologist test-reader can follow it end to end
- [ ] Multi-author draft passed through one integrating voice

## Anti-patterns

- Primary-paper register: long methods-style passages, no synthesis
- Jargon dump with undefined acronyms (loses the adjacent reader)
- "Study A found… Study B found…" narration with no argument (the list trap)
- A perfunctory or missing future-directions section
- Overclaiming ("X is established") where the evidence is contested
- A co-authored review that reads as stitched-together sections
- Writing the intro first, then drifting from it as the spine changes

## Output format

```text
【Voice】authoritative + accessible; passes non-specialist read? Y/N
【Argument-forward】every section advances the spine? Y/N
【Definitions】constructs/acronyms defined on first use? Y/N
【Confidence calibration】robust/mixed/contested/unknown precise? Y/N
【Abstract + intro】written last; state organizing question + spine? Y/N
【Future directions】substantive, tied to framework's open cells? Y/N
【One voice】multi-author integrated? (N/A if single author)
【Next step】→ arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility (document search / meta-analysis)
```