---
name: jcp-writing-style
description: Use when writing or revising the prose of a Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) manuscript — the process-led intro, the abstract, the theory build, and the APA-style voice — so the mechanism, not the effect, is the story. Polishes the writing; it does not change the design or analysis.
---

# 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

```text
【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
```