---
name: psychrev-literature-positioning
description: Use when locating a Psychological Review manuscript within its theoretical conversation — naming the theories it extends and, above all, the rival models it must beat or subsume. Positions the theory; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or run the head-to-head prediction contrast (psychrev-argument-development).
---

# Literature Positioning (psychrev-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The model is forming but you cannot name whose account you improve on
- Reviewers (you anticipate) will ask "how is this different from [established model]?"
- Your introduction cites broadly but engages no specific theory
- You are unsure whether your idea is new or a re-derivation of a known model

## The core move: name the rivals, not just the topic

At Psychological Review the central positioning question is not "what is the area?" but
"**which existing theories make claims about this explanandum, and what does yours do that
they cannot?**" Editors and reviewers are typically drawn from exactly the modeling tradition
you enter. A paper that does not engage the standing models reads as unaware of its own field.

For each phenomenon in your explanandum, build a **rival map**:

| Phenomenon (diagnostic) | Rival theory/model | What it predicts | Where it fails / is silent | Your account |
|-------------------------|--------------------|------------------|----------------------------|--------------|

The most persuasive Review papers select **diagnostic phenomena** — cases where rivals make
*different* predictions — and show their theory gets these right while saying clearly where
rivals do not. "Systematic evaluation of alternative theories" is in the journal's own scope
statement; positioning is where that evaluation begins.

## Three positioning stances (pick the honest one)

1. **Subsumption** — your theory recovers the rival as a special case and explains more. The
   strongest stance; show the limiting condition under which yours reduces to theirs.
2. **Adjudication** — two rivals conflict; your theory (or a formal contrast) settles which is
   right, or shows both are special cases of a deeper mechanism.
3. **Extension into new territory** — rivals are silent on phenomena yours explains. Weaker
   unless the new territory is important and the rivals genuinely cannot be stretched to cover it.

Avoid the false-novelty stance ("no one has modeled this") when a standing model could be
applied — a reviewer will apply it for you.

## Reading the conversation honestly

- Cite the **current** state of each rival, not its 1990 form, if it has since been revised.
- Represent rivals **at their strongest** (steelman). Beating a weak version is the classic
  reviewer complaint at this journal.
- Distinguish a rival's **core commitment** from its **implementational details**; do not
  claim victory by defeating a replaceable detail.
- Locate yourself relative to **formal** rivals where they exist — a verbal contrast with a
  formal model invites the question "but what does your model predict quantitatively?"

## Checklist

- [ ] Every diagnostic phenomenon has a named rival theory/model
- [ ] The rival map states what each rival predicts and where it fails or is silent
- [ ] Rivals are represented at their current, strongest form (steelmanned)
- [ ] The positioning stance (subsumption / adjudication / extension) is explicit
- [ ] Where a rival is formal, your contrast addresses it on formal terms
- [ ] The "before → after" the field can do is implied and ready for contribution-framing

## Anti-patterns

- A topic-level literature review with no specific rival models named
- Beating a strawman or an outdated version of a standing theory
- Claiming "no one has done this" when an existing model obviously applies
- Citing rivals only in the introduction, then never contrasting predictions
- Confusing positioning (whose account) with contribution (what is new) — keep them separate
- Ignoring formal rivals because your own theory is verbal

## Output format

```
【Conversation】[the modeling tradition / theoretical debate entered]
【Rival map】[phenomenon → rival → its prediction → its failure → your account] (table)
【Stance】subsumption | adjudication | extension — with the limiting/diagnostic condition
【Steelman check】rivals stated at strongest, current form: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-theory-construction (if model not built) → psychrev-argument-development
```