jcr-theory-development

Theory Development (jcr-theory-development)

When to trigger

• You have a consumer effect but no explanatory mechanism
• Hypotheses read as "A relates to B" with no psychological or sociocultural account
• A reviewer says "the theory is thin" or "this is an effect in search of a process"
• You are theorizing fieldwork and need to move from description to conceptual claims

The JCR standard: theory that advances, deepens, or repudiates

JCR judges manuscripts on whether they advance, deepen, or repudiate existing theory about consumption, with conceptual and empirical support. The theory section must do conceptual work — not just predict an effect, but explain why it occurs in a way that engages an established account and changes it. Substantive framing from psychology, anthropology, sociology, or economics is expected, not a decorative citation.

Because JCR's dominant tradition is theory-driven behavioral experimentation, the modal theory section specifies a psychological process (the mediator) and the conditions under which it operates (moderators), then derives testable hypotheses a priori. The journal also publishes interpretive CCT work, where "theory development" means building concepts and a conceptual framework grounded in the data rather than deriving point-prediction hypotheses.

For experiments papers: specify the process

• Mechanism (mediator): name the psychological process that produces the effect (e.g., a shift in construal, inference, motivation, affect, or identity). The process — not just the outcome — is the contribution.
• Moderation as theory test: derive moderators that the mechanism predicts. A moderator that turns the effect off (or reverses it) when the proposed process is blocked is strong process evidence and a theoretical claim, not a robustness afterthought.
• A priori hypotheses: state hypotheses before the studies; avoid HARKing. Each study should test a distinct link in the causal chain (effect → mediation → moderation → boundary).
• Alternative accounts: name the rival processes a reviewer will raise and design to rule them out conceptually before you do so empirically.

For CCT / interpretive papers: build concepts grounded in data

• Move from rich description to second-order theoretical constructs and a conceptual framework.
• Engage sociological/anthropological theory (meaning, ritual, identity, market dynamics, structure-agency) as the conceptual engine.
• The contribution is a new way of seeing a consumption phenomenon, not a tested point prediction; make the conceptual claims explicit and show their grounding.

Checklist

• [ ] The mechanism is named and explained, not just asserted
• [ ] The theory changes an existing account (advance / deepen / repudiate), stated explicitly
• [ ] A base discipline (psych / anthro-soc / econ) does real conceptual work
• [ ] Experiments: a priori hypotheses map to a study chain (effect → process → boundary)
• [ ] CCT: data-grounded constructs and framework, engaging sociocultural theory
• [ ] Rival explanations are named and addressable

Anti-patterns

• Effect in search of a process: a robust result with no mechanism.
• Moderator dump: boundary conditions with no theoretical rationale.
• HARKing: presenting post hoc explanations as a priori theory.
• Borrowed-label theory: invoking a construct's name without using its logic.
• CCT-as-description: thick description that never reaches conceptual claims.

Output format

【Genre】experiments / CCT
【Core claim】what theory we advance/deepen/repudiate
【Mechanism】process (mediator) or grounded construct
【Boundary】moderators / scope conditions and their rationale
【Rivals】alternative accounts to rule out
【Study chain】how each study tests a link (experiments) / framework (CCT)
【Next step】jcr-literature-positioning then jcr-methods