joap-theory-and-hypotheses

Theory & Hypotheses (joap-theory-and-hypotheses)

JAP is theory-first. A paper lives or dies on whether it makes a **theoretical contribution to I-O

science — a new mechanism, boundary condition, integration of frameworks, or construct

clarification — and whether the hypotheses follow from that theory**. The cardinal honesty rule:

state theory and confirmatory hypotheses before the data, and label anything generated after seeing

data as exploratory.

When to trigger

• Building the theoretical model and deriving hypotheses
• Writing a preregistration / pre-analysis plan
• Reconciling what you predicted with what you found
• A reviewer flagged the work as "atheoretical," "post hoc," "HARKed," or "no contribution"

Build the argument

1. Name the mechanism. What process links X to Y, and why — grounded in I-O theory (e.g., social

exchange, conservation of resources, self-determination, JD-R, affective events, justice). The

mechanism is the contribution's core, not decoration.

1. Specify the level(s). State whether each construct and relationship is at the individual, dyad,

team, or organization level, and whether effects are cross-level (e.g., 1-1-1, 2-1-1, 2-2-1). JAP

reviewers read level-of-analysis sloppiness as a theory error.

1. Derive directional hypotheses. Translate the theory into specific, signed, testable predictions;

state mediation and moderation as formal hypotheses, not afterthoughts.

1. Mark hypothesis status. Separate confirmatory (preregistered / predicted in advance) from

exploratory (post hoc) analyses, clearly, in the text.

1. Specify what would disconfirm. Say which results count against the theory — this is what makes

the test, and the contribution, credible.

What counts as a JAP theoretical contribution

| Contribution type | What it must show |

|-------------------|-------------------|

| New mechanism | a process not previously specified linking established constructs |

| Boundary condition | when/for whom a known effect holds or reverses (a theorized moderator) |

| Integration | two frameworks reconciled to predict something neither does alone |

| Construct work | a clarified, differentiated, or newly measured construct with validity evidence |

| Cross-level model | how a higher-level factor shapes lower-level processes (or emergence upward) |

Worked micro-example — theory to hypothesis status (illustrative)

A servant-leadership package, written so the mechanism, levels, and hypothesis status are legible.

Mechanism: Servant leadership signals safety and worth, building team
           psychological safety (social-exchange + safety climate), which
           frees members to voice and coordinate, raising team performance.
Levels:    Leadership (team, L2) → psychological safety (team, L2) →
           performance (team, L2); voice tested as L1 mediator (2-2-2 / 2-1-2).
H1 (confirmatory): Servant leadership relates positively to team performance.
H2 (confirmatory): Team psychological safety mediates H1.
H3 (confirmatory, preregistered in the lab study):
           The effect is stronger under high task interdependence (boundary).
Disconfirming: a near-zero indirect effect with a CI spanning zero, or a
           reversed safety path, counts against the account — stated up front.

Theory-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix

| Reviewer pushback | JAP fix |

|-------------------|---------|

| "No theoretical contribution" | name the new mechanism/boundary/integration in one sentence before H1 |

| "Level of analysis is muddled" | label every construct's level and the cross-level form (1-1-1, 2-1-1, …) |

| "This looks HARKed" | show the preregistration timestamp; relabel post hoc analyses exploratory |

| "Hypotheses don't follow from the theory" | rebuild each H as a signed deduction from the stated mechanism |

| "Mediation/moderation asserted, not theorized" | give the process reason the indirect/interaction effect should exist |

Theory calibration anchors

• The contribution is the mechanism and its boundary, not the data context — "we tested it in

hospitals" is a setting, not a theory advance.

• Level of analysis is theory, not bookkeeping: a cross-level claim needs a cross-level model and a

cross-level hypothesis, stated as such.

• The honesty rule is temporal: anything specified before data is confirmatory; anything generated

after seeing data is exploratory. Preregistration and the data-transparency appendix make the line

visible to masked reviewers.

• Stating what would disconfirm the theory converts a story into a test; an unfalsifiable framing

reads as a red flag at JAP.

Anti-patterns

• A "contribution" that is only a new sample/industry for a known effect
• Muddled or unstated level of analysis
• Mediation/moderation hypotheses with no theorized process behind them
• Theory written to fit the result after the fact (HARKing)
• Blurring confirmatory and exploratory hypotheses

Output format

【Mechanism】the I-O process linking the constructs, briefly
【Levels】each construct's level + cross-level form (1-1-1 / 2-1-1 / 2-2-2 …)
【Hypotheses】directional, signed (H1, H2 mediation, H3 moderation …)
【Status】which are confirmatory (preregistered) vs exploratory
【Disconfirming evidence】what would count against the theory
【Next】joap-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — preregistration templates, theory-mapping and measurement tools
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — scope and contribution expectations