spq-theory-building

Theory & Argument Building (spq-theory-building)

At SPQ a result is not a contribution until it is attached to a social-psychological mechanism that

connects social structure or process to the individual — the self, identity, emotion, cognition, or

interaction. This skill turns findings into theory in the idiom of your tradition: explicit mechanisms,

scope conditions, and observable implications.

When to trigger

• The empirics are strong but the "so what / why" is thin or purely descriptive
• A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "not really social-psychological"
• You need to state the mechanism linking structure and the individual explicitly
• You are formalizing within a program (expectation states, affect control, identity verification)

Build the argument (by tradition)

Social structure and personality / group processes (mechanism-driven)

1. Concept — define the social-psychological constructs precisely (status, identity salience,

mastery, sentiment, legitimacy); distinguish from neighbors.

1. Mechanism — the social process: how structural position or interaction produces the individual

outcome (e.g., status → expectations → influence; structural strain → mastery → distress).

1. Observable implications — what we should see if the mechanism operates (and what we should not

see). These become the tests in spq-research-design.

1. Scope conditions — the settings, populations, and structural contexts where the argument holds.

Symbolic-interaction / interpretive

• Make the conceptual stakes explicit: what about the self, meaning, or the interaction order does

this illuminate?

• Build the argument through observed interaction and accounts, not hypothesis tests, but still state

the analytic claim and what evidence would challenge it.

• Show what the argument lets the field see about identity work, framing, or emotion management.

Formal programs (expectation states, affect control, identity control)

• State the substantive puzzle before the formal setup; keep assumptions transparent and motivated.
• Derive predictions (comparative statics, equilibrium sentiments/expectations) a reader can test.
• Say what the model buys: a non-obvious prediction or a resolution of a puzzle in the program.

The "structure–individual" test (SPQ-specific)

Ask: *Does the argument explain how something social (structure, position, interaction) connects to

something individual (self, emotion, cognition, behavior)?* If it only explains an individual process

with no social anchor, it drifts toward psychology; if only macro patterns with no individual mechanism,

toward macro sociology. Tighten until the link is the contribution (or reframe via spq-topic-selection).

Mechanism ladder

Write the core argument as a ladder, not a topic list:

| Step | Question | Manuscript evidence |

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

| Social condition | What position, interaction, institution, or group process starts the chain? | Setting, measure, field episode, or formal assumption |

| Perception / meaning | How is the condition interpreted by actors? | Accounts, measures, manipulation, or model parameter |

| Self / emotion / cognition | What individual-level social-psychological process changes? | Construct definition and observable indicator |

| Behavior / interaction | What consequence follows, and for whom? | Test, qualitative pattern, or derived prediction |

| Boundary | Where should the mechanism weaken or reverse? | Scope condition, null case, or contrast |

Use the ladder to decide what belongs in the theory section. A paragraph that cannot be placed on the ladder is probably background, not argument. A ladder with no boundary step will read as overgeneralized.

Anti-patterns

• A finding with no named mechanism ("X correlates with Y")
• "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where it fits
• An individual-cognition mechanism with no social structure or interaction in it
• A macro claim with no individual-level social-psychological process
• Universal claims with no scope conditions
• Theory sections that list literatures but never state the mechanism sequence

Output format

【Core claim】one sentence
【Tradition】symbolic interaction / SSP / group processes / identity / affect
【Mechanism】how structure/interaction connects to the individual
【Mechanism ladder】condition → meaning → individual process → behavior → boundary
【Observable implications】testable consequences → research-design
【Scope conditions】settings / populations where it holds
【Structure–individual link explicit?】[Y/N]
【Next】spq-research-design

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — formal-modeling and measurement tooling (affect control, SEM)
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SPQ scope and contribution expectations