| name | jm-theory-development |
| description | Use when building the conceptual logic for a Journal of Marketing (JM) manuscript — grounding theory in a real-world marketing phenomenon, deriving predictions, and accommodating an empirics-first route. Builds the argument; it does not select the question (jm-topic-selection) or run the analysis (jm-data-analysis). |
Theory Development, Phenomenon-First (jm-theory-development)
When to trigger
- The phenomenon and question are set; you need a defensible conceptual argument
- Reviewers will ask "why does this happen?" and "what is the mechanism?"
- You have a strong empirical pattern but no organizing logic (empirics-first)
- You are tempted to bolt a generic theory onto a marketing finding
JM's theory stance: serve the substantive question
Unlike theory-first flagships, JM does not reward theoretical machinery for its own sake. Its bar is substantive insight into a real marketing question. Theory in a JM paper earns its place by explaining a consequential marketing phenomenon and yielding predictions that, when tested, change how managers, policy makers, or society understand the market. The official editorial guidelines frame JM as a bridge between scholarly and practical stakes, so build the minimum sufficient conceptual structure that makes the phenomenon intelligible and the predictions sharp.
Two legitimate routes into JM
- Theory-first: a clear mechanism generates predictions, then data test them. Standard, accepted.
- Empirics-first: a robust, surprising real-world pattern leads, and the conceptual account is developed to explain why it occurs. JM actively solicits empirics-first work (dedicated special issue and editorials) grounded in real-world phenomena. This is encouraged here in a way that is unusual among top journals — but the pattern must still be explained, not merely reported.
Decide which route you are on and signal it honestly; do not disguise an empirics-first paper as theory-first (a HARKing risk).
Build the conceptual logic
- Anchor in the phenomenon: state the marketing fact the theory must explain (e.g., why a pricing, advertising, channel, or brand move produces an unexpected market response).
- Specify the mechanism: the process linking marketing action/condition to the consequential outcome. Name boundary conditions (when it holds, when it reverses).
- Derive predictions at the level you can measure (consumer, segment, brand, firm, market) and that map to outcomes managers/policy makers care about.
- Moderation/mediation: predict the process and the contingencies, not just a main effect, so the substantive story is mechanism-rich.
- Managerial logic: carry the implication through — if the mechanism holds, what should a decision maker do differently?
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Theory theater: elaborate framework that adds no substantive insight.
- HARKing: presenting post-hoc explanations of an empirics-first pattern as a priori theory.
- Main-effect-only logic: no mechanism, no contingencies.
- Borrowed-theory veneer: a generic psychological/economic theory pasted on without fit to the marketing phenomenon.
- Mechanism with no managerial consequence: process that no decision maker can act on.
Output format
【Phenomenon to explain】[...]
【Route】theory-first / empirics-first (declared honestly)
【Mechanism】[...]; boundary conditions: [...]
【Predictions】H1...Hk at level [...] → outcome [...]
【Process / contingencies】mediators: [...]; moderators: [...]
【Managerial logic】if mechanism holds → decision maker should [...]
【Next step】jm-literature-positioning
