| name | arpsych-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or polishing prose for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so it lands the authoritative-yet-accessible house voice for a broad psychology readership. Shapes voice, abstract, and intro; it does not design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or run final checks (arpsych-submission). |
Writing Style — The ARPsych Voice (arpsych-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The framework, balance, and exhibits are settled; it is time to write (or rewrite) prose
- A draft is technically correct but reads like a grant report or a primary-paper method section
- The abstract and introduction need to be written (do these last)
- A non-specialist test reader gets lost in jargon or cannot find the argument
What the ARPsych voice is
ARPsych reviews are read across all of psychology and by adjacent fields. The register is authoritative but accessible: written by a leading expert, readable by a smart psychologist outside the subfield, and usable in a graduate seminar. The two failure poles are (1) a dense specialist treatise only insiders can parse, and (2) a chatty overview with no analytical edge. Aim between them: deep but legible.
| Principle | In practice |
|---|
| Argument forward | Every section advances the spine; the reader always knows where they are in the framework |
| Define on first use | Spell out constructs, paradigms, and acronyms for the adjacent reader |
| Show the mechanism | Explain why an effect occurs, not just that N studies found it |
| Synthesize, don't list | Discuss cell-defining work; cluster confirmatory studies in citations |
| Calibrated confidence | "Robust", "mixed", "contested", "unknown" used precisely (ties to balance) |
| Active, concrete prose | Prefer plain verbs over nominalizations; one idea per sentence |
Write the abstract and introduction LAST
The introduction must promise exactly what the review delivers — so write it once the spine is final. A strong ARPsych intro:
- Hooks with why this topic matters now to a broad readership.
- Frames the organizing question (not the topic label).
- States the spine — "We organize this literature around …".
- Previews the contribution — what the reader will understand differently after.
- Closes by foreshadowing the future-directions agenda.
The abstract is the most-read paragraph: organizing question, the framework, the headline synthesis, and the open agenda — no method-section throat-clearing.
The future-directions close (do not skip it)
ARPsych reviews are expected to end by pointing forward: the open questions, the methodological needs, the contradictions awaiting resolution — ideally the empty cells of your framework (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This section is a large part of why the field reads the review; it is not a perfunctory wrap-up.
One voice for multi-author reviews
A co-authored review must read as one author. Assign a single integrator to do a unifying pass; differing section voices are a common reviewer complaint.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Primary-paper register: long methods-style passages, no synthesis
- Jargon dump with undefined acronyms (loses the adjacent reader)
- "Study A found… Study B found…" narration with no argument (the list trap)
- A perfunctory or missing future-directions section
- Overclaiming ("X is established") where the evidence is contested
- A co-authored review that reads as stitched-together sections
- Writing the intro first, then drifting from it as the spine changes
Output format
【Voice】authoritative + accessible; passes non-specialist read? Y/N
【Argument-forward】every section advances the spine? Y/N
【Definitions】constructs/acronyms defined on first use? Y/N
【Confidence calibration】robust/mixed/contested/unknown precise? Y/N
【Abstract + intro】written last; state organizing question + spine? Y/N
【Future directions】substantive, tied to framework's open cells? Y/N
【One voice】multi-author integrated? (N/A if single author)
【Next step】→ arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility (document search / meta-analysis)
