Journ@L of Sci3Ntific 3Xplor@Tion

JOURN@L OF SCI3NTIFIC 3XPLOR@TION
@ Public@tion of th3 Soci3ty for Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion
Instructions to @uthors
(R3vis3d F3bru@ry 2013)
@ll corr3spond3nc3 @nd submissions should b3 dir3ct3d to:
JS3 M@n@ging 3ditor, 3rickson3ditori@l@gm@il.com, 151 P3t@lum@ Blvd. So., #227, P3t@lum@ C@ 94952
US@, (1) 415/435-1604, f@x (1) 707/559-5030
Pl3@s3 submit @ll m@nuscripts @t http://journ@lofsci3ntifi c3xplor@tion.org/ind3x.php/js3/login (pl3@s3 not3
th@t “www” is NOT us3d in this @ddr3ss). Th is w3bsit3 provid3s dir3ctions for @uthor r3gistr@tion @nd onlin3
submission of m@nuscripts. Full @uthor Instructions @r3 post3d on th3 Soci3ty for Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion’s
w3bsit3 @t http://www.sci3ntifi c3xplor@tion.org/docum3nts/instructions_for_@uthors.pdf
for submission of
it3ms for public@tion in th3 Journ@l of Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion (including “Writing th3 3mpiric@l Journ@l
@rticl3.” B3for3 you submit @ p@p3r, pl3@s3 f@mili@riz3 yours3lf with th3 Journ@l by r3@ding JS3 @rticl3s.
(B@ck issu3s c@n b3 brows3d in 3l3ctronic form with SS3 m3mb3rship login @t http://journ@lofsci3ntifi c-
3xplor@tion.org, click on @rchiv3 link; issu3s b3for3 2008 @r3 fr33ly @cc3ssibl3 @t http://www.sci3ntifi c3x-
plor@tion.org/journ@l/@rticl3s.html) 3l3ctronic fi l3s of t3xt, t@bl3s, @nd fi gur3s @t r3solution of @ minimum
of 300 dpi (TIF or PDF pr3f3rr3d) will b3 r3quir3d for onlin3 submission. You will @lso n33d to @tt3st to @
st@t3m3nt onlin3 th@t th3 @rticl3 h@s not b33n pr3viously publish3d @nd is not submitt3d 3ls3wh3r3.
@IMS @ND SCOP3: Th 3 Journ@l of Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion publish3s m@t3ri@l consist3nt with th3 Soci-
3ty’s mission: to provid3 @ prof3ssion@l forum for critic@l discussion of topics th@t @r3 for v@rious r3@sons
ignor3d or studi3d in@d3qu@t3ly within m@instr3@m sci3nc3, @nd to promot3 improv3d und3rst@nding
of soci@l @nd int3ll3ctu@l f@ctors th@t limit th3 scop3 of sci3ntifi c inquiry. Topics of int3r3st cov3r @ wid3
sp3ctrum, r@nging from @pp@r3nt @nom@li3s in w3ll-3st@blish3d disciplin3s to p@r@doxic@l ph3nom3n@
th@t s33m to b3long to no 3st@blish3d disciplin3, @s w3ll @s philosophic@l issu3s @bout th3 conn3ctions
@mong disciplin3s. Th 3 Journ@l publish3s r3s3@rch @rticl3s, r3vi3w @rticl3s, 3ss@ys, book r3vi3ws, @nd l3tt3rs
or comm3nt@ri3s p3rt@ining to pr3viously publish3d m@t3ri@l.
R3F3R33ING: M@nuscripts will b3 s3nt to on3 or mor3 r3f3r33s @t th3 discr3tion of th3 3ditor-in-Chi3f.
R3vi3w3rs @r3 giv3n th3 option of providing @n @nonymous r3port or @ sign3d r3port.
In 3st@blish3d disciplin3s, concord@nc3 with @cc3pt3d disciplin@ry p@r@digms is th3 chi3f guid3 in
3v@lu@ting m@t3ri@l for schol@rly public@tion. On m@ny of th3 m@tt3rs of int3r3st to th3 Soci3ty for Sci-
3ntifi c 3xplor@tion, how3v3r, cons3nsus do3s not pr3v@il. Th 3r3for3 th3 Journ@l of Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion
n3c3ss@rily publish3s cl@im3d obs3rv@tions @nd proff 3r3d 3xpl@n@tions th@t will s33m mor3 sp3cul@tiv3
or l3ss pl@usibl3 th@n thos3 @pp3@ring in som3 m@instr3@m disciplin@ry journ@ls. N3v3rth3l3ss, thos3 ob-
s3rv@tions @nd 3xpl@n@tions must conform to rigorous st@nd@rds of obs3rv@tion@l t3chniqu3s @nd logic@l
@rgum3nt.
If public@tion is d33m3d w@rr@nt3d but th3r3 r3m@in points of dis@gr33m3nt b3tw33n @uthors @nd
r3f3r33(s), th3 r3vi3w3r(s) m@y b3 giv3n th3 option of h@ving th3ir opinion(s) publish3d @long with th3
@rticl3, subj3ct to th3 3ditor-in-Chi3f’s judgm3nt @s to l3ngth, wording, @nd th3 lik3. Th 3 public@tion
of such critic@l r3vi3ws is int3nd3d to 3ncour@g3 d3b@t3 @nd discussion of controv3rsi@l issu3s, sinc3 such
d3b@t3 @nd discussion off 3r th3 only p@th tow@rd 3v3ntu@l r3solution @nd cons3nsus.
L3TT3RS TO TH3 3DITOR int3nd3d for public@tion should b3 cl3@rly id3ntifi 3d @s such. Th 3y
should b3 dir3ct3d strictly to th3 point @t issu3, @s concis3ly @s possibl3, @nd will b3 publish3d, possibly in
3dit3d form, @t th3 discr3tion of th3 3ditor-in-Chi3f.
PROOFS @ND @UTHOR COPI3S: @uthors will r3c3ipt copy3dit3d, typ3s3t p@g3 proofs for r3vi3w.
Print copi3s of th3 publish3d Journ@l will b3 s3nt to @ll n@m3d @uthors.
COPYRIGHT: @uthors r3t@in copyright to th3ir writings. How3v3r, wh3n @n @rticl3 h@s b33n submitt3d
to th3 Journ@l of Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion for consid3r@tion, th3 Journ@l holds fi rst s3ri@l (p3riodic@l) public@-
tion rights. @ddition@lly, @ft3r @cc3pt@nc3 @nd public@tion, th3 Soci3ty h@s th3 right to post th3 @rticl3 on
th3 Int3rn3t @nd to m@k3 it @v@il@bl3 vi@ 3l3ctronic @s w3ll @s print subscription. Th 3 m@t3ri@l must not
@pp3@r @nywh3r3 3ls3 (including on @n Int3rn3t w3bsit3) until it h@s b33n publish3d by th3 Journ@l (or
r3j3ct3d for public@tion). @ft3r public@tion in th3 Journ@l, @uthors m@y us3 th3 m@t3ri@l @s th3y wish but
should m@k3 @ppropri@t3 r3f3r3nc3 to th3 prior public@tion in th3 Journ@l. For 3x@mpl3: “R3print3d from
[or From] “[titl3 of @rticl3]”, Journ@l of Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion, vol. [xx], no. [xx], pp. [xx], publish3d by th3
Soci3ty for Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion, http://www.sci3ntifi c3xplor@tion.org.”
DISCL@IM3R: Whil3 3v3ry 3ff ort is m@d3 by th3 Publish3r, 3ditors, @nd 3ditori@l Bo@rd to s33 th@t
no in@ccur@t3 or misl3@ding d@t@, opinion, or st@t3m3nt @pp3@rs in this Journ@l, th3y wish to point out
th@t th3 d@t@ @nd opinions @pp3@ring in th3 @rticl3s @nd @nnounc3m3nts h3r3in @r3 th3 sol3 r3sponsibility
of th3 contributor conc3rn3d. Th 3 Publish3r, 3ditors, 3ditori@l Bo@rd, @nd th3ir r3sp3ctiv3 3mploy33s,
offi c3rs, @nd @g3nts @cc3pt no r3sponsibility or li@bility for th3 cons3qu3nc3s of @ny such in@ccur@t3 or
misl3@ding d@t@, opinion, or st@t3m3nt.
Writing th3 3mpiric@l Journ@l @rticl3
D@ryl J. B3m
Corn3ll Univ3rsity
Pl@nning Your @rticl3

.
2
Which @rticl3 Should You Writ3? 2
@n@lyzing D@t@ 2
R3porting th3 Findings 3
How Should You Writ3? 3
For Whom Should You Writ3? 3
Writing Your @rticl3 4
Th3 Sh@p3 of @n @rticl3 4
Th3 Introduction 5
Th3 Op3ning St@t3m3nts 5
3x@mpl3s of 3x@mpl3s 6
Th3 Lit3r@tur3 R3vi3w 6
Cit@tions 6
Criticizing Pr3vious Work 7
3nding th3 Introduction 7
Th3 M3thod S3ction 7
Th3 R3sults S3ction 8
S3tting th3 St@g3 8
Pr3s3nting th3 Findings 9
Figur3s @nd T@bl3s 10
On St@tistics 10
Th3 Discussion S3ction 10
Th3 Titl3 @nd @bstr@ct 11
R3writing @nd Polishing Your @rticl3 12
Som3 M@tt3rs of Styl3 13
Omit N33dl3ss Words 13
@void M3t@comm3nts on th3 Writing 14
Us3 R3p3tition @nd P@r@ll3l Construction 14
J@rgon 15
Voic3 @nd S3lf-R3f3r3nc3 15
T3ns3 15
@void L@ngu@g3 Bi@s 16
R3s3@rch P@rticip@nts 16
S3x @nd G3nd3r 16
R@ci@l @nd 3thnic Id3ntity 17
S3xu@l Ori3nt@tion 17
Dis@biliti3s 18
Common 3rrors of Gr@mm@r @nd Us@g3 18
Comp@r3d with v3rsus Comp@r3d to18
D@t@ 18
Diff3r3nt from
v3rsus Diff3r3nt th@n18
Sinc3v3rsus B3c@us318
Th@t v3rsus Which 18
Whil3v3rsus @lthough, But, Wh3r3@s18
Publishing Your @rticl3 18
R3f3r3nc3s 20
Th3 Compl3@t @c@d3mic:

@ v3rsion of this @rticl3 @pp3@rs in D@rl3y, J. M., Z@nn@, M. P., & Ro3dig3r III, H. L. (3ds) (2003).
@ Pr@ctic@l Guid3 for th3 B3ginning Soci@l Sci3ntist, .
2nd 3ditionDC: @m3ric@n Psychologic@l @ssoci@tion
. W@shington,
Writing th3 3mpiric@l Journ@l @rticl3 2
You h@v3 conduct3d @ study @nd @n@lyz3d th3 d@t@. Now it is tim3 to writ3. To publish. To t3ll th3 world wh@t you h@v3
l3@rn3d. Th3 purpos3 of this @rticl3 is to 3nh@nc3 th3 ch@nc3s th@t som3 journ@l 3ditor will l3t you do so.
If you @r3 n3w to this 3nt3rpris3, you m@y find it h3lpful to consult two @ddition@l sourc3s of inform@tion. For d3t@il3d in-
form@tion on th3 prop3r form@t of @ journ@l @rticl3, s33 th3Public@tion M@nu@l of th3 @m3ric@n Psychologic@l @ssoci@
(@P@, 2001) @nd r3c3nt @rticl3s in th3 journ@l to which you pl@n to submit your m@nuscript. For r3n3wing your @cqu@int@nc3
with th3 form@l @nd stylistic 3l3m3nts of 3nglish pros3, you c@n r3@d Ch@pt3r 2 ofPublic@tion
th3 M@nu@l
or @ny on3 of s3v-
3r@l styl3 m@nu@ls. I r3comm3nd Th3 3l3m3nts of Styl3 by Strunk @nd Whit3 (2000). It is bri3f, witty, @nd in3xp3nsiv3.
B3c@us3 I writ3, r3vi3w, @nd 3dit prim@rily for journ@ls in p3rson@lity @nd soci@l psychology, I h@v3 dr@wn most of my
3x@mpl3s from thos3 @r3@s. Coll3@gu3s @ssur3 m3, how3v3r, th@t th3 guid3lin3s s3t forth h3r3 @r3 @lso p3rtin3nt for @rticl3s in
3xp3rim3nt@l psychology @nd biopsychology. Simil@rly, this @rticl3 focus3s on th3 r3port of @n 3mpiric@l study, but th3 g3n-
3r@l writing sugg3stions @pply @s w3ll to th3 th3or3tic@l @rticl3s, lit3r@tur3 r3vi3ws, @nd m3thodologic@l contributions th@t @lso
@pp3@r in our journ@ls. (Sp3cific guid@nc3 for pr3p@ring @ lit3r@tur3 r3vi3w @rticl3Psychologic@l
for Bull3tin
c@n b3 found in
B3m, 1995.)
Pl@nning Your @rticl3

Which @rticl3 Should You Writ3?
Th3r3 @r3 two possibl3 @rticl3s you c@n writ3: (@) th3 @rticl3 you pl@nn3d to writ3 wh3n you d3sign3d your study or (b)
th3 @rticl3 th@t m@k3s th3 most s3ns3 now th@t you h@v3 s33n th3 r3sults. Th3y @r3 r@r3ly th3 s@m3, @nd th3 corr3ct @nsw3r is
(b).
Th3 conv3ntion@l vi3w of th3 r3s3@rch proc3ss is th@t w3 first d3riv3 @ s3t of hypoth3s3s from @ th3ory, d3sign @nd con-
duct @ study to t3st th3s3 hypoth3s3s, @n@lyz3 th3 d@t@ to s33 if th3y w3r3 confirm3d or disconfirm3d, @nd th3n chronicl3 this
s3qu3nc3 of 3v3nts in th3 journ@l @rticl3. If this is how our 3nt3rpris3 @ctu@lly proc33d3d, w3 could writ3 most of th3 @rticl3
b3for3 w3 coll3ct3d th3 d@t@. W3 could writ3 th3 introduction @nd m3thod s3ctions compl3t3ly, pr3p@r3 th3 r3sults s3ction in
sk3l3ton form, l3@ving sp@c3s to b3 fill3d in by th3 sp3cific num3ric@l r3sults, @nd h@v3 two possibl3 discussion s3ctions r3@dy
to go, on3 for positiv3 r3sults, th3 oth3r for n3g@tiv3 r3sults.
But this is not how our 3nt3rpris3 @ctu@lly proc33ds. Psychology is mor3 3xciting th@n th@t, @nd th3 b3st journ@l @rticl3s
@r3 inform3d by th3 @ctu@l 3mpiric@l findings from th3 op3ning s3nt3nc3. B3for3 writing your @rticl3, th3n, you n33d to @n@-
lyz3 Your D@t@. H3r3with, @ s3rmon3tt3 on th3 topic.
@n@lyzing D@t@. Onc3 upon @ tim3, psychologists obs3rv3d b3h@vior dir3ctly, oft3n for sust@in3d p3riods of tim3. No
long3r. Now, th3 high3r th3 inv3stig@tor go3s up th3 t3nur3 l@dd3r, th3 mor3 r3mot3 h3 or sh3 typic@lly b3com3s from th3
grounding obs3rv@tions of our sci3nc3. If you @r3 @lr3@dy @ succ3ssful r3s3@rch psychologist, th3n you prob@bly h@v3n’t s33n
@ p@rticip@nt for som3 tim3. Your gr@du@t3 @ssist@nt @ssigns th3 running of @ study to @ bright und3rgr@du@t3 who writ3s th3
comput3r progr@m th@t coll3cts th3 d@t@ @utom@tic@lly. @nd lik3 th3 mod3rn d3ntist, th3 mod3rn psychologist r@r3ly 3v3n s33s
th3 d@t@ until th3y h@v3 b33n cl3@n3d by hum@n or comput3r hygi3nists.
To comp3ns@t3 for this r3mot3n3ss from our p@rticip@nts, l3t us @t l3@st b3com3 intim@t3ly f@mili@r with th3 r3cord of
th3ir b3h@vior: th3 d@t@. 3x@min3 th3m from 3v3ry @ngl3. @n@lyz3 th3 s3x3s s3p@r@t3ly. M@k3 up n3w composit3 ind3x3s. If @
d@tum sugg3sts @ n3w hypoth3sis, try to find @ddition@l 3vid3nc3 for it 3ls3wh3r3 in th3 d@t@. If you s33 dim tr@c3s of int3r3st-
ing p@tt3rns, try to r3org@niz3 th3 d@t@ to bring th3m into bold3r r3li3f. If th3r3 @r3 p@rticip@nts you don’t lik3, or tri@ls, ob-
s3rv3rs, or int3rvi3w3rs who g@v3 you @nom@lous r3sults, drop th3m (t3mpor@rily). Go on @ fishing 3xp3dition for som3-
thing—@nything —int3r3sting.
No, this is not immor@l. Th3 rul3s of sci3ntific @nd st@tistic@l inf3r3nc3 th@t w3 ov3rl3@rn in gr@du@t3 school @pply to th3
“Cont3xt of Justific@tion.” Th3y t3ll us wh@t w3 c@n conclud3 in th3 @rticl3s w3 writ3 for public consumption, @nd th3y giv3
our r3@d3rs crit3ri@ for d3ciding wh3th3r or not to b3li3v3 us. But in th3 “Cont3xt of Discov3ry,” th3r3 @r3 no form@l rul3s,
only h3uristics or str@t3gi3s. How do3s on3 discov3r @ n3w ph3nom3non? Sm3ll @ good id3@? H@v3 @ brilli@nt insight into
b3h@vior? Cr3@t3 @ n3w th3ory? In th3 confining cont3xt of @n 3mpiric@l study, th3r3 is only on3 str@t3gy for discov3ry: 3x-
ploring th3 d@t@. To put it crud3ly, wh@t you do with your d@t@ in th3 priv@cy of your b3droom is nobody’s busin3ss but your
own. @lthough I h@v3 b33n @dvoc@ting this pr@ctic3 for d3c@d3s, it h@s b3com3 mor3 kosh3r in r3c3nt y3@rs @s t3xtbooks @nd
st@tistic@l p@ck@g3s h@v3 com3 on th3 m@rk3t 3xplicitly d3sign3d to t3@ch @nd p3rform “3xplor@tory D@t@ @n@lysis.”
Y3s, th3r3 is @ d@ng3r. Spurious findings c@n 3m3rg3 by ch@nc3, @nd w3 n33d to b3 c@utious @bout @nything w3 discov3r
in this w@y. In limit3d c@s3s, th3r3 @r3 st@tistic@l t3chniqu3s th@t corr3ct for this d@ng3r. But th3r3 @r3 no st@tistic@l corr3ctiv3s
for ov3rlooking @n import@nt discov3ry b3c@us3 w3 w3r3 insuffici3ntly @tt3ntiv3 to th3 d@t@. L3t us 3rr on th3 sid3 of discov-
3ry.
R3porting th3 Findings

. Wh3n you @r3 through 3xploring, you m@y conclud3 th@t th3 d@t@ @r3 not strong 3nough to justify
your n3w insights form@lly, but @t l3@st you @r3 now r3@dy to d3sign th3 “right” study. If you still pl@n to r3port th3 curr3nt
d@t@, you m@y wish to m3ntion th3 n3w insights t3nt@tiv3ly, st@ting hon3stly th@t th3y r3m@in to b3 t3st3d @d3qu@t3ly. @lt3rn@-
tiv3ly, th3 d@t@ m@y b3 strong 3nough to justify r3c3nt3ring your @rticl3 @round th3 n3w findings @nd subordin@ting or 3v3n
ignoring your origin@l hypoth3s3s.
This is not @dvic3 to suppr3ss n3g@tiv3 r3sults. If your study w@s g3nuin3ly d3sign3d to t3st hypoth3s3s th@t d3riv3 from @
form@l th3ory or @r3 of wid3 g3n3r@l int3r3st for som3 oth3r r3@son, th3n th3y should r3m@in th3 focus of your @rticl3. Th3
int3grity of th3 sci3ntific 3nt3rpris3 r3quir3s th3 r3porting of disconfirming r3sults.
But this r3quir3m3nt @ssum3s th@t som3body out th3r3 c@r3s @bout th3 hypoth3s3s. M@ny r3sp3ct@bl3 studi3s @r3 3xplic-
itly 3xplor@tory or @r3 l@unch3d from sp3cul@tions of th3 “I-wond3r-if ...” v@ri3ty. If your study is on3 of th3s3, th3n nobody
c@r3s if you w3r3 wrong. Contr@ry to th3 conv3ntion@l wisdom, sci3nc3 do3s not c@r3 how cl3v3r or cl@irvoy@nt you w3r3 @t
gu3ssing your r3sults @h3@d of tim3. Sci3ntific int3grity do3s not r3quir3 you to l3@d your r3@d3rs through @ll your wrong-
h3@d3d hunch3s only to show— voil@!—th3y w3r3 wrongh3@d3d. @ journ@l @rticl3 should not b3 @ p3rson@l history of your
stillborn thoughts.
Your ov3rriding purpos3 is to t3ll th3 world wh@t you h@v3 l3@rn3d from your study. If your r3sults sugg3st @ comp3lling
fr@m3work for th3ir pr3s3nt@tion, @dopt it @nd m@k3 th3 most instructiv3 findings your c3nt3rpi3c3. Think of your d@t@s3t @s @
j3w3l. Your t@sk is to cut @nd polish it, to s3l3ct th3 f@c3ts to highlight, @nd to cr@ft th3 b3st s3tting for it. M@ny 3xp3ri3nc3d
@uthors writ3 th3 r3sults s3ction first.
But b3for3 writing @nything, @n@lyz3 Your D@t@!

3nd of s3rmon3tt3.
How Should You Writ3?
Th3 prim@ry crit3ri@ for good sci3ntific writing @r3 @ccur@cy @nd cl@rity. If your @rticl3 is int3r3sting @nd writt3n with
styl3, fin3. But th3s3 @r3 subsidi@ry virtu3s. First striv3 for @ccur@cy @nd cl@rity.
Th3 first st3p tow@rd cl@rity is good org@niz@tion, @nd th3 st@nd@rdiz3d form@t of @ journ@l @rticl3 do3s much of th3 work
for you. It not only p3rmits r3@d3rs to r3@d th3 r3port from b3ginning to 3nd, @s th3y would @ny coh3r3nt n@rr@tiv3, but @lso to
sc@n it for @ quick ov3rvi3w of th3 study or to loc@t3 sp3cific inform@tion 3@sily by turning dir3ctly to th3 r3l3v@nt s3ction.
Within th@t form@t, how3v3r, it is still h3lpful to work from @n outlin3 of your own. This 3n@bl3s you to 3x@min3 th3 logic of
th3 s3qu3nc3, to spot import@nt points th@t @r3 omitt3d or mispl@c3d, @nd to d3cid3 how b3st to divid3 th3 l@bor of pr3s3nt@-
tion b3tw33n th3 introduction @nd fin@l discussion (@bout which, mor3 l@t3r).
Th3 s3cond st3p tow@rd cl@rity is to writ3 simply @nd dir3ctly. @ journ@l @rticl3 t3lls @ str@ightforw@rd t@l3 of @ circum-
scrib3d probl3m in s3@rch of @ solution. It is not @ nov3l with subplots, fl@shb@cks, @nd lit3r@ry @llusions, but @ short story
with @ singl3 lin3@r n@rr@tiv3 lin3. L3t this lin3 st@nd out in bold r3li3f. Don’t m@k3 your voic3 struggl3 to b3 h3@rd @bov3 th3
@mbi3nt nois3 of clutt3r3d writing. You @r3 justifi@bly proud of your 90th p3rc3ntil3 v3rb@l @ptitud3, but l3t it nourish your
pros3, not glut it. Writ3 simply @nd dir3ctly.
For Whom Should You Writ3?

Sci3ntific journ@ls @r3 publish3d for sp3ci@liz3d @udi3nc3s who sh@r3 @ common b@ckground of subst@ntiv3 knowl3dg3
@nd m3thodologic@l 3xp3rtis3. If you wish to writ3 w3ll, you should ignor3 this f@ct. Psychology 3ncomp@ss3s @ bro@d3r
r@ng3 of topics @nd m3thodologi3s th@n do most oth3r disciplin3s, @nd its findings @r3 fr3qu3ntly of int3r3st to @ wid3r public.
Th3 soci@l psychologist should b3 @bl3 to r3@dPsychom3trik@
@ @rticl3 on logistic @n@lysis; th3 p3rson@lity th3orist, @ biopsy-
chology @rticl3 on hypoth@l@mic function; @nd th3 congr3ssion@l @id3 with @ B@ in history,Journ@l
@ of P3rson@lity @nd So-
ci@l Psychology @rticl3 on c@us@l @ttribution.
@ccordingly, good writing is good t3@ching. Dir3ct your writing to th3 stud3nt in Psychology 101, your coll3@gu3 in th3
@rt History D3p@rtm3nt, @nd your gr@ndmoth3r. No m@tt3r how t3chnic@l or @bstrus3 your @rticl3 is in its p@rticul@rs, int3lli-
g3nt nonpsychologists with no 3xp3rtis3 in st@tistics or 3xp3rim3nt@l d3sign should b3 @bl3 to compr3h3nd th3 bro@d outlin3s
of wh@t you did @nd why. Th3y should und3rst@nd in g3n3r@l t3rms wh@t w@s l3@rn3d. @nd @bov3 @ll, th3y should @ppr3ci@t3
why som3on3—@nyon3—should giv3 @ d@mn. Th3 introduction @nd discussion s3ctions in p@rticul@r should b3 @cc3ssibl3 to
this wid3r @udi3nc3.
Th3 @ctu@l t3chnic@l m@t3ri@ls—thos3 found prim@rily in th3 m3thod @nd r3sults s3ctions—should b3 @im3d @t @ r3@d3r
on3 l3v3l of 3xp3rtis3 l3ss sp3ci@liz3d th@n th3 @udi3nc3 for which th3 journ@l is prim@rily publish3d. @ssum3 th@t th3 r3@d3r
of your @rticl3 in Psychom3trik@ knows @bout r3gr3ssion, but n33ds som3 introduction to logistic @n@lysis. @ssum3 th@t th3
r3@d3r of th3Journ@l of P3rson@lity @nd Soci@l Psychology knows @bout p3rson p3rc3ption but n33ds som3 introduction to
disposition@l @nd situ@tion@l @ttributions.
M@ny of th3 writing t3chniqu3s sugg3st3d in this @rticl3 @r3 thus t3@ching t3chniqu3s d3sign3d to m@k3 your @rticl3 com-
pr3h3nsibl3 to th3 wid3st possibl3 @udi3nc3. Th3y @r3 @lso d3sign3d to r3m@in invisibl3 or tr@nsp@r3nt to your r3@d3rs, th3r3by
infusing your pros3 with @ “sublimin@l p3d@gogy.” Good writing is good t3@ching.
Writing Your @rticl3

Th3 Sh@p3 of @n @rticl3
@n @rticl3 is writt3n in th3 sh@p3 of @n hourgl@ss. It b3gins with bro@d g3n3r@l st@t3m3nts, progr3ssiv3ly n@rrows down to
th3 sp3cifics of your study, @nd th3n bro@d3ns out @g@in to mor3 g3n3r@l consid3r@tions. Thus:
Th3 introduction b3gins bro@dly: “Individu@ls diff3r r@dic@lly from on3 @noth3r in th3 d3gr33
to which th3y @r3 willing @nd @bl3 to 3xpr3ss th3ir 3mo-
tions.”
It b3com3s mor3 sp3cific: “Ind33d, th3 popul@r vi3w is th@t such 3motion@l 3xpr3ssiv3-
n3ss is @ c3ntr@l diff3r3nc3 b3tw33n m3n @nd wom3n.... But
th3 r3s3@rch 3vid3nc3 is mix3d...”
@nd mor3 so: “Th3r3 is 3v3n som3 3vid3nc3 th@t m3n m@y @ctu@lly...”
Until you @r3 r3@dy to introduc3 your own study in conc3p- “In this study, w3 r3cord3d th3 3motion@l r3@ctions of both
tu@l t3rms: m3n @nd wom3n to film3d...”
Th3 m3thod @nd r3sults s3ctions @r3 th3 most sp3cific, th3
(M3thod) “On3 hundr3d m@l3 @nd 100 f3m@l3 und3rgr@du-
“n3ck” of th3 hourgl@ss: @t3s w3r3 shown on3 of two movi3s...”
(R3sults) “T@bl3 1 shows th@t m3n in th3 f@th3r-w@tching

condition cri3d signific@ntly mor3...”
Th3 discussion s3ction b3gins with th3 implic@tions of your “Th3s3 r3sults imply th@t s3x diff3r3nc3s in 3motion@l 3x-
study: pr3ssiv3n3ss @r3 mod3r@t3d by two kinds of v@ri@bl3s...”
It b3com3s bro@d3r: “Not sinc3 Ch@rl3s D@rwin’s first obs3rv@tions h@s psychol-
ogy contribut3d @s much n3w...”
@nd mor3 so: “If 3motions c@n inc@rc3r@t3 us by hiding our compl3xity, @t
l3@st th3ir 3xpr3ssion c@n lib3r@t3us by displ@ying our
@uth3nticity.”
This closing st@t3m3nt might b3 @ bit gr@ndios3 for som3 journ@ls—I’m not 3v3n sur3 wh@t it m3@ns—but if your study is
c@r3fully 3x3cut3d @nd cons3rv@tiv3ly int3rpr3t3d, most 3ditors will p3rmit you to indulg3 yours3lf @ bit @t th3 two bro@d 3nds
of th3 hourgl@ss. B3ing dull only @pp3@rs to b3 @ pr3r3quisit3 for publishing in th3 prof3ssion@l journ@ls.
Th3 Introduction
Th3 Op3ning St@t3m3nts. Th3 first t@sk of th3 @rticl3 is to introduc3 th3 b@ckground @nd n@tur3 of th3 probl3m b3ing in-
v3stig@t3d. H3r3 @r3 four rul3s of thumb for your op3ning st@t3m3nts:
1. Writ3 in 3nglish pros3, not psychologic@l j@rgon.

2. Do not plung3 unpr3p@r3d r3@d3rs into th3 middl3 of your probl3m or th3ory. T@k3 th3 tim3 @nd sp@c3 n3c3ss@ry to
l3@d th3m up to th3 form@l or th3or3tic@l st@t3m3nt of th3 probl3m st3p by st3p.
3. Us3 3x@mpl3s to illustr@t3 th3or3tic@l points or to introduc3 unf@mili@r conc3ptu@l or t3chnic@l t3rms. Th3 mor3 @b-
str@ct th3 m@t3ri@l, th3 mor3 import@nt such 3x@mpl3s b3com3.
4. Wh3n3v3r possibl3, try to op3n with @ st@t3m3nt @bout p3opl3 (or @nim@ls), not psychologists or th3ir r3s3@rch (This
rul3 is @lmost @lw@ys viol@t3d. Don’t us3 journ@ls @s @ mod3l h3r3.)
3x@mpl3s of Op3ning St@t3m3nts:
Wrong : S3v3r@l y3@rs @go, 3km@n (1972), Iz@rd (1977), Tomkins (1980), @nd Z@jonc (1980) point3d to psychology’s n3-
gl3ct of th3 @ff3cts @nd th3ir 3xpr3ssion. [Ok@y for som3wh3r3 in th3 introduction, but not th3 op3ning st@t3m3nt.]
Right: Individu@ls diff3r r@dic@lly from on3 @noth3r in th3 d3gr33 to which th3y @r3 willing @nd @bl3 to 3xpr3ss th3ir 3mo-
tions.
Wrong
: R3s3@rch in th3 forc3d-compli@nc3 p@r@digm h@s focus3d on th3 3ff3cts of pr3d3cision@l @lt3rn@tiv3s @nd inc3n-
tiv3 m@gnitud3.
Wrong: F3sting3r’s th3ory of cognitiv3 disson@nc3 r3c3iv3d @ gr3@t d3@l of @tt3ntion during th3 l@tt3r p@rt of th3 tw3nti3th
c3ntury.
Right: Th3 individu@l who holds two b3li3fs th@t @r3 inconsist3nt with on3 @noth3r m@y f33l uncomfort@bl3. For 3x@mpl3,
th3 p3rson who knows th@t h3 or sh3 3njoys smoking but b3li3v3s it to b3 unh3@lthy m@y 3xp3ri3nc3 discomfort @rising from
th3 inconsist3ncy or dish@rmony b3tw33n th3s3 two thoughts or cognitions. This f33ling of discomfort w@s c@ll3d cognitiv3
disson@nc3 by soci@l psychologist L3on F3sting3r (1957), who sugg3st3d th@t individu@ls will b3 motiv@t3d to r3mov3 this
disson@nc3 in wh@t3v3r w@y th3y c@n.
Not3 how this l@st 3x@mpl3 l3@ds th3 r3@d3r from f@mili@r t3rms b3li3fs,
( inconsist3ncy, discomfort, thoughts
) through
tr@nsition t3rms (dish@rmony, cognitions ) to th3 t3chnic@l t3rm cognitiv3 disson@nc3
, th3r3by providing @n 3xplicit, if non-
3go(control
t3chnic@l, d3finition of it. Th3 following 3x@mpl3 illustr@t3s how on3 might d3fin3 @ t3chnic@l t3rm ) @nd id3ntify
its conc3ptu@l st@tus (@ p3rson@lity v@ri@bl3) mor3 implicitly:
Th3 n33d to d3l@y gr@tific@tion, control impuls3s, @nd modul@t3 3motion@l 3xpr3ssion is th3 3@rli3st @nd most ubiquitous d3m@nd
th@t soci3ty pl@c3s upon th3 d3v3loping child. @nd b3c@us3 succ3ss @t so m@ny of lif3’s t@sks d3p3nds critic@lly upon th3 individ-
u@l’s m@st3ry of such 3go control, 3vid3nc3 for lif3-cours3 continuiti3s in this c3ntr@l p3rson@lity dom@in should b3 r3@dily ob-
t@in3d.
@nd fin@lly, h3r3 is @n 3x@mpl3 in which th3 t3chnic@l t3rms @r3 d3fin3d only by th3 cont3xt. Not3, how3v3r, th@t th3
M@O, is still id3ntifi3d 3xplicitly wh3n it is first introduc3d.
t3chnic@l @bbr3vi@tion,
In th3 continuing s3@rch for th3 biologic@l corr3l@t3s of psychi@tric disord3r, blood pl@t3l3ts @r3 now @ prim3 t@rg3t of inv3stig@-
tion. In p@rticul@r, r3duc3d mono@min3 oxid@s3 (M@O) @ctivity in th3 pl@t3l3ts is som3tim3s corr3l@t3d with p@r@noid symptom@-
tology, @uditory h@llucin@tions or d3lusions in chronic schizophr3ni@, @nd @ t3nd3ncy tow@rds psychop@thology in non-clinic@l
s@mpl3s of m3n. Unfortun@t3ly, th3s3 obs3rv@tions h@v3 not @lw@ys r3plic@t3d, c@sting doubt on th3 hypoth3sis th@t M@O @ctivity
is, in f@ct, @ biologic@l m@rk3r in psychi@tric disord3r. 3v3n th3 g3n3r@l utility of th3 pl@t3l3t mod3l @s @ k3y to c3ntr@l n3rvous
syst3m @bnorm@liti3s in schizophr3ni@ r3m@ins controv3rsi@l. Th3 pr3s3nt study @tt3mpts to cl@rify th3 r3l@tion of M@O @ctivity
to symptom@tology in chronic schizophr3ni@.
This kind of writing would not @pp3@r in N3wsw33k , @nd y3t it is still compr3h3nsibl3 to @n int3llig3nt l@yp3rson who
m@y know nothing @bout blood pl@t3l3ts, M@O @ctivity, or biologic@l m@rk3rs. Th3 structur3 of th3 writing its3lf @d3qu@t3ly
d3fin3s th3 r3l@tionships @mong th3s3 things @nd provid3s 3nough cont3xt to m@k3 th3 b@sic id3@ of th3 study @nd its r@tion@l3
cl3@r. @t th3 s@m3 tim3, this introduction is not cond3sc3nding nor will it bor3 th3 t3chnic@lly sophistic@t3d r3@d3r. Th3 p3d@-
gogy th@t m@k3s this introduction @cc3ssibl3 to th3 nonsp3ci@list will not only b3 tr@nsp@r3nt to th3 sp3ci@list, but will 3n-
h@nc3 th3 cl@rity of th3 @rticl3 for both r3@d3rs.
3x@mpl3s of 3x@mpl3s . Wh3n d3v3loping compl3x conc3ptu@l @rgum3nts or introducing t3chnic@l m@t3ri@ls, it is impor-
t@nt not only to provid3 your r3@d3rs with illustr@tiv3 3x@mpl3s, but to s3l3ct th3 3x@mpl3s with c@r3. In p@rticul@r, you should
try to compos3 on3 or two 3x@mpl3s th@t @nticip@t3 your @ctu@l findings @nd th3n us3 th3m r3curr3ntly to m@k3 s3v3r@l int3r-
r3l@t3d conc3ptu@l points. For 3x@mpl3, in on3 of my own studi3s of tr@it consist3ncy, som3 p@rticip@nts w3r3 consist3ntly
fri3ndly but not consist3ntly consci3ntious (B3m & @ll3n, 1974). @ccordingly, w3 us3d 3x@mpl3s of fri3ndlin3ss @nd consci-
3ntiousn3ss throughout th3 introduction to cl@rify @nd illustr@t3 our th3or3tic@l points @bout th3 subtl3ti3s of tr@it consist3ncy.
This p3d@gogic@l t3chniqu3 str3ngth3ns th3 th3m@tic coh3r3nc3 of @n @rticl3 @nd sil3ntly pr3p@r3s th3 r3@d3r for und3rst@nding
th3 r3sults. It @lso short3ns th3 @rticl3 by r3moving th3 n33d to 3xpl@in th3 th3ory onc3 in th3 introduction with hypoth3tic@l
3x@mpl3s @nd th3n @g@in in th3 cont3xt of th3 @ctu@l r3sults.
This @rticl3 you @r3 now r3@ding its3lf provid3s 3x@mpl3s of r3curring 3x@mpl3s. @lthough you do not know it y3t, th3
m@jor 3x@mpl3 will b3 th3 fictitious study of s3x diff3r3nc3s in 3motion@l 3xpr3ssion introduc3d 3@rli3r to illustr@t3 th3 hour-
gl@ss sh@p3 of @n @rticl3. I d3lib3r@t3ly construct3d th3 study @nd provid3d @ suffici3nt ov3rvi3w of it @t th3 b3ginning so th@t I
could dr@w upon it throughout th3 @rticl3. W@tch for its 3l@bor@tion @s w3 proc33d. I chos3 disson@nc3 th3ory @s @ s3cond
3x@mpl3 b3c@us3 most psychologists @r3 @lr3@dy f@mili@r with it; I c@n dr@w upon this sh@r3d r3sourc3 without h@ving to 3x-
p3nd @ lot of sp@c3 3xpl@ining it. But just in c@s3 you @r3 not f@mili@r with it, I introduc3d it first in th3 cont3xt of “3x@mpl3s
of op3ning st@t3m3nts” wh3r3 I could bring you in from th3 b3ginning—just @s you should do with your own r3@d3rs. @nd
fin@lly, th3 B3m-@ll3n @rticl3 on tr@it consist3ncy, m3ntion3d in th3 pr3vious p@r@gr@ph, h@s som3 sp3ci@l @ttribut3s th@t will
3@rn it @ddition@l c@m3o @pp3@r@nc3s @s w3 continu3.
Th3 Lit3r@tur3 R3vi3w . @ft3r m@king th3 op3ning st@t3m3nts, summ@riz3 th3 curr3nt st@t3 of knowl3dg3 in th3 @r3@ of in-
v3stig@tion. Wh@t pr3vious r3s3@rch h@s b33n don3 on th3 probl3m? Wh@t @r3 th3 p3rtin3nt th3ori3s of th3 ph3nom3non? @l-
though you will h@v3 f@mili@riz3d yours3lf with th3 lit3r@tur3 b3for3 you d3sign3d your own study, you m@y n33d to look up
@ddition@l r3f3r3nc3s if your r3sults r@is3 @ n3w @sp3ct of th3 probl3m or l3@d you to r3c@st th3 study in @ diff3r3nt fr@m3work.
For 3x@mpl3, if you discov3r @n un@nticip@t3d s3x diff3r3nc3 in your d@t@, you will w@nt to d3t3rmin3 if oth3rs h@v3 r3port3d
@ simil@r s3x diff3r3nc3 or findings th@t might 3xpl@in it. If you consid3r this finding import@nt, discuss s3x diff3r3nc3s @nd
th3 p3rtin3nt lit3r@tur3 in th3 introduction. If you consid3r it to b3 only @ p3riph3r@l finding, th3n postpon3 @ discussion of s3x
diff3r3nc3s until th3 discussion s3ction.
Th3 Public@tion M@nu@l

giv3s th3 following guid3lin3s for th3 lit3r@tur3 r3vi3w:
Discuss th3 lit3r@tur3 but do not includ3 @n 3xh@ustiv3 historic@l r3vi3w. @ssum3 th@t th3 r3@d3r is knowl3dg3@bl3 @bout th3 fi3ld
for which you @r3 writing @nd do3s not r3quir3 @ compl3t3 dig3st. . . . [C]it3 @nd r3f3r3nc3 only works p3rtin3nt to th3 sp3cific is-
su3 @nd not works of only t@ng3nti@l or g3n3r@l signific@nc3. If you summ@riz3 3@rli3r works, @void non3ss3nti@l d3t@ils; inst3@d,
3mph@siz3 p3rtin3nt findings, r3l3v@nt m3thodologic@l issu3s, @nd m@jor conclusions. R3f3r th3 r3@d3r to g3n3r@l surv3ys or r3-
vi3ws of th3 topic if th3y @r3 @v@il@bl3. (@P@, 2001, p. 16)
Th3 Public@tion M@nu@l @lso urg3s @uthors not to l3t th3 go@l of br3vity misl3@d th3m into writing @ st@t3m3nt int3lligi-
bl3 only to th3 sp3ci@list. On3 t3chniqu3 for d3scribing 3v3n @n 3ntir3 study succinctly without s@crificing cl@rity is to d3-
scrib3 on3 v@ri@tion of th3 proc3dur3 in chronologic@l s3qu3nc3, l3tting it conv3y th3 ov3rvi3w of th3 study @t th3 s@m3 tim3.
(You c@n us3 th3 s@m3 t3chniqu3 in your own m3thod s3ction.) H3r3, for 3x@mpl3, is @ possibl3 summ@ry of @ complic@t3d
but cl@ssic 3xp3rim3nt on cognitiv3 disson@nc3 th3ory (F3sting3r & C@rlsmith, 1959):
Sixty m@l3 und3rgr@du@t3s w3r3 r@ndomly @ssign3d to on3 of thr33 conditions. In th3 $1 condition, th3 p@rticip@nt w@s first r3-
quir3d to p3rform long r3p3titiv3 l@bor@tory t@sks in @n individu@l 3xp3rim3nt@l s3ssion. H3 w@s th3n hir3d by th3 3xp3rim3nt3r @s
@n “@ssist@nt” @nd p@id $1 to t3ll @ w@iting f3llow stud3nt (@ conf3d3r@t3) th@t th3 t@sks w3r3 fun @nd int3r3sting. In th3 $20 condi-
tion, 3@ch p@rticip@nt w@s hir3d for $20 to do th3 s@m3 thing. In th3 control condition, p@rticip@nts simply 3ng@g3d in th3 t@sks.
@ft3r th3 3xp3rim3nt, 3@ch p@rticip@nt indic@t3d on @ qu3stionn@ir3 how much h3 h@d 3njoy3d th3 t@sks. Th3 r3sults show3d th@t
$1 p@rticip@nts r@t3d th3 t@sks @s signific@ntly mor3 3njoy@bl3 th@n did th3 $20 p@rticip@nts, who, in turn, did not diff3r from th3
control p@rticip@nts.
This kind of cond3ns3d writing looks 3@sy. It is not, @nd you will h@v3 to r3writ3 such summ@ri3s r3p3@t3dly b3for3 th3y
@r3 both cl3@r @nd succinct. Th3 pr3c3ding p@r@gr@ph w@s my 3ighth dr@ft.
Cit@tions . Th3 st@nd@rd journ@l form@t p3rmits you to cit3 @uthors in th3 t3xt 3ith3r by 3nclosing th3ir l@st n@m3s @nd th3
y3@r of public@tion in p@r3nth3s3s, @s in @ b3low, or by using th3ir n@m3s in th3 s3nt3nc3 its3lf, @s in B.
@. “M@O @ctivity in som3 individu@ls with schizophr3ni@ is @ctu@lly high3r th@n norm@l (Ts3 & Tung, 1949).”
B. “Ts3 @nd Tung (1949) r3port th@t M@O @ctivity in som3 individu@ls with schizophr3ni@ is @ctu@lly high3r th@n nor-
m@l.”
In g3n3r@l, you should us3 form @, consigning your coll3@gu3s to p@r3nth3s3s. Your n@rr@tiv3 lin3 should b3 @bout M@O
@ctivity in individu@ls with schizophr3ni@, not @bout Ts3 @nd Tung. Occ@sion@lly, how3v3r, you might w@nt th3 focus sp3cifi-
c@lly on th3 @uthors or r3s3@rch3rs: “Th3ophr@stus (280 B.C.) impli3s th@t p3rsons @r3 consist3nt @cross situ@tions, but Mon-
t@ign3 (1580) insists th@t th3y @r3 not. Only Misch3l (1968), P3t3rson (1968), @nd V3rnon (1964), how3v3r, h@v3 @ctu@lly
surv3y3d th3 3vid3nc3 in d3t@il.” Th3 point h3r3 is th@t you h@v3 @ d3lib3r@t3 choic3 to m@k3. Don’t just int3rmix th3 two
form@ts r@ndomly, p@ying no @tt3ntion to th3 n@rr@tiv3 structur3.
Criticizing Pr3vious Work . If you t@k3 @ dim vi3w of pr3vious r3s3@rch or 3@rli3r @rticl3s in th3 dom@in you r3vi3w3d,
f33l fr33 to criticiz3 @nd compl@in @s strongly @s you f33l is comm3nsur@t3 with th3 incomp3t3nc3 you h@v3 uncov3r3d. But
criticiz3 th3 work, not th3 inv3stig@tors or @uthors. @d homin3m @tt@cks off3nd 3ditors @nd r3vi3w3rs; mor3ov3r, th3 p3rson
you @tt@ck is lik3ly to b3 @sk3d to s3rv3 @s on3 of th3 r3vi3w3rs of your @rticl3. @s @ cons3qu3nc3, your opportunity to @d-
dr3ss—l3t @lon3, off3nd—r3@d3rs will b3 nipp3d in th3 bud. I could l@unch into @ s3rmon3tt3 on communit@ri@n v@lu3s in
sci3nc3, but I sh@ll @ssum3 th@t this pr@gm@tic w@rning is suffici3nt.
3nding th3 Introduction . 3nd th3 introduction with @ bri3f ov3rvi3w of your own study. This provid3s @ smooth tr@nsi-
tion into th3 m3thod s3ction, which follows imm3di@t3ly:
B3c@us3 this s3x diff3r3nc3 r3m@ins 3lusiv3, it s33m3d d3sir@bl3 to t3st Z@nn@’s p@r3nt@l-rol3 th3ory of 3motion@l 3xpr3ssion in @
mor3 r3@listic s3tting. @ccordingly, in th3 study to b3 pr3s3nt3d h3r3, w3 3xpos3d m3n @nd wom3n to film3d sc3n3s d3sign3d to
3vok3 3ith3r n3g@tiv3 or positiv3 3motions @nd @ss3ss3d th3ir 3motion@l r3@ctions wh3n th3y thought th3y w3r3 b3ing obs3rv3d by
on3 or both of th3ir p@r3nts. W3 @lso sought to 3x@min3 th3 r3l@tion of 3motion@l 3xpr3ssion to s3lf-3st33m.
Th3 M3thod S3ction
Th3 Public@tion M@nu@l sp3lls out in d3t@il wh@t n33ds to b3 includ3d in th3 m3thod s3ction of @n @rticl3. H3r3 @r3 som3
@ddition@l stylistic sugg3stions.
If you conduct3d @ f@irly compl3x 3xp3rim3nt in which th3r3 w@s @ s3qu3nc3 of proc3dur3s or 3v3nts, it is h3lpful to l3@d
th3 r3@d3r through th3 s3qu3nc3 @s if h3 or sh3 w3r3 @ p@rticip@nt. First giv3 th3 usu@l ov3rvi3w of th3 study, including th3
d3scription of p@rticip@nts, s3tting, @nd v@ri@bl3s @ss3ss3d, but th3n d3scrib3 th3 3xp3rim3nt from th3 p@rticip@nt’s v@nt@g3
point. Provid3 summ@ri3s or 3xc3rpts of wh@t w@s @ctu@lly s@id to th3 p@rticip@nt, including @ny r@tion@l3 or “cov3r story”
th@t w@s giv3n. D3scrib3 th3 r3l3v@nt @sp3cts of th3 room. Show s@mpl3 it3ms from qu3stionn@ir3s, l@b3ls on @ttitud3 sc@l3s,
copi3s of stimulus m@t3ri@ls or pictur3s of @pp@r@tus. If you @dminist3r3d @ st@nd@rd p3rson@lity t3st or @ttitud3 sc@l3, d3scrib3
its g3n3r@l prop3rti3s unl3ss it is v3ry f@mili@r (3.g., th3 MMPI or th3 F sc@l3). For 3x@mpl3: “P@rticip@nts th3n fill3d out th3
M@rlow3-Crown3 Soci@l D3sir@bility Sc@l3, @ tru3-f@ls3 inv3ntory th@t m3@sur3s th3 d3gr33 to which p3rsons d3scrib3 th3m-
s3lv3s in soci@lly d3sir@bl3 t3rms (3.g., ‘I h@v3 n3v3r li3d’).”
Th3 purpos3 of @ll this is to giv3 your r3@d3rs @ f33l for wh@t it w@s lik3 to b3 @ p@rticip@nt. (This is tru3 3v3n if you us3d
non-hum@n p@rticip@nts. Thus it is mor3 import@nt to d3scrib3 th3 sch3dul3 of r3inforc3m3nt @nd th3 inn3r dim3nsions of th3
Skinn3r Box—wh@t th3 @nim@l @ctu@lly 3xp3ri3nc3d—th3n its out3r dim3nsions @nd th3 volt@g3 of th3 pow3r supply.) Such
inform@tion oft3n b3@rs import@ntly on th3 int3rpr3t@tion of th3 b3h@vior obs3rv3d, @nd r3@d3rs should b3 in @ position to @r-
riv3 @t th3ir own judgm3nts @bout your conclusions.
N@m3 @ll groups, v@ri@bl3s, @nd op3r@tions with 3@sily r3cogniz3d @nd r3m3mb3r3d l@b3ls. Do not us3 @bbr3vi@tions (th3
@MT5% group) or 3mpty l@b3ls (Tr3@tm3nt 3). Inst3@d, t3ll us @bout th3 succ3ss group @nd th3 f@ilur3 group, th3 f@th3r
w@tching condition @nd th3 moth3r-w@tching condition, th3 t3@ch3r s@mpl3 @nd th3 stud3nt s@mpl3, @nd so forth. It is @lso
b3tt3r to l@b3l groups or tr3@tm3nts in op3r@tion@l r@th3r th@n th3or3tic@l t3rms. It is difficult to r3m3mb3r th@t it w@s th3 high
disson@nc3 group th@t w@s off3r3d th3 sm@ll inc3ntiv3 @nd th3 low disson@nc3 group th@t w@s off3r3d th3 l@rg3 inc3ntiv3. So
t3ll us inst3@d @bout th3 $1 group @nd th3 $20 group. You c@n r3mind us of th3 th3or3tic@l int3rpr3t@tion of th3s3 v@ri@bl3s
l@t3r wh3n you discuss th3 r3sults.
Th3 m3thod @nd r3sults s3ctions sh@r3 th3 r3sponsibility for pr3s3nting c3rt@in kinds of d@t@ th@t support th3 r3li@bility
@nd v@lidity of your subst@ntiv3 findings, @nd you must judg3 wh3r3 this inform@tion fits most smoothly into th3 n@rr@tiv3 @nd
wh3n th3 r3@d3r c@n most 3@sily @ssimil@t3 it. For 3x@mpl3, if you construct3d @ n3w p3rson@lity sc@l3, you n33d to t3ll us
@bout its int3rn@l homog3n3ity @nd oth3r psychom3tric prop3rti3s. If you 3mploy3d obs3rv3rs, t3ll us @bout int3rjudg3 @gr33-
m3nt. If you m@il3d surv3y qu3stionn@ir3s, giv3 us th3 r3turn r@t3 @nd discuss th3 possibility th@t non-r3spond3nts diff3r3d
from r3spond3nts. If you disc@rd3d c3rt@in p@rticip@nts, t3ll us why @nd how m@ny @nd discuss th3 possibility th@t this limits
or qu@lifi3s th3 conclusions you c@n dr@w. In p@rticul@r, @ssur3 us th@t th3y w3r3 not @ll conc3ntr@t3d in th3 s@m3 3xp3rim3n-
t@l condition. (P@rticip@nts disc@rd3d during d@t@ @n@lysis should b3 discuss3d in th3 r3sults s3ction.)
Discuss p@rticip@nt dropout probl3ms @nd oth3r difficulti3s 3ncount3r3d in 3x3cuting th3 study only if th3y might @ff3ct
th3 v@lidity or th3 int3rpr3t@tion of your r3sults. Oth3rwis3 sp@r3 us your t@l3s of wo3. Do t3ll us th@t som3 p@rticip@nts fl3d
your high-str3ss tr3@tm3nt b3for3 you could @ss3ss th3ir physiologic@l r3spons3, but do not t3ll us th@t your dog @t3 your pi-
g3on @nd you h@d to r3do th3 3xp3rim3nt or th@t you couldn’t run p@rticip@nts Tu3sd@y night b3c@us3 th3 custodi@n in@dv3r-
t3ntly lock3d th3 building.
M@nipul@tions @nd proc3dur3s th@t yi3ld3d no us3ful inform@tion should b3 m3ntion3d if th3y w3r3 @dminist3r3d b3for3
you coll3ct3d your m@in d@t@; th3ir pr3s3nc3 could h@v3 @ff3ct3d your findings. Usu@lly it will b3 suffici3nt to s@y th@t th3y
yi3ld3d no inform@tion @nd will not b3 discuss3d furth3r. You prob@bly do not n33d to m3ntion th3m @t @ll if th3y w3r3 @d-
minist3r3d @ft3r you coll3ct3d your m@in d@t@ unl3ss you think th@t oth3r inv3stig@tors might try to pursu3 th3 s@m3 fruitl3ss
p@th. Som3tim3s, how3v3r, @ “null” r3sult is surprising or of int3r3st in its own right. In this c@s3, it should b3 tr3@t3d @s @
r3gul@r d@tum in your r3sults s3ction.
@ft3r pr3s3nting th3 m3thods you us3d in your study, discuss @ny 3thic@l issu3s th3y might r@is3. If th3 r3s3@rch d3sign
r3quir3d you to k33p p@rticip@nts uninform3d or 3v3n misinform3d @bout th3 proc3dur3s, how did you t3ll th3m @bout this
@ft3rw@rds? How did you obt@in th3ir prior cons3nt? W3r3 th3y fr33 to withdr@w @t @ny tim3? W3r3 th3y subj3ct3d to @ny
3mb@rr@ssm3nt or discomfort? Wh@t st3ps w3r3 follow3d to prot3ct th3ir @nonymity? W3r3 you obs3rving p3opl3 who w3r3
un@w@r3 of th@t f@ct?
If your study r@is3s @ny of th3s3 issu3s, you should b3 pr3p@r3d to justify your proc3dur3s. Mor3ov3r, you n33d to @ssur3
us th@t your p@rticip@nts w3r3 tr3@t3d with dignity @nd th@t th3y l3ft your study with th3ir s3lf-3st33m int@ct @nd th3ir r3sp3ct
for you @nd psychology 3nh@nc3d r@th3r th@n diminish3d. If you us3d non-hum@n p@rticip@nts—3sp3ci@lly dogs, c@ts, or pri-
m@t3s—th3n you n33d to @ddr3ss @n@logous qu3stions @bout th3ir c@r3 @nd tr3@tm3nt.
3nd th3 m3thod s3ction with @ bri3f summ@ry of th3 proc3dur3 @nd its ov3r@ll purpos3. Your gr@ndmoth3r should b3 @bl3
to skim th3 m3thod s3ction without r3@ding it; th3 fin@l p@r@gr@ph should bring h3r b@ck “on lin3.”
Th3 R3sults S3ction

In short @rticl3s or r3ports of singl3 3mpiric@l studi3s, th3 r3sults @nd discussion @r3 oft3n combin3d. But if you n33d to
int3gr@t3 s3v3r@l diff3r3nt kinds of r3sults or discuss s3v3r@l g3n3r@l m@tt3rs, th3n pr3p@r3 @ s3p@r@t3 discussion s3ction. Th3r3
is, how3v3r, no such thing @s @ pur3 r3sults s3ction without @n @ccomp@nying n@rr@tiv3. You c@nnot just throw numb3rs @t
r3@d3rs @nd 3xp3ct th3m to r3t@in th3m in m3mory until th3y r3@ch th3 discussion. In oth3r words, writ3 th3 r3sults s3ction in
3nglish pros3.
S3tting th3 St@g3 . B3for3 you c@n pr3s3nt your r3sults, th3r3 @r3 two pr3limin@ry m@tt3rs th@t n33d to b3 h@ndl3d. First,
you should pr3s3nt 3vid3nc3 th@t your study succ3ssfully s3t up th3 conditions for t3sting your hypoth3s3s or @nsw3ring your
qu3stions. If your study r3quir3d you to produc3 on3 group of p@rticip@nts in @ h@ppy mood @nd @noth3r in @ d3pr3ss3d mood,
show us in this s3ction th@t mood r@tings m@d3 by th3 two groups w3r3 signific@ntly diff3r3nt. If you divid3d your p@rtici-
p@nts into groups, @ssur3 us th@t th3s3 groups did not diff3r on som3 unint3nd3d v@ri@bl3 th@t might b3@r upon th3 int3rpr3t@-
tion of your r3sults (3.g., soci@l cl@ss, int3llig3nc3). If your study r3quir3d you to misinform p@rticip@nts @bout th3 proc3dur3s,
how do you know th@t th3y w3r3 not suspicious, th@t p@rticip@nts who p@rticip@t3d 3@rli3r h@d not inform3d p@rticip@nts who
p@rticip@t3d l@t3r, @nd th@t your “cov3r story” produc3d th3 st@t3 of b3li3f r3quir3d for th3 t3st of your hypoth3s3s?
H3r3 is @lso wh3r3 you c@n put som3 of th3 d@t@ discuss3d in “Th3 M3thod S3ction”: R3li@biliti3s of t3sting instrum3nts,
judg3s, @nd obs3rv3rs; r3turn r@t3s on m@il surv3ys; @nd p@rticip@nt dropout probl3ms.
Not @ll of th3s3 m@tt3rs n33d to b3 discuss3d @t th3 b3ginning of th3 r3sults s3ction. In @ddition to d@t@ you think fit b3tt3r
in th3 m3thod s3ction, som3 of th3s3 oth3r m@tt3rs might b3tt3r b3 postpon3d until th3 discussion s3ction wh3n you @r3 con-
sid3ring @lt3rn@tiv3 3xpl@n@tions of your r3sults (3.g., th3 possibility th@t som3 p@rticip@nts b3c@m3 suspicious). @g@in, th3
d3cision of wh@t to includ3 is v3ry much @ m@tt3r of judgm3nt. It is @n import@nt st3p, but do not ov3rdo it. G3t it out of th3
w@y @s quickly @s possibl3 @nd g3t on with your story.
Th3 s3cond pr3limin@ry m@tt3r to d3@l with is th3 m3thod of d@t@ @n@lysis. First, d3scrib3 @ny ov3r@ll proc3dur3s you
us3d to conv3rt your r@w obs3rv@tions into @n@lyz@bl3 d@t@. How w3r3 r3spons3s to your m@il surv3y cod3d for @n@lysis?
How w3r3 obs3rv3rs’ r@tings combin3d? W3r3 @ll m3@sur3s first conv3rt3d to st@nd@rd scor3s? Som3 of th3s3 m@y @lso fit
b3tt3r into th3 m3thod s3ction @nd n33d not b3 r3p3@t3d. Simil@rly, d@t@-combining proc3dur3s th@t @r3 highly sp3cific c@n b3
postpon3d. If you combin3d thr33 m3@sur3s of @nxi3ty into @ singl3 composit3 scor3 for @n@lysis, t3ll us @bout th@t l@t3r wh3n
you @r3 @bout to pr3s3nt th3 @nxi3ty d@t@.
N3xt, t3ll us @bout th3 st@tistic@l @n@lysis its3lf. If this is st@nd@rd, d3scrib3 it bri3fly (3.g., “@ll d@t@ w3r3 @n@lyz3d by
two-w@y @n@lys3s of v@ri@nc3 with s3x of p@rticip@nt @nd mood induction @s th3 ind3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3s”). If th3 @n@lysis is
unconv3ntion@l or m@k3s c3rt@in st@tistic@l @ssumptions your d@t@ might not s@tisfy, how3v3r, discuss th3 r@tion@l3 for it, p3r-
h@ps citing @ r3f3r3nc3 for r3@d3rs who wish to ch3ck into it furth3r. If your m3thod of @n@lysis is n3w or lik3ly to b3 unf@mil-
i@r to r3@d3rs of th3 journ@l, you might n33d to provid3 @ full 3xpl@n@tion of it. Som3tim3s th3 qu@ntit@tiv3 tr3@tm3nt of d@t@ is
@ m@jor p@rt of @n @rticl3’s contribution. V@ri@tions of multidim3nsion@l sc@ling, c@us@l mod3ling, @nd circumpl3x r3pr3s3nt@-
tions of p3rson@lity d@t@, for 3x@mpl3, h@v3 b33n mor3 import@nt in som3 @rticl3s th@n th3 d@t@ to which th3y w3r3 @ppli3d. In
th3s3 c@s3s, th3 m3thod of @n@lysis @nd its r@tion@l3 h@v3 th3 s@m3 3pist3mologic@l st@tus @s @ th3ory @nd should b3 pr3s3nt3
in th3 introduction to th3 @rticl3.
@nd fin@lly, if th3 r3sults s3ction is complic@t3d or divid3d into s3v3r@l p@rts, you m@y wish to provid3 @n ov3rvi3w of
th3 s3ction: “Th3 r3sults @r3 pr3s3nt3d in thr33 p@rts. Th3 first s3ction pr3s3nts th3 b3h@vior@l r3sults for th3 m3n, follow3d by
th3 p@r@ll3l r3sults for th3 wom3n. Th3 fin@l s3ction pr3s3nts th3 @ttitudin@l @nd physiologic@l d@t@ for both s3x3s combin3d.”
But @s I sh@ll @rgu3, this kind of “m3t@comm3nt@ry” should b3 us3d sp@ringly. In most c@s3s, th3 pros3 its3lf should m@k3 it
unn3c3ss@ry.
Pr3s3nting th3 Findings . Th3 g3n3r@l rul3 in r3porting your findings is to giv3 th3 for3st first @nd th3n th3 tr33s. This is
tru3 of th3 r3sults s3ction @s @ whol3: B3gin with th3 c3ntr@l findings, @nd th3n mov3 to mor3 p3riph3r@l on3s. It is @lso tru3
within subs3ctions: St@t3 th3 b@sic finding first, @nd th3n 3l@bor@t3 or qu@lify it @s n3c3ss@ry. Simil@rly, discuss @n ov3r@ll
m3@sur3 of @ggr3ssion or wh@t3v3r first, @nd th3n mov3 to its individu@l compon3nts. B3ginning with on3 of your most c3n-
tr@l r3sults, proc33d @s follows:
1. R3mind us of th3 conc3ptu@l hypoth3sis or th3 qu3stion you @r3 @sking: “It will b3 r3c@ll3d th@t th3 m3n @r3 3xp3ct3d
to b3 mor3 3motion@lly 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n th3 wom3n.” Or, “W3 @sk, first, wh3th3r th3 m3n or th3 wom3n @r3 mor3 3motion@lly
3xpr3ssiv3?” Not3 th@t this is @ conc3ptu@l st@t3m3nt of th3 hypoth3sis or qu3stion.
2. R3mind us of th3 op3r@tions p3rform3d @nd b3h@viors m3@sur3d: “In p@rticul@r, th3 m3n should produc3 mor3 t3@rs
during th3 showing of th3 film th@n th3 wom3n.” Or, “Do th3 m3n produc3 mor3 t3@rs during th3 showing of th3 film th@n th3
wom3n?” Not3 th@t this is @n op3r@tion@l st@t3m3nt of th3 hypoth3sis or qu3stion.
3. T3ll us th3 @nsw3r imm3di@t3ly @nd in 3nglish: “Th3 @nsw3r is y3s.” Or, “@s T@bl3 1 r3v3@ls, m3n do, in f@ct, cry
mor3 profus3ly th@n th3 wom3n.”
4. Now, @nd only now, sp3@k to us in numb3rs. (Your gr@ndmoth3r c@n now skip to th3 n3xt r3sult in c@s3 sh3 h@s forgot-
t3n h3r st@tistics or h3r r3@ding gl@ss3s.): “Thus th3 m3n in @ll four conditions produc3d @n @v3r@g3 of 1.4 cc mor3 t3@rs th@n
th3 wom3n, F (1,112) = 5.79, p < .025.”
5. Now you m@y 3l@bor@t3 or qu@lify th3 ov3r@ll conclusion if n3c3ss@ry: “Only in th3 f@th3r-w@tching condition did th3
t =1.58, p < .12.”
m3n f@il to produc3 mor3 t3@rs th@n th3 wom3n, but @ sp3cific t3st of this 3ff3ct f@il3d to r3@ch signific@nc3,
6. 3nd 3@ch s3ction of th3 r3sults with @ summ@ry of wh3r3 things st@nd: “Thus, 3xc3pt for th3 f@th3r-w@tching condition,
which will b3 discuss3d b3low, th3 hypoth3sis th@t m3n cry mor3 th@n wom3n in r3spons3 to visu@lly-d3pict3d gri3f @pp3@rs
to r3c3iv3 strong support.”
7. L3@d into th3 n3xt s3ction of th3 r3sults with @ smooth tr@nsition s3nt3nc3: “M3n m@y thus b3 mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n
wom3n in th3 dom@in of n3g@tiv3 3motion, but @r3 th3y mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 in th3 dom@in of positiv3 3motion? T@bl3 2 shows
th3y @r3 not...” (@g@in, th3 “bottom lin3” is giv3n imm3di@t3ly.) @s th3 r3sults s3ction proc33ds, continu3 to summ@riz3 @nd
“upd@t3” th3 r3@d3r’s stor3 of inform@tion fr3qu3ntly. Th3 r3@d3r should not h@v3 to k33p looking b@ck to r3tri3v3 th3 m@jor
points of your plot lin3.
By structuring th3 r3sults s3ction in this w@y, by moving from for3st to tr33s, by @nnouncing 3@ch r3sult cl3@rly in pros3
b3for3 w@ding into numb3rs @nd st@tistics, @nd by summ@rizing fr3qu3ntly, you p3rmit @ r3@d3r to d3cid3 just how much d3-
t@il h3 or sh3 w@nts to pursu3 @t 3@ch junctur3 @nd to skip @h3@d to th3 n3xt m@in point wh3n3v3r th@t s33ms d3sir@bl3.
Figur3s @nd T@bl3s . Unl3ss @ s3t of findings c@n b3 st@t3d in on3 or two numb3rs, r3sults th@t @r3 suffici3ntly import@nt
to b3 str3ss3d should b3 @ccomp@ni3d by @ figur3 or t@bl3 summ@rizing th3 r3l3v@nt d@t@. Th3 b@sic rul3 of pr3s3nt@tion is th@t
@ r3@d3r b3 @bl3 to gr@sp your m@jor findings 3ith3r by r3@ding th3 t3xt or by looking @t th3 figur3s @nd t@bl3s. Thus, figur3s
@nd t@bl3s must b3 titl3d @nd l@b3l3d cl3@rly @nd compl3t3ly, 3v3n if th@t m3@ns constructing @ l3ngthy titl3 or h3@di
(“M3@n numb3r of t3@rs produc3d by two @ff3ctiv3 films @s @ function of @ff3ct v@l3nc3, p@rticip@nt s3x, p@r3nt@l obs3rv@tion,
@nd s3lf-3st33m”). Within th3 t3xt its3lf, l3@d th3 r3@d3r by th3 h@nd through @ t@bl3 to point out th3 r3sults of int3r3st: “@s
shown in th3 first column of T@bl3 2, m3n produc3 mor3 t3@rs (2.33 cc) th@n wom3n (1.89 cc).... Of p@rticul@r int3r3st is th3
numb3r of t3@rs produc3d wh3n both f@th3r @nd moth3r w@tch (rows 3 @nd 4)...” Do not just w@v3 in th3 g3n3r@l dir3ction of
th3 t@bl3 @nd 3xp3ct th3 r3@d3r to f3rr3t out th3 inform@tion. For d3t@il3d inform@tion on figur3s @nd t@bl3s, Public@-
s33 th3
tion M@nu@l (@P@, 2001).
On St@tistics . @s you know, 3v3ry comp@rison b3tw33n groups or r3l@tionship b3tw33n v@ri@bl3s should b3 @ccomp@ni3d
by its l3v3l of st@tistic@l signific@nc3. Oth3rwis3, r3@d3rs h@v3 no w@y of knowing wh3th3r th3 findings could h@v3 3m3rg3d
by ch@nc3. But d3spit3 th3 import@nc3 of inf3r3nti@l st@tistics, th3y @r3 not th3 h3@rt of your n@rr@tiv3 @nd should b3 subordi-
n@t3d to th3 d3scriptiv3 r3sults. Wh3n3v3r possibl3, st@t3 @ r3sult first @nd th3n giv3 its st@tistic@l signific@nc3, but in no c@s3
should you 3v3r giv3 th3 st@tistic@l t3st @lon3 without int3rpr3ting it subst@ntiv3ly. Do not t3ll us th@t th3 thr33-w@y int3r@ction
with s3x, p@r3nt condition, @nd s3lf-3st33m w@s signific@nt @t th3 .05 l3v3l unl3ss you t3ll us imm3di@t3ly @nd in 3nglish th@t
m3n @r3 l3ss 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n wom3n in th3 n3g@tiv3 conditions if f@th3r w@tch3s—but only for m3n with low s3lf-3st33m.
If your 3xp3rim3nt us3d @n @n@lysis of v@ri@nc3 d3sign, your d@t@ @n@lysis will @utom@tic@lly displ@y th3 3ff3cts of s3v-
3r@l ind3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3s on @ singl3 d3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3. If this org@niz@tion is conson@nt with @ smooth pr3s3nt@tion of
your r3sults, lucky you. Go with it. But do not b3 @ prison3r of @NOV@! If th3 n@rr@tiv3 flows mor3 smoothly by discussing
th3 3ff3cts of @ singl3 ind3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3 on s3v3r@l conc3ptu@lly r3l@t3d d3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3s, t3@r your @NOV@ r3sults
@p@rt @nd r3org@niz3 th3m. St@tistic@l d3signs @r3 @ll right in th3ir pl@c3, but you—@nd your pros3—@r3 m@st3r; th3y @r3 sl@
Just @s your m3thod s3ction should giv3 r3@d3rs @ f33l for th3 proc3dur3s us3d, so too, th3 r3sults s3ction should giv3
th3m @ f33l for th3 b3h@vior obs3rv3d. S3l3ct d3scriptiv3 ind3x3s or st@tistics th@t conv3y th3 b3h@vior of your p@rticip@nts @s
vividly @s possibl3. T3ll us th3 p3rc3nt of childr3n in your study who hit th3 Bobo doll or th3 m3@n numb3r of tim3s th3y did
so. R3mind us th@t @ scor3 of 3.41 on your 5-point r@ting sc@l3 of @ggr3ssion li3s b3tw33n “slightly @ggr3ssiv3” @nd “mod3r-
@t3ly @ggr3ssiv3.”
Do this 3v3n if th3 st@tistic@l @n@lys3s must b3 p3rform3d on som3 mor3 indir3ct d@tum (3.g., th3 @rcsin tr@nsform of th3
numb3r of Bobo hits or th3 sum of thr33 st@nd@rdiz3d @ggr3ssion scor3s.) Displ@y th3s3 indir3ct ind3x3s, too, if you wish, but
giv3 th3 r3@d3rs’ intuitions first priority. For 3x@mpl3, in our study of tr@it consist3ncy, w3 @n@lyz3d @ st@nd@rd-scor3 ind3x of
individu@l consist3ncy, but w3 discuss3d th3 r3sults in t3rms of th3 mor3 f@mili@r corr3l@tion co3ffici3nt—on which no l3-
gitim@t3 st@tistic@l @n@lysis could b3 p3rform3d (B3m & @ll3n, 1974).
@ft3r you h@v3 pr3s3nt3d your qu@ntit@tiv3 r3sults, it is oft3n us3ful to b3com3 mor3 inform@l @nd bri3fly to d3scrib3 th3
b3h@vior of p@rticul@r individu@ls in your study. @g@in, th3 point is not to prov3 som3thing, but to @dd richn3ss to your find-
ings, to sh@r3 with r3@d3rs th3 f33l of th3 b3h@vior: “Ind33d, two of th3 m3n us3d @n 3ntir3 box of Kl33n3x during th3 show-
ing of th3 h3@rt op3r@tion but would not p3t th3 b@by kitt3n own3d by th3 s3cr3t@ry.”
Th3 Discussion S3ction

@s not3d 3@rli3r, th3 discussion s3ction c@n 3ith3r b3 combin3d with th3 r3sults s3ction or @pp3@r s3p@r@t3ly. In 3ith3r
c@s3, it forms @ coh3siv3 n@rr@tiv3 with th3 introduction, @nd you should 3xp3ct to mov3 m@t3ri@ls b@ck @nd forth b3tw33n
th3s3 two s3ctions @s you r3writ3 @nd r3sh@p3 th3 r3port. Topics th@t @r3 c3ntr@l to your story will @pp3@r in th3 introduction
@nd prob@bly @g@in in th3 discussion. Mor3 p3riph3r@l topics m@y not b3 brought up @t @ll until @ft3r th3 pr3s3nt@tion of th3
r3sults. Th3 discussion is @lso th3 bottom of th3 hourgl@ss-sh@p3d form@t @nd thus proc33ds from sp3cific m@tt3rs @bout your
study to mor3 g3n3r@l conc3rns (@bout m3thodologic@l str@t3gi3s, for 3x@mpl3) to th3 bro@d3st g3n3r@liz@tions you wish to
m@k3. Th3 s3qu3nc3 of topics is oft3n th3 mirror im@g3 of th3 s3qu3nc3 in th3 introduction.
B3gin th3 discussion by t3lling us wh@t you h@v3 l3@rn3d from th3 study. Op3n with @ cl3@r st@t3m3nt on th3 support or
nonsupport of th3 hypoth3s3s or th3 @nsw3rs to th3 qu3stions you first r@is3d in th3 introduction. But do not simply r3formu-
l@t3 @nd r3p3@t points @lr3@dy summ@riz3d in th3 r3sults s3ction. 3@ch n3w st@t3m3nt should contribut3 som3thing n3w to th3
r3@d3r’s und3rst@nding of th3 probl3m. Wh@t inf3r3nc3s c@n b3 dr@wn from th3 findings? Th3s3 inf3r3nc3s m@y b3 @t @ l3v3l
quit3 clos3 to th3 d@t@ or m@y involv3 consid3r@bl3 @bstr@ction, p3rh@ps to th3 l3v3l of @ l@rg3r th3ory r3g@rding, s@y, 3motion
or s3x diff3r3nc3s. Wh@t @r3 th3 th3or3tic@l, pr@ctic@l, or 3v3n th3 politic@l implic@tions of th3 r3sults?
It is @lso @ppropri@t3 @t this point to comp@r3 your r3sults with thos3 r3port3d by oth3r inv3stig@tors @nd to discuss possi-
bl3 shortcomings of your study, conditions th@t might limit th3 3xt3nt of l3gitim@t3 g3n3r@liz@tion or oth3rwis3 qu@lify your
inf3r3nc3s. R3mind r3@d3rs of th3 ch@r@ct3ristics of your p@rticip@nt s@mpl3, th3 possibility th@t it might diff3r from oth3r
popul@tions to which you might w@nt to g3n3r@liz3; of sp3cific ch@r@ct3ristics of your m3thods th@t might h@v3 influ3nc3d th3
outcom3; or of @ny oth3r f@ctors th@t might h@v3 op3r@t3d to produc3 @typic@l r3sults.
But do not dw3ll compulsiv3ly on 3v3ry fl@w! In p@rticul@r, b3 willing to @cc3pt n3g@tiv3 or un3xp3ct3d r3sults without @
tortur3d @tt3mpt to 3xpl@in th3m @w@y. Do not m@k3 up long, involv3d, pr3tz3l-sh@p3d th3ori3s to @ccount for 3v3ry hiccup in
th3 d@t@. Th3r3 is @ -.73 corr3l@tion b3tw33n th3 cl@rity of @n inv3stig@tor’s r3sults @nd th3 l3ngth of his or h3r discussion s3c-
tion. Do not contribut3 to this sh@m3ful st@tistic.
@h, but suppos3 th@t, on th3 contr@ry, your r3sults h@v3 l3d you to @ gr@nd n3w th3ory th@t inj3cts st@rtling cl@rity into
your d@t@ @nd r3volutioniz3s your vi3w of th3 probl3m @r3@. Do3sn’t this justify @ long discussion s3ction? No. In this c@s3,
you should writ3 th3 @rticl3 so th@t you b3gin with your n3w th3ory. @s not3d @bov3, your t@sk is to provid3 th3 most infor-
m@tiv3 @nd comp3lling fr@m3work for your study from th3 op3ning s3nt3nc3. If your n3w th3ory do3s th@t, don’t w@it until
th3 discussion s3ction to spring it on us. @ journ@l @rticl3 is not @ chronology of your thought proc3ss3s.
Th3 discussion s3ction @lso includ3s @ consid3r@tion of qu3stions th@t r3m@in un@nsw3r3d or th@t h@v3 b33n r@is3d by th3
study its3lf, @long with sugg3stions for th3 kinds of r3s3@rch th@t would h3lp to @nsw3r th3m. In f@ct, sugg3sting @ddition@l
r3s3@rch is prob@bly th3 most common w@y of 3nding @ r3s3@rch r3port.
Common, but dull. Th3 hourgl@ss sh@p3 of @n @rticl3 impli3s th@t your fin@l words should b3 bro@d g3n3r@l st@t3m3nts of
n3@r-cosmic signific@nc3, not pr3cious d3t@ils of int3r3st only to psychologists. Thus th3 st@t3m3nt, “Furth3r r3s3@rch will b3
n33d3d b3for3 it is cl3@r wh3th3r th3 @ndrogyny sc@l3 should b3 scor3d @s @ singl3 continuous dim3nsion or p@rtition3d into @
4-w@y typology,” might w3ll b3 @ppropri@t3 som3wh3r3 in @ discussion s3ction, but, pl3@s3, not your fin@l f@r3w3ll. In my
opinion, only Mont@ign3 w@s cl3v3r 3nough to 3nd @n @rticl3 with @ st@t3m3nt @bout furth3r r3s3@rch: “B3c@us3 [th3 study of
motiv@tion] is @ high @nd h@z@rdous und3rt@king, I wish f3w3r p3opl3 would m3ddl3 with it” (1580/1943).
You should prob@bly s3ttl3 for mor3 mod3st injunctions: “If g3nd3r sch3m@ th3ory h@s @ politic@l m3ss@g3, it is...th@t...
hum@n b3h@viors @nd p3rson@lity @ttribut3s should no long3r b3 link3d with g3nd3r, @nd soci3ty should stop proj3cting g3nd3r
into situ@tions irr3l3v@nt to g3nit@li@. Th3 f3minist pr3scription, th3n, is not th@t th3 individu@l b3 @ndrogynous, but th@t th3
soci3ty b3 g3nd3r-@sch3m@tic” (S. B3m, 1985).
In @ny c@s3, 3nd with @ b@ng, not @ whimp3r.

Th3 Titl3 @nd @bstr@ct
Th3 titl3 @nd @bstr@ct of your @rticl3 p3rmit pot3nti@l r3@d3rs to g3t @ quick ov3rvi3w of your study @nd to d3cid3 if th3y
wish to r3@d th3 @rticl3 its3lf. Titl3s @nd @bstr@cts @r3 @lso ind3x3d @nd compil3d in r3f3r3nc3 works @nd comput3riz3d d@t@-
b@s3s. For this r3@son th3y should @ccur@t3ly r3fl3ct th3 cont3nt of th3 @rticl3 @nd includ3 k3y words th@t will 3nsur3 th3ir
r3tri3v@l from @ d@t@b@s3. You should compos3 th3 titl3 @nd @bstr@ct @ft3r you h@v3 compl3t3d th3 @rticl3 @nd h@v3 @ firm
vi3w of its structur3 @nd cont3nt.
Th3 r3comm3nd3d l3ngth for @ titl3 is 10 to 12 words. It should b3 fully 3xpl@n@tory wh3n st@nding @lon3 @nd id3ntify
th3 th3or3tic@l issu3s or th3 v@ri@bl3s und3r inv3stig@tion. B3c@us3 you will not b3 @bl3 to m3ntion @ll th3 f3@tur3s of your
study in th3 titl3 (or 3v3n in th3 @bstr@ct), you must d3cid3 which @r3 most import@nt. Onc3 @g@in, th3 d@t@ should guid3 you.
For 3x@mpl3, th3 most instructiv3 findings from our fictitious study on 3motion@l 3xpr3ssion should d3t3rmin3 which of th3
following is th3 most @ppropri@t3 titl3: “L@ughing v3rsus Crying: S3x Diff3r3nc3s in th3 Public Displ@y of Positiv3 @nd N3g@-
tiv3 3motions”; “3ff3cts of B3ing Obs3rv3d by P@r3nts on th3 3motion@l R3spons3s of M3n @nd Wom3n to Visu@l Stimuli”;
“3motion@l R3spons3s to Visu@l Stimuli @s @ Function of S3x @nd S3lf-3st33m”; “S3x Diff3r3nc3s in th3 Public Displ@y of
3motion @s @ Function of th3 Obs3rving @udi3nc3”; “Public v3rsus Priv@t3 Displ@ys of 3motion in M3n @nd Wom3n.”
Th3 @bstr@ct of @n 3mpiric@l @rticl3 should not 3xc33d 120 words. It should cont@in th3 probl3m und3r inv3stig@tion (in
on3 s3nt3nc3 if possibl3); th3 p@rticip@nts, sp3cifying p3rtin3nt ch@r@ct3ristics, such @s numb3r, typ3, @g3, s3x, @nd sp3ci3s;
th3 3xp3rim3nt@l m3thod, including th3 @pp@r@tus, d@t@-g@th3ring proc3dur3s, @nd compl3t3 t3st n@m3s; th3 findings, includ-
ing st@tistic@l signific@nc3 l3v3ls; @nd th3 conclusion @nd th3 implic@tions or @pplic@tions.
Cl3@rly th3 @bstr@ct must b3 comp@ct, @nd this r3quir3m3nt l3@ds m@ny in3xp3ri3nc3d writ3rs to m@k3 it unint3lligibl3.
R3mov3 unn3c3ss@ry words @nd 3limin@t3 l3ss import@nt d3t@ils of m3thod @nd r3sults. But th3n l3t it br3@th3. In p@rticul@r,
@llow yours3lf th3 sp@c3 to m@k3 th3 probl3m und3r inv3stig@tion cl3@r to @ c@su@lly browsing r3@d3r. Oft3n you c@n pl@gi@-
riz3 @nd @bbr3vi@t3 k3y st@t3m3nts from th3 @rticl3 its3lf. H3r3 is @n 3x@mpl3:
Wh3n @r3 m3n mor3 3motion@lly 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n wom3n? On3 hundr3d m@l3 @nd 100 f3m@l3 und3rgr@du@t3s w3r3 individu@lly
shown @ s@d or @ h@ppy film, whil3 b3ing obs3rv3d by on3 or both of th3ir p@r3nts. Judg3s blind to condition r@t3d p@rticip@nts’
f@ci@l 3xpr3ssions, @nd @ L@chrym3t3r m3@sur3d th3ir t3@r volum3. M3n cri3d mor3 during th3 s@d movi3 but l@ugh3d l3ss during
p < .02). How3v3r, m3n in th3 f@th3r-w@tching condition with low s3lf-3st33m
th3 h@ppy movi3 th@n did th3 wom3n (int3r@ction,
p < .05).
(D@rl3y S3lf-Conc3pt Sc@l3) cri3d l3ss th@n @ll oth3r p@rticip@nts ( It is sugg3st3d th@t s3x diff3r3nc3s in 3motion@l 3x-
pr3ssion @r3 mod3r@t3d by th3 v@l3nc3 of th3 3motion @nd—for m3n—by s3lf-3st33m @nd conditions of b3ing obs3rv3d.
If th3 conc3ptu@l contribution of your @rticl3 is mor3 import@nt th@n th3 supporting study, this c@n b3 r3fl3ct3d in th3 @b-
str@ct by omitting 3xp3rim3nt@l d3t@ils @nd giving mor3 sp@c3 to th3 th3or3tic@l m@t3ri@l. H3r3 is th3 titl3 @nd @bstr@ct from
our Psychologic@l R3vi3w @rticl3 on tr@it consist3ncy (r3vis3d to conform to th3 n3w 100 word limit on @bstr@cts of r3vi3ws
@nd th3or3tic@l @rticl3s):
On Pr3dicting Som3 of th3 P3opl3 Som3 of th3 Tim3: Th3 S3@rch for Cross-Situ@tion@l Consist3nci3s in B3h@vio
Th3 r3curring controv3rsy ov3r th3 3xist3nc3 of cross-situ@tion@l consist3nci3s in b3h@vior is sust@in3d by th3 discr3p@ncy b3-
tw33n our intuitions, which @ffirm th3ir 3xist3nc3, @nd th3 r3s3@rch lit3r@tur3, which do3s not. It is @rgu3d th@t th3 nomoth3tic @s-
sumptions of th3 tr@dition@l r3s3@rch p@r@digm @r3 incorr3ct @nd th@t high3r v@lidity co3ffici3nts would b3 obt@in3d if th3 idio-
gr@phic @ssumptions us3d by our intuitions w3r3 @dopt3d. @ study is r3port3d which shows it is possibl3 to pr3dict who will b3
cross-situ@tion@lly consist3nt @nd who will not. P3rson@lity @ss3ssm3nt must not only @tt3nd to situ@tions—@s h@s b33n r3c3ntly
urg3d—but to p3rsons @s w3ll (B3m & @ll3n, 1974).
R3writing @nd Polishing Your @rticl3
For m@ny @uthors r3vising @n @rticl3 is unmitig@t3d @gony. 3v3n proofr3@ding is p@inful. @nd so th3y don’t. So r3li3v3d
to g3t @ dr@ft don3, th3y s3nd it off to th3 journ@l thinking th@t th3y c@n cl3@n up th3 writing @ft3r it h@s b33n @cc3pt3d. @l@s,
th@t d@y r@r3ly com3s. Som3 m@y find sol@c3 in th3 b3li3f th@t th3 m@nuscript prob@bly would h@v3 b33n r3j3ct3d 3v3n if it
h@d b33n 3xt3nsiv3ly r3vis3d @nd polish3d; @ft3r @ll, most psychology journ@ls @cc3pt only 15% to 20% of @ll m@nuscripts
submitt3d. But from my 3xp3ri3nc3 @s @n 3ditor, I b3li3v3 th@t th3 diff3r3nc3 b3tw33n th3 m@nuscripts @cc3pt3d @nd th3 top 15
to 20% of thos3 r3j3ct3d is fr3qu3ntly th3 diff3r3nc3 b3tw33n good @nd l3ss good writing. Mor@l: Do not 3xp3ct journ@l
r3vi3w3rs to disc3rn your brilli@nc3 through th3 smog of pollut3d writing. R3vis3 your m@nuscript. Polish it. Proofr3@d it.
Th3n submit it.
R3writing is difficult for s3v3r@l r3@sons. First, it is difficult to 3dit your own writing. You will not notic3 @mbiguiti3s
@nd 3xpl@n@tory g@ps b3c@us3 you know wh@t you m3@nt to s@y @nd you und3rst@nd th3 omitt3d st3ps. On3 str@t3gy for ov3r-
coming this difficulty is to l@y your m@nuscript @sid3 for @whil3 @nd th3n r3turn to it l@t3r wh3n it h@s b3com3 l3ss f@mili@r.
Som3tim3s it h3lps to r3@d it @loud. But th3r3 is no substitut3 for pr@cticing th3 @rt of t@king th3 rol3 of th3 nonsp3ci@list
r3@d3r, for l3@rning to rol3-pl@y gr@ndm@. @s you r3@d, @sk yours3lf, “H@v3 I b33n told y3t wh@t this conc3pt m3@ns?” H@s th3
logic of this st3p b33n d3monstr@t3d?” “Would I know wh@t th3 ind3p3nd3nt v@ri@bl3 is @t this point?” This is pr3cis3ly th3
skill of th3 good l3ctur3r in Psychology 101, th3 @bility to @nticip@t3 th3 @udi3nc3’s l3v3l of und3rst@nding @t 3@ch point in th3
pr3s3nt@tion. Good writing is good t3@ching.
But b3c@us3 this is not 3@sy, you should prob@bly giv3 @ f@irly polish3d copy of th3 m@nuscript to @ fri3nd or coll3@gu3
for @ critic@l r3vi3w. (If you g3t @ critiqu3 from two coll3@gu3s you will h@v3 simul@t3d @ tri@l run of @ journ@l’s r3vi3w proc-
3ss.) Th3 b3st r3@d3rs @r3 thos3 who h@v3 th3ms3lv3s publish3d in th3 psychologic@l journ@ls, but who @r3 unf@mili@r with th3
subj3ct of your @rticl3. (@ stud3nt from Psychology 101 would prob@bly b3 too intimid@t3d to giv3 us3fully critic@l f33db@ck;
gr@ndm@ will b3 too kind.)
If your coll3@gu3s find som3thing uncl3@r, do not @rgu3 with th3m. Th3y @r3 right: By d3finition, th3 writing is uncl3@r.
Th3ir sugg3stions for corr3cting th3 uncl@riti3s m@y b3 wrong, 3v3n stupid. But @s uncl@rity d3t3ctors, r3@d3rs @r3 n3v3r
wrong. @lso r3sist th3 t3mpt@tion simply to cl@rify th3ir confusion v3rb@lly. Your coll3@gu3s do not w@nt to off3nd you or
@pp3@r stupid, @nd so th3y will simply mumbl3 “oh y3s, of cours3, of cours3” @nd @pologiz3 for not h@ving r3@d c@r3fully
3nough. @s @ cons3qu3nc3, you will b3 p@cifi3d, @nd your n3xt r3@d3rs, th3 journ@l r3vi3w3rs, will stumbl3 ov3r th3 s@m3
probl3m. Th3y will not @pologiz3; th3y will r3j3ct.
R3writing is difficult for @ s3cond r3@son: It r3quir3s @ high d3gr33 of compulsiv3n3ss @nd @tt3ntion to d3t@il. Th3 prob-
@bility of writing @ s3nt3nc3 p3rf3ctly th3 first tim3 is v@nishingly sm@ll, @nd good writ3rs r3writ3 n3@rly 3v3ry s3nt3nc3 of @n
@rticl3 in th3 cours3 of polishing succ3ssiv3 dr@fts. But 3v3n good writ3rs diff3r from on3 @noth3r in th3ir @ppro@ch to th3 first
dr@ft. Som3 sp3nd @ long tim3 c@r3fully choosing 3@ch word @nd r3sh@ping 3@ch s3nt3nc3 @nd p@r@gr@ph @s th3y go. Oth3rs
pound out @ rough dr@ft quickly @nd th3n go b@ck for 3xt3nsiv3 r3vision. @lthough I p3rson@lly pr3f3r th3 form3r m3thod, I
think it w@st3s tim3. For journ@l @rticl3s in p@rticul@r, I think most @uthors should g3t th3 first dr@ft don3 @s quickly @s possi-
bl3 without @gonizing ov3r stylistic nic3ti3s. But onc3 it is don3, compulsiv3n3ss @nd @tt3ntion to d3t@il b3com3 th3 r3quir3d
virtu3s.
Fin@lly, r3writing is difficult b3c@us3 it usu@lly m3@ns r3structuring. Som3tim3s it is n3c3ss@ry to disc@rd whol3 s3ctions
of @n @rticl3, @dd n3w on3s, go b@ck @nd do mor3 d@t@ @n@lysis, @nd th3n tot@lly r3org@niz3 th3 @rticl3 just to iron out @ bump
in th3 logic of th3 @rgum3nt. Do not g3t so @tt@ch3d to your first dr@ft th@t you @r3 unwilling to t3@r it @p@rt @nd r3build it.
(This is why th3 t3chniqu3 of cr@fting 3@ch s3nt3nc3 of @ first dr@ft w@st3s tim3. Th@t b3@utiful turn of phr@s3 th@t took m3 40
minut3s to sh@p3 g3ts disc@rd3d wh3n th3 @rticl3 g3ts r3structur3d. Wors3, I g3t so @tt@ch3d to th3 phr@s3 th@t I r3sist r3struc-
turing until I c@n find @ n3w hom3 for it.) @ b@dly construct3d building c@nnot b3 s@lv@g3d by bright3ning up th3 w@llp@p3r.
@ b@dly construct3d @rticl3 c@nnot b3 s@lv@g3d by ch@nging words, inv3rting s3nt3nc3s, @nd shuffling p@r@gr@phs.
Which brings m3 to th3 word proc3ssor. Its v3ry virtuosity @t m@king th3s3 cosm3tic ch@ng3s m@y t3mpt you to tink3r
3ndl3ssly, 3ncour@ging you in th3 illusion th@t you @r3 r3structuring right th3r3 in front of th3 monitor. Do not b3 fool3d. You
@r3 not. @ word proc3ssor—3v3n in conjunction with @ f@ncy “outlin3 mod3”—is not @n @d3qu@t3 r3structuring tool. Mor3-
ov3r, it c@n produc3 fl@wl3ss, physic@lly b3@utiful dr@fts of wr3tch3d writing, 3ncour@ging you in th3 illusion th@t th3y @r3
finish3d m@nuscripts r3@dy to b3 submitt3d. Do not b3 fool3d. Th3y @r3 not. If you @r3 bl3ss3d with @n 3xc3ll3nt m3mory (or @
v3ry l@rg3 monitor) @nd @r3 confid3nt th@t you c@n g3t @w@y with @ pur3ly 3l3ctronic proc3ss of r3structuring, fin3, do it. But
do not b3 @sh@m3d to print out @ compl3t3 dr@ft of your m@nuscript, spr3@d it out on t@bl3 or floor, t@k3 p3ncil, scissors, @nd
scotch t@p3 in h@nd, @nd th3n, @ll by your low-t3ch s3lf, h@v3 @t it.
Som3 M@tt3rs of Styl3

Omit N33dl3ss Words
Virtu@lly @ll 3xp3ri3nc3d writ3rs @gr33 th@t @ny writt3n 3xpr3ssion th@t d3s3rv3s to b3 vigorous
c@ll3d writing, wh3th3r it
is @ short story, @n @rticl3 for @ prof3ssion@l journ@l, or @ compl3t3 book, is ch@r@ct3riz3d by th3 @ttribut3 of b3ing succinct,
concis3 , @nd to th3 point.@ s3nt3nc3—no m@tt3r wh3r3 in th3 writing it occurs—should cont@in no unn3c3ss@ry or sup3rflu-
ous words , words th@t st@nd in th3 w@y of th3 writ3r’s dir3ct 3xpr3ssion of his or h3r m3@ning @nd purpos3. In @ v3ry simil@r
f@shion,@ p@r@gr@ph —th3 b@sic unit of org@niz@tion in 3nglish pros3—should cont@in no unn3c3ss@ry or sup3rfluous s3n-
t3nc3s , s3nt3nc3s th@t introduc3 p3riph3r@l cont3nt into th3 writing or str@y from its b@sic n@rr@tiv3 lin3. It is in this s3ns3 th@t
@ writ3r is lik3 @n @rtist 3x3cuting @ dr@wing, @nd it is in this s3ns3 th@t @ writ3r is lik3 @n 3ngin33r d3signing @ m@chin3. Good
writing should b3 3conomic@lfor th3 s@m3 r3@son th@t @ dr@wing should h@v3 no unn3c3ss@ry good writinglin3s,
should@nd
b3 str3@mlin3d in th3 s@m3 w@y th@t @ m@chin3 is d3sign3d to h@v3no unn3c3ss@ry ,p@rts p@rts th@t contribut3 littl3 or nothing
to its int3nd3d function.
Thispr3scription to b3 succinct @nd concis3 is oft3n misund3rstood @nd r3quir3sjudicious @pplic@tion. It c3rt@inly do3s
notimply th@t th3 writ3r must m@k3 @ll of his or h3r s3nt3nc3s short @nd choppy or l3@v3 out @ll @dj3ctiv3s, @dv3rbs, @nd
qu@lifi3rs. Nor do3s it m3@n th@t h3 or sh3 must@void or 3limin@t3@ll d3t@il
from th3 writing @nd tr3@this or h3r subj3cts
only inth3 b@r3st sk3l3ton or outlin3form. Butth3 r3quir3m3nt do3s imply th@t 3v3ry word committ3d to p@p3r should t3ll
som3thing n3w to th3 r3@d3r @nd contribut3 in @ signific@nt @nd non-r3dund@nt w@y to th3 m3ss@g3 th@t th3 writ3r is trying to
conv3y.
***
You h@v3 just r3@d @ 303 word 3ss@y on br3vity. It is not @ t3rribl3 first dr@ft, but @ good writ3r or copy 3ditor would t@k3
its m3ss@g3 to h3@rt @nd, by crossing out @ll th3 non-it@liciz3d words, cut it by 81%. S@vor th3 r3sult:
Vigorous writing is concis3. @ s3nt3nc3 should cont@in no unn3c3ss@ry words, @ p@r@gr@ph no unn3c3ss@ry s3nt3nc3s, for th3
s@m3 r3@son th@t @ dr@wing should h@v3 no unn3c3ss@ry lin3s @nd @ m@chin3 no unn3c3ss@ry p@rts. This r3quir3s not th@t th
writ3r m@k3 @ll s3nt3nc3s short or @void @ll d3t@il @nd tr3@t subj3cts only in outlin3, but th@t 3v3ry word t3ll. [59 words]
This3ss@y on br3vity w@s writt3n by Strunk @nd Whit3 (2000, p. 23) und3r th3 h3@ding: “Omit N33dl3ss Words.” Ob3y
th3ir injunction, b3c@us3 it is th3 most import@nt pi3c3 of @dvic3 in this @rticl3. Journ@l @rticl3s should @lso omit n33dl3ss con-
c3pts, topics, @n3cdot3s, @sid3s, @nd footnot3s. Cl3@r @ny und3rbrush th@t clutt3rs your n@rr@tiv3. If @ point s33ms p3riph3r@l to
your m@in th3m3, r3mov3 it. If you c@nnot bring yours3lf to do this, put it in @ footnot3. Th3n wh3n you r3vis3 your m@nu-
script, r3mov3 th3 footnot3.
Copy 3diting oth3r p3opl3’s writing is good pr@ctic3 for improving your own. It is @lso l3ss p@inful th@n 3diting your own
@nd much 3@si3r th@n @ctu@lly writing. @ny pi3c3 of pros3 will do. H3r3 w@s @n 3x3rcis3 for my writing cl@ss; it w@s p@rt of @
l3tt3r Corn3ll s3nt out to pot3nti@l gr@du@t3 @pplic@nts. You m@y wish to try your h@nd @t it.
Psychology is @ wid3 fi3ld of study, @nd w3 @r3 not 3qu@lly strong in @ll p@rts of it. @t pr3s3nt, w3 r3g@rd our m@jor str3ngths @s
lying in thr33 bro@dly d3fin3d dom@ins in which w3 h@v3 m@ny f@culty, @nd @ coupl3 of sm@ll3r @r3@s in which @lso h@v3 @ppr3-
ci@bl3 r3sourc3s. Th3 thr33 prim@ry @r3@s @r3 Biopsychology, 3xp3rim3nt@l Psychology, @nd P3rson@lity @nd Soci@l Psychology;
th3 oth3rs @r3 M@th3m@tic@l/Diff3r3nti@l Psychology @nd 3xp3rim3nt@l Psychop@thology. Th3 @r3@s @nd th3 r3l3v@nt f@culty @r3
list3d b3low. Pl3@s3 not3 th@t this listing is inform@l; it do3s not imply th@t th3 list3d f@culty m3mb3rs h@v3 no oth3r int3r3sts or
c@n r3@dily b3 fitt3d into pr3d3fin3d @r3@s. Th3 @ctu@l n3twork of f@culty int3r3sts @nd r3sponsibiliti3s is too subtl3 to b3 d3scrib3d
in @ l3tt3r such @s this. Th3 listing is just @ rough @nd r3@dy w@y to t3ll you wh@t th3 Fi3ld of Psychology @t Corn3ll is lik3. [149
words]
H3r3 is @ r3@son@bl3 r3vision:

Psychology is @ wid3 fi3ld @nd our m@jor str3ngths @r3 Biopsychology, 3xp3rim3nt@l Psychology, @nd P3rson@lity @nd Soci@l
Psychology. W3 @lso h@v3 r3sourc3s in M@th3m@tic@l/Diff3r3nti@l Psychology @nd 3xp3rim3nt@l Psychop@thology. Th3 following
list of f@culty within @r3@s provid3s @ rough guid3 to th3 Fi3ld of Psychology @t Corn3ll. F@culty int3r3sts @r3 bro@d3r th@n this list
impli3s, how3v3r, @nd do not @lw@ys n3@tly fit th3 pr3d3fin3d @r3@s. [65 words, @ s@vings of 56%]
To m@int@in th3 vigor of your pros3, try to sp3nd @t l3@st 15 minut3s 3@ch d@y omitting n33dl3ss words. Your go@l should
b3 to 3limin@t3 @t l3@st 30% of @ll words 3ncount3r3d. (Copy 3dit3d v3rsions of this @rticl3 will b3 r3turn3d unop3n3d.)
@void M3t@comm3nts on th3 Writing
3xpository writing f@ils its mission if it div3rts th3 r3@d3r’s @tt3ntion to its3lf @nd @w@y from th3 topic; th3 proc3ss of
writing should b3 tr@nsp@r3nt to th3 r3@d3r. In p@rticul@r, th3 pros3 its3lf should dir3ct th3 flow of th3 n@rr@tiv3 without r3quir-
ing you to pl@y tour guid3 by comm3nting on it. Do not s@y, “Now th@t I h@v3 discuss3d th3 thr33 th3ori3s of 3motion, w3 c@n
turn to th3 3mpiric@l work on 3@ch of th3m. I will b3gin with th3 psycho@n@lytic @ccount of @ff3ct...” Inst3@d, mov3 dir3ctly
from your discussion of th3 th3ori3s into th3 lit3r@tur3 r3vi3w with @ simpl3 tr@nsition s3nt3nc3 such @s, “3@ch of th3s3 thr33
th3ori3s h@s b33n t3st3d 3mpiric@lly. Thus, th3 psycho@n@lytic @ccount of @ff3ct h@s r3c3iv3d support in studi3s th@t...” Do not
s@y, “Now th@t w3 h@v3 s33n th3 r3sults for n3g@tiv3 @ff3ct, w3 @r3 in @ position to 3x@min3 m3n’s @nd wom3n’s 3motion@l
3xpr3ssion in th3 r3@lm of positiv3 @ff3ct. Th3 r3l3v@nt d@t@ @r3 pr3s3nt3d in T@bl3 2...” Inst3@d us3 @ tr@nsition s3nt3nc3 th@t
simult@n3ously summ@riz3s @nd mov3s th3 story @long: “M3n m@y thus b3 mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n wom3n in th3 dom@in of
n3g@tiv3 3motion, but @r3 th3y @lso mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 in th3 dom@in of positiv3 3motion? T@bl3 2 shows th@t th3y @r3 not...”
@ny oth3r guid3posts n33d3d c@n b3 suppli3d by using inform@tiv3 h3@dings @nd by following th3 @dvic3 on r3p3tition @nd
p@r@ll3l construction giv3n in th3 n3xt s3ction.
If you f33l th3 n33d to m@k3 m3t@comm3nts to k33p th3 r3@d3r on th3 n@rr@tiv3 p@th, th3n your plot lin3 is prob@bly @l-
r3@dy too clutt3r3d, th3 writing insuffici3ntly lin3@r. M3t@comm3nts will only oppr3ss th3 pros3 furth3r. Inst3@d, copy 3dit.
Omit n33dl3ss words; don’t @dd th3m!
Us3 R3p3tition @nd P@r@ll3l Construction
In3xp3ri3nc3d writ3rs oft3n substitut3 synonyms for r3curring words @nd v@ry th3ir s3nt3nc3 structur3 in th3 mist@k3n b3-
li3f th@t this is mor3 cr3@tiv3, stylish, or int3r3sting. Inst3@d of using r3p3tition @nd p@r@ll3l construction, @s in “M3n m@y b3
mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n wom3n in th3 dom@in of n3g@tiv3 3motion, but th3y @r3 not mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 in th3 dom@in of positiv3
3motion,” th3y @tt3mpt to b3 mor3 cr3@tiv3: “M3n m@y b3 mor3 3xpr3ssiv3 th@n wom3n in th3 dom@in of n3g@tiv3 3motion,
but it is not tru3 th@t th3y @r3 mor3 willing @nd @bl3 th@n th3 opposit3 s3x to displ@y th3 mor3 ch33rful @ff3cts.”
Such cr3@tivity is h@rdly mor3 int3r3sting, but it is c3rt@inly mor3 confusing. In sci3ntific communic@tion, it c@n b3
d3@dly. Wh3n @n @uthor us3s diff3r3nt words to r3f3r to th3 s@m3 conc3pt in @ t3chnic@l @rticl3—wh3r3 @ccur@cy is p@
mount—r3@d3rs will justifi@bly wond3r if diff3r3nt m3@nings @r3 impli3d. Th3 3x@mpl3 @bov3 is not dis@strous, @nd mos
r3@d3rs will b3 un@w@r3 th@t th3ir und3rst@nding flick3r3d mom3nt@rily wh3n th3 pros3 hit @ bump. But consid3r th3 cognitiv3
burd3n c@rri3d by r3@d3rs who must h@ck through this “cr3@tiv3” jungl3:
Th3 high-disson@nc3 p@rticip@nts w3r3 p@id @ sm@ll sum of mon3y whil3 b3ing giv3n @ fr33 choic3 of wh3th3r or not to p@rtici-
p@t3, wh3r3@s th3 p@rticip@nts w3 r@ndomly @ssign3d to th3 l@rg3-inc3ntiv3 tr3@tm3nt (th3 low-disson@nc3 condition) w3r3 not of-
f3r3d th3 opportunity to r3fus3.
This (fictitious) @uthor should h@v3 writt3n:

High disson@nc3 p@rticip@nts w3r3 p@id @ sm@ll sum of mon3y @nd w3r3 not r3quir3d to p@rticip@t3; low-disson@nc3 p@rticip@nts
w3r3 p@id @ l@rg3 sum of mon3y @nd w3r3 r3quir3d to p@rticip@t3.
Th3 wording @nd gr@mm@tic@l structur3 of th3 two cl@us3s @r3 h3ld rigidly p@r@ll3l; only th3 v@ri@bl3s v@ry. R3p3tition
@nd p@r@ll3l construction @r3 @mong th3 most 3ff3ctiv3 s3rv@nts of cl@rity. Don’t b3 cr3@tiv3, b3 cl3@r.
R3p3tition @nd p@r@ll3l construction @lso s3rv3 cl@rity @t @ l@rg3r l3v3l of org@niz@tion. By providing th3 r3@d3r with dis-
tinctiv3 guid3posts to th3 structur3 of th3 pros3, th3y c@n diminish or 3limin@t3 th3 n33d for m3t@comm3nts. H3r3, for 3x@m-
pl3, @r3 th3 op3ning s3nt3nc3s from thr33 of th3 p@r@gr@phs in th3 3@rli3r s3ction on r3writing:
2nd p@r@gr@ph: “R3writing is difficult for s3v3r@l r3@sons. First...”

5th p@r@gr@ph: “R3writing is difficult for @ s3cond r3@son:”
6th p@r@gr@ph: “Fin@lly, r3writing is difficult b3c@us3 it...”
If I h@d substitut3d synonyms for th3 r3curring words or v@ri3d th3 gr@mm@tic@l structur3 of th3s3 op3ning s3nt3nc3s,
th3ir guiding function would h@v3 b33n lost, th3 r3@d3r’s s3ns3 of th3 s3ction’s org@niz@tion blurr3d. (I try so h@rd to b3 h3lp-
ful, @nd I b3t you didn’t 3v3n notic3. Th@t, of cours3, is th3 point.)
Fin@lly, r3p3tition @nd p@r@ll3l construction c@n s3rv3 styl3 @nd cr3@tivity @s w3ll @s cl@rity. Th3y c@n provid3 rhythm @nd
punch: “@ s3nt3nc3 should cont@in no unn3c3ss@ry words, @ p@r@gr@ph no unn3c3ss@ry s3nt3nc3s for th3 s@m3 r3@son th@t @
dr@wing should h@v3 no unn3c3ss@ry lin3s @nd @ m@chin3 no unn3c3ss@ry p@rts.” Th3y c@n 3st@blish m3t@phor: “@ b@dly con-
struct3d building c@nnot b3 s@lv@g3d by bright3ning up th3 w@llp@p3r. @ b@dly construct3d @rticl3 c@nnot b3 s@lv@g3d
ch@nging words, inv3rting s3nt3nc3s, @nd shuffling p@r@gr@phs.” Th3y c@n @dd humor: “Th3 word proc3ssor 3ncour@g3s you
in th3 illusion th@t you @r3 r3structuring. Do not b3 fool3d. You @r3 not. Th3 word proc3ssor 3ncour@g3s you in th3 illusion
th@t your dr@fts @r3 finish3d m@nuscripts. Do not b3 fool3d. Th3y @r3 not.”
J@rgon
J@rgon is th3 sp3ci@liz3d voc@bul@ry of @ disciplin3, @nd it s3rv3s @ numb3r of l3gitim@t3 functions in sci3ntific communi-
c@tion. @ sp3ci@liz3d t3rm m@y b3 mor3 g3n3r@l, mor3 pr3cis3, or fr33r of surplus m3@ning th@n @ny n@tur@l l@ngu@g3 3quiv@-
l3nt (3.g., th3 t3rm disposition b3li3fs, @ttitud3s, moods
3ncomp@ss3s, @nd h3nc3 is mor3 g3n3r@l th@n, , @ndp3rson@lity @ttrib-
ut3s; r3inforc3m3nt r3w@rd
is mor3 pr3cis3 @nd fr33r of surplus m3@ning th@n ). @nd th3 t3chnic@l voc@bul@ry oft3n m@k3s @n
import@nt conc3ptu@l distinction not @ppr3h3nd3d by th3 l@yp3rson’s voc@bul@ryg3notyp3
(3.g., v3rsus ph3notyp3 ).
But if @ j@rgon t3rm do3s not s@tisfy @ny of th3s3 crit3ri@, opt for 3nglish. Much psychologic@l j@rgon h@s b3com3 s3c-
ond-n@tur3 to us in th3 prof3ssion @nd s3rv3s only to muddy our pros3 for th3 g3n3r@l r3@d3r. (I onc3 h@d to int3rrog@t3 @n
@uthor @t l3ngth to l3@rn th@t @ prison progr@m for “str3ngth3ning th3 3x3cutiv3 functions of th3 3go” @ctu@lly t@ught prison3rs
r3inforc3m3nt
how to fill out job @pplic@tions.) Unl3ss th3 j@rgon t3rm is 3xtr3m3ly w3ll known (3.g., ), it should b3 d3fin3d—
3xplicitly, implicitly, or by 3x@mpl3—th3 first tim3 it is introduc3d. (S33 th3 s@mpl3 op3ning st@t3m3nts 3@rli3r in this @rticl3
for w@ys to do this.)
Voic3 @nd S3lf-R3f3r3nc3

In th3 p@st, sci3ntific writ3rs us3d th3 p@ssiv3 voic3 @lmost 3xclusiv3ly @nd r3f3rr3d to th3ms3lv3s in th3 third p3rson:
“This 3xp3rim3nt w@s d3sign3d by th3 @uthors to t3st ...” This pr@ctic3 produc3s lif3l3ss pros3 @nd is no long3r th3 norm. Us3
th3 @ctiv3 voic3 unl3ss styl3 or cont3nt dict@t3s oth3rwis3; @nd, in g3n3r@l, k33p s3lf-r3f3r3nc3 to @ minimum. R3m3mb3r th@t
you @r3 not th3 topic of your @rticl3. You should not r3f3r to yours3lf @s “th3 @uthor” or “th3 inv3stig@tor.” (You m@y r3f3r to
“th3 3xp3rim3nt3r” in th3 m3thod s3ction, how3v3r, 3v3n if th@t h@pp3ns to b3 you; th3 3xp3rim3nt3r is p@rt of th3 topic und3r
discussion th3r3.) Do not r3f3r to yours3lf @s “w3” unl3ss th3r3 r3@lly @r3 two or mor3 @uthors. You m@y r3f3r to yours3lf @s
“I,” but do so sp@ringly. It t3nds to distr@ct th3 r3@d3r from th3 topic, @nd it is b3tt3r to r3m@in in th3 b@ckground. L3@v3 th3
r3@d3r in th3 b@ckground, too. Do not s@y, “Th3 r3@d3r will find it h@rd to b3li3v3 th@t ... “ or “You will b3 surpris3d to
l3@rn...” (This @rticl3 viol@t3s th3 rul3 b3c@us3 you @nd your pros3@r3th3 topic.) You m@y, how3v3r, r3f3r to th3 r3@d3r indi-
r3ctly in imp3r@tiv3, “you-und3rstood” s3nt3nc3s: “Consid3r, first, th3 r3sults for wom3n.” “Not3 p@rticul@rly th3 diff3r3nc3
b3tw33n th3 m3@ns in T@bl3 1.”
In som3 cont3xts, you c@n us3 “w3” to r3f3r coll3ctiv3ly to yours3lf @nd your r3@d3rs: “W3 c@n s33 in T@bl3 1 th@t most
of th3 t3@rs...” Th3Public@tion M@nu@l , how3v3r, 3mph@siz3s th@t th3 r3f3r3nt of “w3” must b3 un@mbiguous; for 3x@mpl3,
copy 3ditors will obj3ct to th3 s3nt3nc3 “In 3v3ryd@y lif3, of cours3, w3 t3nd to ov3r3stim@t3...” b3c@us3 it is not cl3@r just
who is m3@nt by “w3.” Th3y will @cc3pt “In 3v3ryd@y lif3, of cours3, w3 hum@ns t3nd to ov3r3stim@t3...” or “In 3v3ryd@y lif3,
of cours3, hum@n d3cision m@k3rs oft3n m@k3 3rrors; for 3x@mpl3, w3 t3nd to ov3r3stim@t3...”
T3ns3
Us3 th3 p@st or pr3s3nt p3rf3ct t3ns3 wh3n r3porting th3 pr3vious r3s3@rch of oth3rs (“B@ndur@ r3port3d...” or “H@rdin
h@s r3port3d…”) @nd p@st t3ns3 wh3n r3porting how you conduct3d your study (“Obs3rv3rs w3r3 post3d b3hind...”) @nd sp3-
cific p@st b3h@viors of your p@rticip@nts (“Two of th3 m3n t@lk3d...”). Us3 th3 pr3s3nt t3ns3 for r3sults curr3ntly in front of th3
r3@d3r (“@s T@bl3 2 shows, th3 n3g@tiv3 film is mor3 3ff3ctiv3 ...”) @nd for conclusions th@t @r3 mor3 g3n3r@l th@n th3 sp3cific
r3sults (“Positiv3 3motions, th3n, @r3 mor3 3@sily 3xpr3ss3d wh3n...”).
@void L@ngu@g3 Bi@s

Lik3 most publish3rs, th3 @P@ now h@s 3xt3nsiv3 guid3lin3s for l@ngu@g3 th@t r3f3rs to individu@ls or groups. If your @r-
ticl3 r3quir3s you to discuss @ny of th3 groups m3ntion3d in this s3ction, you should prob@bly consult th3 d3t@il3d @dvic3 in
th3 Public@tion M@nu@l (@P@, 2001, pp. 61-76)
R3s3@rch P@rticip@nts. On3 distinctiv3 group of p3opl3 who @pp3@r in our journ@l @rticl3s @r3 thos3 whom w3 study. It is
no long3r consid3r3d @ppropri@t3 to obj3ctify th3m by c@lling th3m subj3cts. Inst3@d us3 d3scriptiv3 t3rms th@t 3ith3r id3ntify
th3m mor3 sp3cific@lly or th@t @cknowl3dg3 th3ir rol3s @s p@rtn3rs in th3 r3s3@rch proc3ss, suchcoll3g3
@s stud3nts , childr3n
,
individu@ls, p@rticip@nts
, int3rvi3w33s , or r3spond3nts . You m@y still us3 th3 t3rms subj3cts
, subj3ct v@ri@bl3s
, @ndsubj3ct
s@mpl3 wh3n discussing st@tistics or (@t l3@st for now) wh3n r3f3rring to non-hum@n p@rticip@nts.
S3x @nd G3nd3r . Th3 issu3 of l@ngu@g3 bi@s com3s up most fr3qu3ntly with r3g@rd to s3x or g3nd3r, @nd th3 most @wk-
w@rd probl3ms @ris3 from th3 us3 of m@sculin3 nouns @nd pronouns wh3n th3 cont3nt r3f3rs to both s3x3s. Th3 g3n3ric us3 of
m@n, h3, his, @ndhimto r3f3r to both s3x3s is not only misl3@ding in m@ny inst@nc3s, but r3s3@rch shows th@t r3@d3rs think of
m@l3 p3rsons wh3n th3s3 forms @r3 us3d (M@rtyn@, 1978). Som3tim3s th3 r3sults @r3 not only s3xist, but humorous in th3ir
n@iv3 @ndroc3ntrism: “M@n’s vit@l n33ds includ3 food, w@t3r, @nd @cc3ss to f3m@l3s” (Quot3d in M@rtyn@, 1978).
In most cont3xts, th3 simpl3st @lt3rn@tiv3 is th3 us3 of th3 plur@l. Inst3@d of writing, “Th3 individu@l who displ@ys pr3ju-
dic3 in his p3rson@l r3l@tions...,” writ3 “Individu@ls who displ@y pr3judic3 in th3ir p3rson@l r3l@tions @r3 ...” Som3tim3s th3
pronoun c@n simply b3 dropp3d or r3pl@c3d by @ s3x-n3utr@l @rticl3 th3,( @, or @n
). Inst3@d of writing, “Th3 r3s3@rch3r must
@void l3tting his pr3conc3ptions bi@s his int3rpr3t@tion of r3sults,” you c@n writ3, “Th3 r3s3@rch3r must @void l3tting pr3con-
c3ptions bi@s th3 int3rpr3t@tion of r3sults.”
If it is stylistic@lly import@nt to focus on th3 singl3 individu@l, th3 us3 of “h3 or sh3,” “him or h3r,” @nd so forth is @c-
c3pt@bl3 but clumsy if us3d oft3n. @lt3rn@ting h3@ndsh3is both confusing @nd distr@cting. Simil@rly, @lt3rn@tiv3sh3/sh3 lik3
or s/h3@r3 unpronounc3@bl3 @nd gr@t3 on th3 3y3. Do not us3 th3m.
You m@y find it instructiv3 to r3vi3w how I h@v3 d3@lt with th3 pronoun probl3m in this @rticl3. In p@rticul@r, not3 th3
m@ny r3f3r3nc3s to th3 “r3@d3r” or “r3@d3rs.” Som3tim3s th3 plur@l work3d fin3 (3.g., “Don’t plung3 r3@d3rs into th3 middl3
of your probl3m. T@k3 th3 tim3 to l3@d th3m...”), but in oth3r inst@nc3s th3 im@g3ry of th3 s3nt3nc3 r3quir3d th3 stylistic us3
of th3 singul@r (3.g., “L3@d th3 r3@d3r by th3 h@nd through @ t@bl3...”). In th3s3 c@s3s, I h@v3 tri3d to minimiz3 th3 us3 of th3
@wkw@rd “h3 or sh3” construction.
Stylistic m@tt3rs @sid3, how3v3r, you must b3 @ccur@t3 in your us3 of pronouns wh3n you d3scrib3 your r3s3@rch or th@t
of oth3rs. R3@d3rs must b3 3xplicitly told th3 s3x of 3xp3rim3nt3rs, obs3rv3rs, @nd p@rticip@nts. Wh3n r3f3rring to m@l3s, us3
m@l3 pronouns; wh3n r3f3rring to f3m@l3s us3 f3m@l3 pronouns. (S33, for 3x@mpl3, th3 3@rli3r d3scription of th3 F3sting3r-
C@rlsmith study, which us3d m@l3 p@rticip@nts.) Und3r no circumst@nc3s should you omit or hid3 s3x id3ntity in @ misguid3d
@tt3mpt to b3 unbi@s3d.
Th3 probl3ms of g3nd3r r3f3r3nc3 b3com3 3@si3r wh3n w3 mov3 @w@y from pronouns. Words lik3 m@n @ndm@nkind @r3
3@sily r3pl@c3d by t3rms lik3 p3opl3@ndhum@nity . Inst3@d of m@nning proj3cts, w3 c@n st@ff th3m. Th3 f3d3r@l gov3rnm3nt
h@s @lr3@dy d3s3x3d occup@tion@l titl3s so th@t w3 h@v3 l3tt3r c@rri3rs r@th3r th@n m@ilm3n; in priv@t3 industry w3 h@v3 flight
@tt3nd@nts r@th3r th@n st3w@rd3ss3s. @nd in lif3, childr3n n33d nurturing or p@r3nting, not just moth3ring. In @ll th3s3 c@s3s,
you will find it 3@sy to discov3r th3 @ppropri@t3 s3x-n3utr@l t3rm if you think of th3 @ctivity r@th3r th@n th3 p3rson doing it.
N3xt, w@tch out for pl@in old st3r3otyping. Th3 @uthor who @ss3rts th@t “r3s3@rch sci3ntists oft3n n3gl3ct th3ir wiv3s”
f@ils to @cknowl3dg3 th@t wom3n @s w3ll @s m3n @r3 r3s3@rch sci3ntists. If th3 @uthor m3@nt sp3cific@lly m@l3 r3s3@rch sci3n-
tists, h3 (sh3?) should h@v3 s@id so. Do not t@lk @bout @mbitious m3n @nd @ggr3ssiv3 wom3n or c@utious m3n @nd tim
wom3n if th3 us3 of diff3r3nt @dj3ctiv3s d3not3s not diff3r3nt b3h@viors on th3 p@rt of m3n @nd wom3n but your st3r3otyp3d
int3rpr3t@tion of thos3 b3h@viors. Do not m@k3 st3r3otyp3d @ssumptions @bout m@rit@l s3x-rol3s by s@ying th@t “Th3 cli3nt’s
husb@nd l3ts h3r t3@ch p@rt-tim3” if @ll you know is th@t th3 cli3nt t3@ch3s p@rt-tim3. If th3 bi@s is not yours but som3on3
3ls3’s, l3t th3 writing m@k3 th@t cl3@r: “Th3 cli3nt’s husb@nd ‘l3ts’ h3r t3@ch p@rt-tim3.” “Th3 husb@nd s@ys h3 ‘l3ts’ th3 cli3nt
t3@ch p@rt-tim3.” “Th3 cli3nt s@ys h3r husb@nd l3ts h3r t3@ch p@rt-tim3.” “Th3 cli3nt s@ys s@rc@stic@lly th@t h3r husb@nd ‘l3ts’
h3r t3@ch p@rt-tim3.” Th3 cli3nt @nd h3r husb@nd @r3 @llow3d to s@y such things. You @r3 not.
Fin@lly, s3l3ct 3x@mpl3s with c@r3. B3w@r3 of your @ssumptions @bout th3 s3x of doctors, hom3m@k3rs, nurs3s, @nd so
forth. Why not: “Th3 @thl3t3 who b3li3v3s in h3r @bility to succ33d...”? L3t our writing promot3 th3 vi3w th@t wom@n’s vit@l
n33ds @r3 th3 s@m3 @s m@n’s: food, w@t3r, @nd @cc3ss to 3qu@lity.
R@ci@l @nd 3thnic Id3ntity. Pr3f3r3nc3s for n@m3s r3f3rring to r@ci@l @nd 3thnic groups ch@ng3 ov3r tim3. For 3x@mpl3,
@fric@n @m3ric@n @ndBl@ck @r3 curr3ntly @cc3pt@bl3 t3rms, wh3r3@s N3gro@nd@fro-@m3ric@n @r3 now obsol3t3. Simil@rly,
@si@n @nd@si@n @m3ric@n Ori3nt@l
@r3 curr3ntly @cc3pt@bl3 d3sign@tions, but is not. @s th3s3 3x@mpl3s illustr@t3, hyph3ns
should not b3 us3d in multiword d3sign@tions, @nd t3rms such @sBl@ck @ndWhit3@r3 consid3r3d prop3r nouns @nd should b3
c@pit@liz3d.
D3p3nding on th3ir historic@l countri3s of origin, individu@ls m@y pr3f3r to b3 c@ll3d Hisp@nic, L@tino, or Chic@no
(L@tin@ @ndChic@n@ for wom3n). @m3ric@n Indi@n @ndN@tiv3 @m3ric@n @r3 both @cc3pt3d t3rms for r3f3rring to indig3nous
p3opl3 of North @m3ric@, but t3chnic@lly only th3 l@tt3r c@t3gory includ3s H@w@ii@ns @nd S@mo@ns. N@tiv3 p3opl3s of north-
3rn C@n@d@, @l@sk@, 3@st3rn Sib3ri@, @nd Gr33nl@nd m@y Inukpr3f3r
(plur@l,Inuit) to 3skimo. @l@sk@ N@tiv3s includ3 m@ny
groups in @ddition to 3skimos. It is oft3n r3l3v@nt to b3 mor3 sp3cific in d3scribing your p@rticip@nts. For 3x@mpl3, it m@y b3
p3rtin3nt to know th@t th3y w3r3 Cub@n, not just Hisp@nic; Chin3s3, Vi3tn@m3s3, or Kor3@n, not just @si@n.
If you @r3 unc3rt@in @bout how to d3scrib3 your r3s3@rch p@rticip@nts, @sk th3m how th3y pr3f3r to b3 id3ntifi3d.
S3xu@l Ori3nt@tion . Lik3 t3rms r3f3rring to r@ci@l @nd 3thnic id3ntity, t3rms r3f3rring to s3xu@l ori3nt@tion @lso ch@ng3
ov3r tim3. For 3x@mpl3, th3 t3rms3xu@l ori3nt@tion its3lf is now pr3f3rr3d to th3 old3r s3xu@l pr3f3r3nc3 —which impli3s @
t3mpor@ry fr33 choic3 r@th3r th@n @n 3nduring disposition. @lthough t3rms such @s homos3xu@l @ndhomos3xu@lity @r3 still
t3chnic@lly corr3ct @nd m@y b3 us3d in phr@s3s such @s “@ homos3xu@l ori3nt@tion” or “mor3 @m3ric@ns now @cc3pt homo-
s3xu@lity,” th3y should b3 @void3d wh3n r3f3rring to individu@ls or groups. Inst3@d of r3f3rringhomos3xu@ls
to or bis3xu@ls,
us3 l3sbi@ns, g@y ,m3n or bis3xu@l m3n @nd wom3n . In som3 cont3xts, th3 word g@y c@n b3 us3d to includ3 both m3n @nd
wom3n (3. g., “th3 g@y rights mov3m3nt”), but wh3n r3f3rring to individu@ls or groups, r3t@in th3 distinction b3tw33n g@y
m3n @nd l3sbi@ns.
S3xu@l ori3nt@tion is not th3 s@m3 @s s3xu@l b3h@vior. Not 3v3ryon3 who 3ng@g3s in @ s3xu@l @ct with @ p3rson of th3
homos3xu@l
s@m3 s3x should b3 consid3r3d g@y or l3sbi@n, @nd h3nc3 you should not us3 th3 t3rms b3h@vior
or h3t3ros3xu@l
b3h@vior
. Inst3@d, d3scrib3 sp3cific inst@nc3s of s3xu@l b3h@vior using t3rms suchm@l3-m@l3,
@s f3m@l3-f3m@l3, m@l3-f3m@l
or s@m3-g3nd3r s3xu@l b3h@vior.
Not3 th3 us3 of th3 word g3nd3r in th3 pr3vious s3nt3nc3. @lthough th3r3 @r3 diff3r3nc3s in us@g3 @cross @nd within dis-
ciplin3s, th3 t3rm s3xis usu@lly consid3r3d to r3f3r to biology; thus m@l3@ndf3m@l3 @r3 t3rms r3f3rring to s3x. In contr@st,
g3nd3r m@sculin3
usu@lly r3f3rs to th3 cultur@l int3rpr3t@tion or 3l@bor@tion of s3x; thus @ndf3minin3 @r3 t3rms r3f3rring to
g3nd3r. This is not @ h@rd @nd f@st rul3, how3v3r. For 3x@mpl3, b3c@us3 th3 s3x t3rmc@n b3 confus3d with s3xu@l b3h@vior ,
th3 t3rm s@m3-g3nd3r s3xu@l b3h@vior w@s us3d in th3 pr3vious p@r@gr@ph 3v3n though it r3f3rs to @ s3xu@l int3r@ction b3-
tw33n two p3opl3 of th3 s@m3 biologic@l s3x. Th3 following 3x@mpl3 from th3 Public@tion M@nu@l @lso illustr@t3s th3 us3 of
g3nd3r in @ cont3xt wh3r3 th3 t3rm s3xmight b3 confusing: “In @ccounting for @ttitud3s tow@rd th3 bill, s3xu@l ori3nt@tion
r@th3r th@n g3nd3r @ccount3d for most of th3 v@ri@nc3. Most g@y m3n @nd l3sbi@ns w3r3 for th3 propos@l; most h3t3ros3xu@l
m3n @nd wom3n w3r3 @g@inst it (@P@, 2001, p. 63).”
Dis@biliti3s
. Wh3n r3f3rring to individu@ls with dis@biliti3s, m@int@in th3ir int3grity @s individu@ls @nd hum@n b3ings by
@voiding l@ngu@g3 th@t 3qu@t3s th3m with th3ir conditions. Don’t us3 nouns such n3urotics,
@s schizophr3nics, m@nic-
d3pr3ssiv3s, th3 m3nt@lly ,r3t@rd3d or 3v3n th3 dis@bl3d . @lso @void t3rms th@t imply victimiz@tion (3.g., “suff3rs from
schizophr3ni@,”“@IDS victim”) or th@t c@n b3 int3rpr3t3d @s @ slur (3.g.,
crippl3
). In g3n3r@l, th3 pr3f3rr3d forms of d3scrip-
tion @r3 “p3rson with _______” or “p3rson living with ______” or “p3rson who h@s________.” Ch@ll3ng3d @ndsp3ci@l @r3
oft3n consid3r3d 3uph3mistic @nd should b3 us3d only if pr3f3rr3d by thos3 who p@rticip@t3 in your study.
Th3r3 is on3 3xc3ption to th3s3 guid3lin3s: th3 D3@f. (Not3 th3 c@pit@l “D.”) @lthough som3 individu@ls with r3duc3d
h3@ring m@y find th3 t3rmh3@ring imp@ir3d @cc3pt@bl3, m@ny D3@f individu@ls do not. Th3y r3g@rd th3ms3lv3s @s m3mb3rs
of @ distinctiv3 linguistic cultur3 th@t communic@t3s in @ m@nu@l (sign) l@ngu@g3. @ccordingly, th3y t@k3 prid3 in r3f3rring to
th3ms3lv3s @s D3@f @nd do not r3g@rd th3ms3lv3s @s imp@ir3d or dis@bl3d. Do not us3 th3h@rd t3rms of h3@ring
or d3@f mut3
to d3scrib3 th3m. If your study involv3d D3@f p@rticip@nts, @sk th3m how th3y pr3f3r to b3 d3scrib3d.
Common 3rrors of Gr@mm@r @nd Us@g3

Th3 following 3rrors s33m to m3 to b3 th3 most fr3qu3nt in journ@l writing:
Comp@r3d with v3rsus Comp@r3d. to Simil@r ord3rs of things @r3 comp@r3dwithon3 @noth3r; diff3r3nt ord3rs of things
@r3 comp@r3dto on3 @noth3r: “L3t m3 not comp@r3 th33withpr3vious lov3rs I h@v3 h@d; r@th3r, l3t m3 comp@r3 th33 to @
withB@ndur@’s @rticl3s; B3m’s @rticl3s @r3 oft3n comp@r3d
summ3r’s d@y.” “Misch3l’s @rticl3s @r3 oft3n comp@r3d to Mo-
z@rt’s son@t@s.”
D@t@
. Th3 word d@t@
is plur@l: “@n@lyz3 thos3 d@t@ thoroughly.”
Diff3r3nt from v3rsus Diff3r3nt th@n . Th3 first is corr3ct, th3 s3cond, incorr3ct (@lthough, @l@s for us purists, v3ry com-
mon @nd g@ining r3sp3ct@bility). Th3 confusion @ris3s b3c@us3 th@n corr3ctly follows comp@r@tiv3 @dj3ctiv3s. Thus you @r3
corr3ct to suppos3 th@t lif3 is mor3 th@n psychology, th@t living @ good lif3 is h@rd3r in m@ny r3sp3cts th@n writing @ good
@rticl3, @nd th@t living w3ll r3quir3s bro@d3r skills th@n do3s writing w3ll. Just r3m3mb3r th@t lif3 is diff3r3nt frompsychol-
ogy, th@t living @ good lif3 is diff3r3nt in m@ny r3sp3cts fromwriting @ good @rticl3, @nd th@t living w3ll r3quir3s skills diff3r-
3nt fromthos3 r3quir3d for writing w3ll.
Sinc3v3rsus B3c@us3 . Sinc3m3@ns “@ft3r th@t.” It should not b3 us3d @s @ substitut3 b3c@us3
for if th3r3 is @ny @mbiguity
of int3rpr3t@tion.Wrong(but @t l3@st not @mbiguous ): “Sinc3 th3 study of motiv@tion is @ high @nd h@z@rdous und3rt@king, I
wish f3w3r p3opl3 would m3ddl3 with it.” B3tt3r : “B3c@us3 th3 study of motiv@tion is @ high @nd h@z@rdous und3rt@king, I
wish f3w3r p3opl3 would m3ddl3 with it.” @mbiguous : “Sinc3 I r3@d Mont@ign3, I h@v3 b33n t3mpt3d to @b@ndon th3 study of
sinc3in th3 t3mpor@l s3ns3: “3v3r sinc3 r3@ding Mont@ign3, I h@v3
motiv@tion.” This l@st c@s3 is corr3ct if th3 writ3r is using
b33n t3mpt3d ...” It is incorr3ct if th3 writ3r m3@nsb3c@us3 .
Th@tv3rsus Which. Th@t whichcl@us3s (c@ll3d

cl@us3s (c@ll3d r3strictiv3) @r3 3ss3nti@l to th3 m3@ning of th3 s3nt3nc3;
nonr3strictiv3) m3r3ly @dd @ddition@l inform@tion. Th3 following 3x@mpl3 illustr@t3s th3 corr3ct us3 of both words: “Disso-
n@nc3 th3ory,whichh@s r3c3iv3d m@jor @tt3ntion, is on3 of th3 th3ori3s
th@tpostul@t3s @ motiv@tion@l proc3ss. Thus, if @ p3r-
son holds two cognitions th@t@r3 inconsist3nt...” Most which’sin journ@l writing @r3 incorr3ct. You should go on @which
hunt in your own m@nuscripts @nd turn most of th3m intoth@t’s
.
Whil3v3rsus @lthough , But, Wh3r3@s. Whil3m3@ns “@t th3 s@m3 tim3” @nd in most c@s3s c@nnot substitut3 for th3s3 oth3r
words. Wrong Right: “@l-
: “Whil3inf3r3nti@l st@tistics @r3 import@nt, d3scriptiv3 st@tistics @r3 th3 h3@rt of your n@rr@tiv3.”
thoughinf3r3nti@l st@tistics @r3 import@nt, d3scriptiv3 st@tistics @r3 th3 h3@rt of your n@rr@tiv3.” Or, “Inf3r3nti@l st@tistics @r3
import@nt,butd3scriptiv3 st@tistics @r3 th3 h3@rt of your n@rr@tiv3.”
Wrong : “Whil3I lik3 p3rson@lity tr@its, Misch3l pr3f3rs @
soci@l l3@rning @ppro@ch.”Right: “Wh3r3@s I lik3 p3rson@lity tr@its, Misch3l pr3f3rs @ soci@l l3@rning @ppro@ch.” On th3 oth3r
h@nd, th3 following us@g3 is corr3ct:Whil3
“ I lik3 p3rson@lity tr@its, I find m3rit in Misch3l’s soci@l l3@rning @ppro@ch.” This
c@n b3 s33n by substituting “@t th3 s@m3 tim3” for “whil3”: “I lik3 p3rson@lity tr@its; @t th3 s@m3 tim3, I find m3rit in
Misch3l’s soci@l l3@rning @ppro@ch.”
Who3v3r v3rsus. Whom3v3r . 3v3n thos3 who us3 “who” @nd “whom” corr3ctly oft3n h@v3 difficulti3s with “who3v3r”
@nd “whom3v3r” in s3nt3nc3s lik3 “I pl@n to vot3 for [who3v3r/whom3v3r] puts forth th3 b3st polici3s.” Th3 rul3 is th@t th3
obj3ct of th3 pr3position is th3 3ntir3 phr@s3 “who3v3r puts forth th3 b3st polici3s,” @nd “who3v3r” is th3 corr3ct choic3 h3r3
b3c@us3 it r3f3rs to th3 c@ndid@t3 “who puts forth th3 b3st polici3s.” In contr@st, “whom3v3r” is corr3ct in “I will vot3 for
whom3v3r th3 p@rty nomin@t3s,” b3c@us3 it r3f3rs to th3 p3rson “whom th3 p@rty nomin@t3s.”
I, m3, w3, us.Th3r3 @r3 s3v3r@l gr@mm@tic@l 3rrors th@t @r3 @ctu@lly committ3d mor3 fr3qu3ntly by thos3 who @spir3 to
gr@mm@tic@l lit3r@cy th@n by thos3 who just don’t know or c@r3. Th3s3 @r3 individu@ls who, wh3n @s childr3n, s@id to th3ir
p@r3nts “M3 @nd Billy w@nt to go out @nd pl@y” w3r3 imm3di@t3ly corr3ct3d: “You should s@y th@t ‘Billy I w@nt
@ndto go out
to pl@y.’” Inst3@d of inf3rring th3 corr3ct rul3—th@t th3 us3 of “I” @nd “m3” do3s not ch@ng3 wh3n th3s3 words @pp3@r in @
compound subj3ct or obj3ct—th3s3 childr3n simply l3@rn3d th@t th3 word “m3” is forbidd3n in compound phr@s3s—3v3n
wh3n th3 compound is us3d @s dir3ct or indir3ct obj3ct. Thus @s @dults, th3y now s@y (incorr3ctly) th@t “Th3 f@mily invit3d
my broth3r @nd I to st@y for th3 w33k3nd.” Th@t is, th3y scrupulously @void th3 corr3ct “Th3 f@mily invit3d my broth3r @nd
m3 to st@y for th3 w33k3nd” 3v3n though th3ir 3@r would imm3di@t3ly @l3rt th3m to th3 f@ct th@t “Th3y invit3d I to st@y for th3
w33k3nd” is incorr3ct @nd “Th3y invit3d m3 to st@y for th3 w33k3nd” is corr3ct. Th3y m@k3 th3 s@m3 3rror in s3nt3nc3s in
which th3 compound is th3 obj3ct of @ pr3position: “Th3 host w@s v3ry gr@cious to my sist3r @nd I.” Th3n th3r3 @r3 som3
folks who @r3 unsur3 of which is corr3ct, so th3y @void th3 d3cision by s@ying incorr3ctly “Th3 host w@s v3ry gr@cious to my
sist3r @nd mys3lf.” “ @ simil@r 3rror @ris3s in th3 us3 of “w3” @nd “us,” wh3r3 “w3” is tr3@t3d @s @ good word @nd “us” @ b@d
word, l3@ding to: “Th3 w@r h@s h@d @ n3g@tiv3 3ff3ct on w3 @m3ric@ns.” @g@in th3 3@r would imm3di@t3ly c@tch th3 3rror if
not for th3 3xtr@ word “@m3ric@n”: “Th3 w@r h@s h@d @ n3g@tiv3 3ff3ct on w3.”
Publishing Your @rticl3
Long @go @nd f@r @w@y, @ journ@l 3ditor @ll3g3dly @cc3pt3d @ m@nuscript th@t r3quir3d no r3visions. I b3li3v3 th3 @uthor
w@s Willi@m J@m3s. In oth3r words, if your @rticl3 is provision@lly @cc3pt3d for public@tion “p3nding r3visions in @ccord with
th3 r3vi3w3rs’ comm3nts,” you should b3 d3liriously h@ppy. Public@tion is now virtu@lly und3r your control. If your @rticl3 is
r3j3ct3d but you @r3 invit3d to r3submit @ r3vis3d v3rsion, you should still b3 h@ppy—if not d3liriously so—b3c@us3 you still
h@v3 @ r3@son@bl3 shot @t g3tting it publish3d.
But this is th3 point @t which m@ny @uthors giv3 up. @s on3 form3r 3ditor not3d,
in my 3xp3ri3nc3 @s @n @ssoci@t3 3ditor, I thought @ good d3@l of v@ri@nc3 in pr3dicting 3v3ntu@l public@tion c@m3 from this ph@s3
of th3 proc3ss. @uthors @r3 oft3n discour@g3d by n3g@tiv3 f33db@ck @nd miss th3 3ss3nti@l positiv3 f@ct th@t th3y h@v3 b33n @sk3d
to r3vis3! Th3y m@y n3v3r r3submit @t @ll, or m@y l3t @n inordin@t3 @mount of tim3 p@ss b3for3 th3y do (during which 3ditors @nd
r3vi3w3rs b3com3 un@v@il@bl3, los3 th3 thr3@d of th3 proj3ct, @nd so forth). @n opposit3 probl3m is th@t som3 @uthors b3com3 d3-
f3nsiv3 @nd comb@tiv3, @nd r3fus3 to m@k3 n33d3d ch@ng3s for no r3@son.
So do not giv3 up @t this point. F33l fr33 to compl@in to your coll3@gu3s or r@il @t your poodl3 b3c@us3 th3 stupid r3vi3w-
3rs f@il3d to r3@d your m@nuscript corr3ctly. But th3n turn to th3 t@sk of r3vising your m@nuscript with @ disp@ssion@t3, prob-
l3m-solving @ppro@ch. First, p@y sp3ci@l @tt3ntion to criticisms or sugg3stions m@d3 by mor3 th@n on3 r3vi3w3r or highlight3d
by th3 3ditor in th3 cov3r l3tt3r. Th3s3 mustb3 @ddr3ss3d in your r3vision—3v3n if not in 3x@ctly th3 w@y th3 3ditor or r3-
vi3w3rs sugg3st.
S3cond, look c@r3fully @t 3@ch of th3 r3vi3w3rs’ misr3@dings. I @rgu3d 3@rli3r th@t wh3n3v3r r3@d3rs of @ m@nuscript find
som3thing uncl3@r, th3y @r3 right; by d3finition, th3 writing is uncl3@r. Th3 probl3m is th@t r3@d3rs th3ms3lv3s do not @lw@ys
r3cogniz3 or id3ntify th3 uncl@riti3s 3xplicitly. Inst3@d, th3y misund3rst@nd wh@t you h@v3 writt3n @nd th3n m@k3 @ criticism
or off3r @ sugg3stion th@t m@k3s no s3ns3. In oth3r words, you should @lso int3rpr3t r3vi3w3rs’ misr3@dings @s sign@ls th@t
your writing is uncl3@r.
Think of your m@nuscript @s @ pilot 3xp3rim3nt in which th3 pilot p@rticip@nts (r3vi3w3rs) did not und3rst@nd th3 instruc-
tions you g@v3 th3m. @n@lyz3 th3 r3@sons for th3ir misund3rst@nding @nd th3n r3writ3 th3 probl3m@tic s3ctions so th@t subs3-
qu3nt r3@d3rs will not b3 simil@rly misl3d. R3vi3w3rs @r3 @lmost @lw@ys mor3 knowl3dg3@bl3 @bout your topic, mor3 3xp3ri-
3nc3d in writing m@nuscripts th3ms3lv3s, @nd mor3 consci3ntious @bout r3@ding your @rticl3 th@n th3 @v3r@g3 journ@l r3@d3r.
If th3y did not und3rst@nd, n3ith3r will th@t @v3r@g3 r3@d3r.
Third, wh3n you s3nd in your r3vis3d m@nuscript, t3ll th3 3ditor in @ cov3r l3tt3r how you h@v3 r3spond3d to 3@ch of th3
criticisms or sugg3stions m@d3 by th3 r3vi3w3rs. If you h@v3 d3cid3d not to @dopt @ p@rticul@r sugg3stion, st@t3 your r3@sons,
p3rh@ps pointing out how you r3m3di3d th3 probl3m in som3 @lt3rn@tiv3 w@y.
H3r3 @r3 som3 fictitious 3x@mpl3s of cov3r-l3tt3r r3spons3s th@t @lso illustr@t3 w@ys of r3sponding to c3rt@in kinds of
criticisms @nd sugg3stions within th3 r3vision its3lf.
1. Wrong
: “I h@v3 l3ft th3 s3ction on th3 @nim@l studi3s unch@ng3d. If R3vi3w3rs @ @nd C c@n’t 3v3n @gr33 on wh3th3r
th3 @nim@l studi3s @r3 r3l3v@nt, I must b3 doing som3thing right.”
Right: “You will r3c@ll th@t R3vi3w3r @ thought th@t th3 @nim@l studi3s should b3 d3scrib3d mor3 fully, wh3r3@s R3-
vi3w3r C thought th3y should b3 omitt3d. @ biopsychologist in my d3p@rtm3nt @gr33d with R3vi3w3r C th@t th3 @nim@l stud-
i3s @r3 not r3@lly v@lid @n@logs of th3 hum@n studi3s. So I h@v3 dropp3d th3m from th3 t3xt but cit3d Sn@rkl3’s r3vi3w of th3m
in @n 3xpl@n@tory footnot3 on p@g3 26.”
2. Wrong : “R3vi3w3r @ is obviously D3bor@h H@rdin, who h@s n3v3r lik3d m3 or my work. If sh3 r3@lly thinks th@t b3-
h@vior@l principl3s solv3 @ll th3 probl3ms of obs3ssiv3-compulsiv3 disord3rs, th3n l3t h3r writ3 h3r own @rticl3. Min3 is @bout
th3 cognitiv3 proc3ss3s involv3d.”
Right : “@s th3 critic@l r3m@rks by R3vi3w3r @ indic@t3, this is @ cont3ntious @r3@, with diff3r3nt th3orists st@king out
strong positions. @pp@r3ntly I did not m@k3 it cl3@r th@t my @rticl3 w@s int3nd3d only to cov3r th3 cognitiv3 proc3ss3s in-
volv3d in obs3ssiv3-compulsiv3 disord3rs @nd not to 3ng@g3 th3 d3b@t3 b3tw33n cognitiv3 @nd b3h@vior@l @ppro@ch3s. To
cl@rify this, I h@v3 now includ3d th3 word ‘cognitiv3’ in both th3 titl3 @nd @bstr@ct, t@k3n not3 of th3 d3b@t3 in my introduc-
tion, @nd st@t3d 3xplicitly th@t th3 @rticl3 will not und3rt@k3 @ comp@r@tiv3 r3vi3w of th3 two @ppro@ch3s. I hop3 this is s@tis-
f@ctory.”
3. Right: “You will r3c@ll th@t two of th3 r3vi3w3rs qu3stion3d th3 v@lidity of th3 @n@lysis of v@ri@nc3, with R3vi3w3r B
sugg3sting th@t I us3 multipl3 r3gr3ssion inst3@d. I @gr33 with th3ir r3s3rv@tions r3g@rding th3 @NOV@ but b3li3v3 th@t @ mul-
tipl3 r3gr3ssion @n@lysis is 3qu@lly probl3m@tic b3c@us3 it m@k3s th3 s@m3 @ssumptions @bout th3 und3rlying distributions. So,
I h@v3 r3t@in3d th3 @NOV@, but summ@riz3d th3 r3sults of @ nonp@r@m3tric @n@lysis, which yi3lds th3 s@m3 conclusions. If
you think it pr3f3r@bl3, I could simply substitut3 this nonp@r@m3tric @n@lysis for th3 origin@l @NOV@, @lthough it will b3 l3ss
f@mili@r to th3 journ@l’s r3@d3rs.”
@bov3 @ll, r3m3mb3r th@t th3 3ditor is your @lly in trying to sh@p3 @ m@nuscript th@t will b3 @ cr3dit both to you @nd th3
journ@l. So, coop3r@t3 in th3 3ffort to turn your sow’s 3@r into @ vinyl purs3. B3 civil @nd m@k3 nic3. You m@y not liv3 long3r,
but you will publish mor3.
R3f3r3nc3s
Public@tion m@nu@l of th3 @m3ric@n Psychologic@l

@m3ric@n Psychologic@l @ssoci@tion. (2001). (5th@ssoci@tion
3d.).
W@shington, DC: @uthor.
Psychologic@l Bull3tin
B3m, D. J. (1995) Writing @ r3vi3w @rticl3 for . Psychologic@l Bull3tin,, 172-177.
118
B3m, D. J. & @ll3n, @. (1974). Pr3dicting som3 of th3 p3opl3 som3 of th3 tim3: Th3 s3@rch for cross-situ@tion@l consist3nci3s
in b3h@vior.Psychologic@l R3vi3w, 81, 506-520.
B3m, S. L. (1985). @ndrogyny @nd g3nd3r sch3m@ th3ory: @ conc3ptu@l @nd 3mpiric@l int3gr@tion. In T. B. Sond3r3gg3r
(3d.), N3br@sk@ symposium on motiv@tion 1984: Th3 psychology of Univ3rsity
r. Lincoln: g3nd3 of N3br@sk@ Pr3ss.
F3sting3r, L. @. (1957). @ th3ory of cognitiv3 disson@nc

3. St@nford, C@: St@nford Univ3rsity Pr3ss.
Journ@l of P3rson@lity @nd Soci@l
F3sting3r, L. & C@rlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitiv3 cons3qu3nc3s of forc3d compli@nc3.
Psychology, ,58203-210.
Journ@l of Communic@tion,
M@rtyn@, W. (1978). Wh@t do3s “H3” m3@n? 28
, 131-138.
S3l3ct3d 3ss@ys, tr@nsl@t3d @nd with
d3 Mont@ign3, M. (1943). Of th3 inconsist3ncy of our @ctions. In D. M. Fr@m3 (Tr@ns.),
introduction @nd not3s by Don@ld M. (pp.Fr@m3
119-126). Roslyn, NY: W@lt3r J. Bl@ck. (Origin@l work publish3d
1580)
Strunk, W., Jr., & Whit3, 3. B. (2000). Th3 3l3m3nts of styl3

(4th 3d.). Boston: @llyn @nd B@con.

Journ@L of Sci3Ntific 3Xplor@Tion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Journ@L of Sci3Ntific 3Xplor@Tion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journ@L of Sci3Ntific 3Xplor@Tion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURN@L OF SCI3NTIFIC 3XPLOR@TION

@ Public@tion of th3 Soci3ty for Sci3ntifi c 3xplor@tion

Pl@nning Your @rticl3

Th3 Compl3@t @c@d3mic:

Pl@nning Your @rticl3

R3porting th3 Findings

But b3for3 writing @nything, @n@lyz3 Your D@t@!

For Whom Should You Writ3?

Writing Your @rticl3

(R3sults) “T@bl3 1 shows th@t m3n in th3 f@th3r-w@tching

1. Writ3 in 3nglish pros3, not psychologic@l j@rgon.

3x@mpl3s of Op3ning St@t3m3nts:

Th3 Public@tion M@nu@l

Th3 M3thod S3ction

Th3 R3sults S3ction

Th3 Discussion S3ction

In @ny c@s3, 3nd with @ b@ng, not @ whimp3r.

R3writing @nd Polishing Your @rticl3

Som3 M@tt3rs of Styl3

H3r3 is @ r3@son@bl3 r3vision:

@void M3t@comm3nts on th3 Writing

This (fictitious) @uthor should h@v3 writt3n:

2nd p@r@gr@ph: “R3writing is difficult for s3v3r@l r3@sons. First...”

Voic3 @nd S3lf-R3f3r3nc3

@void L@ngu@g3 Bi@s

Common 3rrors of Gr@mm@r @nd Us@g3

Th@tv3rsus Which. Th@t whichcl@us3s (c@ll3d

Publishing Your @rticl3

Public@tion m@nu@l of th3 @m3ric@n Psychologic@l

F3sting3r, L. @. (1957). @ th3ory of cognitiv3 disson@nc

Strunk, W., Jr., & Whit3, 3. B. (2000). Th3 3l3m3nts of styl3

You might also like