brycewang-stanford Contribution Framing (jcp-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- Your "contribution" sentence describes an effect ("X increases Y") rather than a mechanism
- Reviewers say the finding is "interesting but incremental" or "not surprising"
- The abstract and intro promise more than the process evidence delivers (over-claiming)
- You have strong studies but cannot say in one line what the field learns about the consumer's mind
- Multiple contributions are listed and none is sharp
The JCP contribution is a process claim
A JCP contribution sentence has a specific shape: "We show that [antecedent] shapes [consumer outcome] because it [changes psychological state M], which means [implication / new boundary / overturned belief]." The "because" clause is the contribution. If your sentence stops at the comma after the outcome, you have an effect, and an effect alone is a reject. The framing job is to make the mechanism the headline and the effect merely the vehicle that reveals it.
The second JCP requirement is theoretical surprise or correction: the process should change what a knowledgeable reader expected — a non-obvious mediator, a reversal under a predicted condition, a reconciliation of conflicting accounts. "Confirms intuition" is not a JCP contribution; "explains why the intuitive account is wrong" is.
Three framings that land at JCP
| Framing | Template | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Novel mechanism | "Effect E runs through unexpected process M, not the assumed P" | The effect is known but mis-attributed |
| Theory-test moderation | "Because the effect runs through M, it reverses when C blocks M" | You have strong moderation-of-process data |
| Reconciliation | "Conflicting findings F1/F2 are reconciled once M is recognized" | Two literatures disagree and your process resolves it |
Whichever you pick, lead with the mental process and the consumer stake in the same breath; JCP wants both theoretical interest and consumer relevance, but the process is primary.
Calibrating the claim to the evidence
- Match scope to studies: do not claim a general process if every study used one population/stimulus. Bound the claim to what the moderation and replications support.
- Promote the strongest process study: the contribution sentence should be backed by your best design (manipulated mediator or moderation-of-process), not the weakest measured-mediation study.
- One contribution, stated once: a single sharp process claim beats a list of three. Subsidiary contributions (a new measure, a boundary) are support, not headlines.
- Name the practical payoff briefly: a sentence on what marketers/consumers can do with the mechanism — but never let practice replace the theoretical process as the contribution.
Checklist
- The contribution sentence contains a "because [process]" clause, not just an effect
- The process is theoretically non-obvious or corrects a prior belief
- The claim's scope matches the moderation/replication evidence (no over-generalization)
- The headline contribution is backed by the strongest process study, not the weakest
- There is one primary contribution, stated once and consistently across abstract/intro/discussion
- Consumer relevance is present but does not substitute for the psychological process
Anti-patterns
- Effect-as-contribution: "we find that X affects Y" with no because-clause
- Confirms-intuition framing: a result no informed reader would have doubted
- Over-claim: a universal process claim built on one stimulus/sample
- Contribution inflation: three or four "contributions" that dilute the one that matters
- Managerial bait-and-switch: leading with practice because the theoretical novelty is thin
Output format
【Contribution sentence】"…because it [process M]…" (one line, process-led)
【Why non-obvious】what informed reader belief it corrects/surprises
【Backing study】the strongest process design that supports it
【Scope bound】populations/stimuli the claim is limited to
【Consumer stake】one line of relevance (subordinate to the process)
【Next skill】jcp-tables-figures