---

name: arpsych-organizing-framework description: Use when imposing an analytical structure or taxonomy on a psychology literature for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review — the "spine" that turns a reading list into an argument about the field. Designs the framework; it does not gather the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or judge coverage and balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Organizing Framework — the Review's Spine (arpsych-organizing-framework)

When to trigger

• The evidence matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of studies
• Sections are named after methods ("fMRI studies", "behavioral studies") rather than ideas
• A reader could not predict what comes next or why studies are grouped as they are
• You cannot state in one sentence the argument the review makes about the field

Why the spine is the whole game at ARPsych

The most-cited reason review articles fail is that they are annotated bibliographies: study-after-study summaries with no organizing idea. A great ARPsych review imposes a structure the field did not have — a taxonomy, a unifying model, a sequence of questions, or a process diagram — that makes scattered work legible to a psychologist from an adjacent area. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. ARPsych's accessibility mandate raises the bar: the spine must be graspable by a non-specialist psychologist (a social psychologist reading a memory review) on one read. Choose it deliberately:

Spine type	Organizes the field by	Best when
Taxonomy	mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism/construct	the field is fragmented into incommensurable subliteratures
Process model	stages of a mechanism (input → process → output)	the topic is a pathway (e.g., emotion generation, encoding→retrieval)
Levels of analysis	from neural to behavioral to social	the value is integrating across explanatory levels
Question sequence	a logical chain of sub-questions	the field has a natural "first know X, then Y" order
Paradigm/era	how thinking evolved and why	the evolution of ideas is itself the lesson
Theory contest	rival accounts of the same phenomenon	progress hinges on adjudicating competing theories

Pick one primary spine; a second axis can order studies within a section, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.

The test of a good framework

• Exhaustive + exclusive (MECE-ish): every important study has exactly one natural home, and categories do not bleed.
• Generative: the framework predicts gaps — empty cells are open questions, not omissions (ARPsych prizes the forward-looking agenda).
• Reconciling: apparent contradictions become explained (studies disagree because they sit in different cells / measure different constructs / use different paradigms).
• Portable: an adjacent psychologist can restate the spine after one read and slot a new study into it.

Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (studies that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.

The spine is also what lets an ARPsych review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory studies can be cited in clusters within their cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining work. This is how you honor coverage and the assigned-length envelope at once (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.

Checklist

• One primary spine chosen (taxonomy / process / levels / question-sequence / paradigm / theory-contest)
• The review's one-sentence argument about the field is written
• Every category traces to evidence-matrix rows (no empty rhetorical buckets)
• The framework reconciles at least one apparent contradiction in the literature
• Empty cells surfaced as open questions (the future agenda ARPsych expects)
• 5 hard-case studies each have a natural home
• Section headings name ideas/mechanisms, not "fMRI vs. behavioral"
• An adjacent psychologist could restate the spine and slot a new study into it

Anti-patterns

• The annotated bibliography: study-by-study summaries with no organizing idea (the cardinal sin)
• Sections named by method ("Neuroimaging", "Behavioral", "Other") — carry no analytical content
• A taxonomy whose categories overlap so every study is cited in three places
• Two competing spines fighting for control of the same review
• A framework so bespoke only the author can apply it (fails the accessibility test)
• Hiding the contribution: never stating, in one sentence, what the review argues about the field

Output format

【Spine type】taxonomy / process / levels / question-sequence / paradigm / theory-contest
【Argument about the field】"<one sentence the review makes>"
【Categories】<the cells / stages / sub-questions, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction the framework explains>
【Open questions】<empty cells surfaced as the future agenda>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward studies each placed? Y/N
【Accessibility】an adjacent psychologist can restate the spine? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance (cover the cells fairly)