---

name: psci-theory-and-hypotheses description: Use when stating the theory and hypotheses for a Psychological Science manuscript. The journal's credibility norms require a clear separation of confirmatory (preregistered) from exploratory analyses and theory stated before results. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Theory & Hypotheses (psci-theory-and-hypotheses)

Psychological Science rewards a clear theoretical claim and honest hypothesis status. Because preregistration quality is weighed and a Research Transparency Statement is required, the cardinal rule is: state theory and confirmatory hypotheses before the data, and label exploratory results as exploratory.

When to trigger

• Writing the theoretical framing and hypotheses
• Preparing a preregistration / pre-analysis plan (Registered Report or OSF)
• Reconciling what you predicted with what you found
• A reviewer flagged the work as "post hoc," "atheoretical," or "HARKed"

Build the argument

1. State the theory. What mechanism or principle predicts the effect, and why. Keep it crisp — the format does not allow a long theoretical treatise.
2. Derive directional hypotheses. Translate the theory into specific, testable predictions (direction and, where possible, magnitude/effect-size expectations).
3. Mark hypothesis status. Separate confirmatory (preregistered, predicted in advance) from exploratory (generated after seeing data) analyses — clearly, in the text.
4. Specify what would disconfirm. Say which results would count against the theory; this is what makes a test credible.
5. Match to the right format. If the theory is best tested prospectively and confirmatorily, a Registered Report makes the claim far stronger (route via psci-review-process).

Avoiding HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)

• Do not present an exploratory finding as if it were predicted.
• If you discovered something post hoc, say so and frame it as a hypothesis for future confirmation — Psychological Science values this honesty and the Transparency Statement surfaces it.

Worked micro-example — theory to hypothesis status (illustrative)

The two-study attention package, written so hypothesis status is legible at a glance.

Theory:  Brief mindfulness induction transiently broadens attentional
         control, reducing automatic capture by emotional distractors.
H1 (confirmatory, preregistered, S1+S2):
         Induction reduces capture cost vs. control (directional; d ≥ 0.30 SESOI).
H2 (exploratory in S1 → confirmatory in S2):
         Effect is larger for high trait-anxiety participants
         (interaction; preregistered only for Study 2).
Disconfirming: a CI for H1 centered near zero, or a reversed sign, counts
         against the broadening account — stated up front.

Constraints-on-generality (a venue expectation)

Post-credibility-revolution, name the boundary of the claim explicitly rather than implying universal scope. Confirm current wording against the journal's submission guidelines, but include the substance:

Constraints on generality: We expect H1 to hold for healthy adults under
brief laboratory inductions and screen-based capture tasks. We do not claim
it generalizes to clinical anxiety, sustained meditation training, or
real-world attentional demands without further test.

Theory-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix

Reviewer pushback	Psychological Science fix
"Atheoretical / mechanism unclear"	state the broadening mechanism in one crisp sentence before the hypotheses
"This looks HARKed"	show the preregistration timestamp; relabel post hoc analyses exploratory
"Claims outrun the manipulation"	scale H1's scope to what the induction plausibly does; add a constraints-on-generality clause
"Non-directional hypothesis"	commit to a sign and, where possible, a SESOI magnitude

Theory calibration anchors

• Theory here is crisp, not encyclopedic: one mechanism sentence and a derived, directional prediction beat a multi-page treatise that the 2,000-word budget cannot hold.
• The cardinal honesty rule is temporal: anything specified before data is confirmatory; anything generated after seeing data is exploratory, full stop. The Research Transparency Statement and a graded preregistration make the distinction visible to editors and reviewers.
• Stating what would disconfirm the theory is what converts a story into a test; reviewers steeped in the credibility revolution read an unfalsifiable framing as a red flag.
• When the theory is best tested prospectively and confirmatorily, a Registered Report makes the claim materially stronger — confirm current Registered Report availability against the journal's submission guidelines, then route via psci-review-process.

Anti-patterns

• Theory written to fit the result after the fact (HARKing)
• Vague, non-directional "we expect a relationship" hypotheses
• No statement of what would disconfirm the theory
• Blurring confirmatory and exploratory analyses
• A theory section so long it breaks the 2,000-word budget

Output format

【Theory】the mechanism/principle, briefly
【Hypotheses】directional, testable (H1, H2, …)
【Status】which are confirmatory (preregistered) vs exploratory
【Disconfirming evidence】what would count against the theory
【Format fit】Research Article vs Registered Report (if confirmatory + prospective)
【Next】psci-study-design

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — preregistration templates and tools
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — preregistration and transparency policy