Use when deciding whether a consumer phenomenon belongs at the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) versus a sibling, and which JCP manuscript type fits, before theory and studies are locked. Sets scope and outlet fit; it does not build the mechanism (jcp-theory-development).
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jcp-topic-selection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jcp Topic Selection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jcp-topic-selection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jcp-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a consumer phenomenon belongs at the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) versus a sibling, and which JCP manuscript type fits, before theory and studies are locked. Sets scope and outlet fit; it does not build the mechanism (jcp-theory-development).
---
# Topic Selection (jcp-topic-selection)
## When to trigger
- You have a consumer phenomenon and are unsure it is *psychological-process* enough for JCP
- The finding feels real but you cannot say what about the **mind of the consumer** is new
- You are choosing between JCP, JCR, JMR, Marketing Science, or Psychological Science
- The result is small and clean and might be a **Research Report** rather than a full article
- A coauthor wants to add field data / strategy framing that may push the paper out of JCP's lane
## What JCP actually wants
JCP publishes **theory-driven research on the psychology of consumers** — how people form judgments, make decisions, feel, get motivated, construct identity, and respond to persuasion in consumption contexts. The decisive question at topic-selection is not "is this about consumers?" but **"is the contribution a psychological process that operates in a consumption setting?"** A topic fits JCP when (a) there is a consumer-relevant outcome, (b) there is a plausible *mental* mechanism behind it, and (c) the mechanism is testable with controlled (mostly experimental) methods. Topics that fail (a) are general psychology; topics that fail (b) are effect-hunting; topics that fail (c) belong in a modeling or interpretive outlet.
## Outlet fit: which sibling, and why not
| If the core contribution is… | Aim at | Why not JCP |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------|
| A consumer psychological **process**, tested experimentally | **JCP** | — |
| Broad consumer theory incl. **interpretive / CCT** meaning-making | JCR | JCP has no interpretive tradition; it is experimental-process |
| A **marketing-strategy / firm-decision** question | Journal of Marketing | JCP is about the consumer's mind, not managerial action |
| A new **measure / method / model** for marketing data | JMR / Marketing Science | JCP rewards process insight, not methodological tooling |
| A general psychological effect with no consumption stake | Psychological Science / JPSP / JEP | JCP needs a *consumer* phenomenon and audience |
The JCP–JCR boundary is the one teams get wrong most. Both run behavioral experiments; the tell is that JCR also embraces interpretive/CCT work and frames contributions as advancing broad **theory of consumption**, while JCP is tightly **psychological-mechanism** in its center of gravity. If your paper's contribution sentence is "we identify the mental process by which X shapes consumer Y," it is a JCP paper.
## Choosing the manuscript type (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)
- **Research Article** — full multi-study package; ≤50 double-spaced pages including abstract, references, tables, and figures.
- **Research Report** — a tight, important finding; **<4,000 words** excluding abstract, references, tables, and figures. Use when one mechanism is cleanly demonstrated and a 50-page treatment would pad it.
- **Conceptual Review** — integrative review building new theory; ≤50 pages.
- **Research Dialogue** — exchange/commentary format.
Pick the type before writing: a Research Report cannot carry four studies and a Research Article should not be one study stretched thin.
## Checklist
- [ ] The contribution is a **psychological process**, not just a new effect or a new context
- [ ] There is a consumer-relevant outcome AND a plausible mental mechanism AND a way to test it experimentally
- [ ] You can say in one sentence why this is JCP and not JCR / JMR / Psych Science
- [ ] The manuscript type (Article / Report / Review / Dialogue) matches the size of the contribution
- [ ] The phenomenon is theoretically interesting, not only practically useful
- [ ] You are not importing strategy or interpretive framing that pulls the paper out of JCP's lane
## Anti-patterns
- **Context-as-contribution**: "we study this effect in a new product category" with no new process
- **General-psych smuggling**: a cognition/emotion effect with a thin consumer veneer
- **Wrong-type sizing**: a one-study finding submitted as a 50-page article, or four studies crammed into a Research Report
- **Strategy drift**: framing the paper around what the firm should do rather than what the consumer's mind does
- **Sibling blur**: pitching to JCP a paper whose real contribution is interpretive (JCR) or methodological (JMR)
## Output format
```text
【Phenomenon】one-line consumer phenomenon
【Process candidate】the mental mechanism that would be the contribution
【Outlet verdict】JCP / reroute to JCR / JM / JMR / Psych Science (+ reason)
【Manuscript type】Research Article / Research Report / Conceptual Review / Research Dialogue
【Why not the closest sibling】one sentence
【Next skill】jcp-theory-development
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!