What: The goal of a literature review and why that matters

Writing a literature review is like drawing a treasure map.

The treasure is your hypothesis. The first step in writing a literature review is to know what hypothesis you are leading the reader towards.

The path to the treasure is your outline. Even though there may be pretty diversions along the way, treasure seekers want you to take them on the most direct route. Do not write anything that does not help your reader get to the treasure. This is the mistake students make most often.

The dangers along the path are counterarguments that your readers will have—from their personal experience or their pre-existing knowledge on the subject. These are the things that stop them from believing your hypothesis (i.e., reaching the treasure). Know what these counterarguments will be and address them explicitly.

Note: if you have multiple hypotheses, you must “draw” multiple maps. These will exist as multiple sections in your literature review and hypothesis development.

How: What are the steps to drawing your treasure map?

Step 1: Figure out what your hypotheses are.

If you drew out a model of your paper, each line in the model should have an associated hypothesis. If applicable, this could include: (1) The main effect of your IV on your DV, (2) The main effect of your IV on your mediator, (3) The effect of your mediator on your DV, (4) Any moderation effects

Example from recent paper…

H1: Consumers will report more self-brand connection to brands who use prosocial teasing (vs. mere humor)

H2: Consumers will report lower self-brand connection to brands who use antisocial (vs. prosocial) teasing

H3: Brands who use (prosocial or antisocial) teasing in their brand communications will be perceived as more anthropomorphic than those that merely use humor.

H4: The positive effect of prosocial teasing compared to mere humor on self-brand connection will be mediated by anthropomorphism

H5: The relationship between anthropomorphism and self-brand connection will be weakened for antisocial teasing.

Step 2: Figure out your “path” to each hypothesis

What does the reader need to know to believe your hypothesis, and what’s the most direct way to get them there? This usually involves:

• An operational definition of all the key constructs in your hypothesis. The definition ideally should come from established literature.
  • If you are using a scale to measure a variable, see if you can pull the definition from the paper that developed the scale.
  • If you have already defined these in earlier sections, there is no need to re-define them.
  • This can also include limitations in scope (e.g., we are studying brand teasing but only in the contexts where the brand teases the consumer — vs. other brands)
• Any literature that suggests that your constructs might be linked in the way you suggest. Note that for most of your hypotheses, you will not find this directly in the literature! If your idea had already been done, you wouldn’t be doing it. You are looking for literature that suggests what you believe might be true. Think…
  • If X was related to Y, we might expect to see Z in the literature or in the real world, and we do!
  • In a separate domain, we see that (something similar to X) leads to (something similar to Y)
  • If X = Y and Y =Z, then X = Z
  • There are definitely others — but these are the ones that are top-of-mind for me.

<aside> 📌

An example from one of my papers

H1: Consumers will report more self-brand connection to brands who use prosocial teasing (vs. mere humor)

Definition: what is self-brand connection? Definition: what is prosocial teasing? Definition: what is mere humor?

If X was related to Y…: If brand teasing led to self brand connection, you would expect that brands who tease would be successful, and you do see that with Wendy’s, Ryanair and Roomkey

In a separate domain… In psychology, we see that teasing is sometimes used to improve relationships between people.

If X = Y… if teasing is a form of humor, and humor is defined by benign violations, then teasing must also be a benign violation

</aside>

Step 3: Figure out the dangers along the way, and craft arguments to address them.

You have to anticipate what your audience will be thinking as they read your paper. In academia, you should never try to fool your reader by omitting a paper that counters your hypothesis or ignoring a literature that doesn’t align with your arguments. Your readers are experts. When you don’t mention a paper/literature they know exists, they either assume you (1) have not been thorough in your lit review or (2) are trying to deceive. Both of these assumptions lead to negative assessments of your paper overall.