Jams Theory Development

Theory Development (jams-theory-development)

When to trigger

• The question is set but the conceptual framework that generates the hypotheses is thin
• Reviewers will ask "what is the mechanism?" and "why these moderators?"
• You have a strong empirical pattern but no organizing marketing theory
• You are tempted to bolt a generic psychological or economic theory onto a marketing finding

JAMS's theory bar: a framework that does work

JAMS papers are expected to develop theory, not merely apply it. The house archetype is the conceptual framework with a nomological network — antecedents → focal construct(s) → consequences, with mediators that name the process and moderators that name the contingencies. Marketing reviewers want to see the framework drawn (a conceptual model figure) and defended construct by construct, each path justified by a stated theoretical logic, not by a citation alone.

JAMS draws on the field's standard theoretical lenses — resource-based view and dynamic capabilities (strategy), relationship-marketing / commitment–trust and transaction-cost / governance (B2B and channels), service-dominant logic and SERVQUAL-tradition gaps models (services), signaling and brand-equity theory (branding), diffusion and the marketing–finance interface (innovation, firm value), and consumer information-processing and self-construal theories (behavior). Pick the lens the phenomenon actually demands and use it to derive predictions, not to decorate them.

Build the conceptual logic

• Define every focal construct conceptually before it is operationalized — JAMS reviewers police construct definitions and conceptual/operational alignment hard.
• Draw the nomological net: antecedents, focal construct(s), consequences. Each arrow is a hypothesis with a theoretical reason, not just a sign.
• Specify the mechanism (mediation): name the process variable that carries the effect, so the story is "X → M → Y," not "X → Y, somehow."
• Specify boundary conditions (moderation): when does the effect strengthen, weaken, or reverse? Contingency theory is JAMS's bread and butter; a contingency makes the framework generalizable and the managerial advice conditional.
• Carry the logic to the manager: if the mechanism holds, what should a decision maker do, and when? The managerial implication must be derivable from the theory, not appended.

Two legitimate routes

1. Theory-first: lens → framework → hypotheses → test. The standard JAMS structure.
2. Empirics-first / abductive: a robust, surprising marketing pattern leads, and a conceptual account is built to explain it. Acceptable at JAMS if declared honestly — do not present a post-hoc account as a priori theory (HARKing).

Hypothesis craft

JAMS reviewers read hypotheses closely, so write them to do real theoretical work:

• One claim per hypothesis. A hypothesis bundling a main effect and an interaction is two hypotheses; split them so each can be supported or rejected cleanly.
• State the direction and the reason. "H2: Because [mechanism], the effect of X on Y is stronger when [moderator] is high." The clause after "because" is what separates a JAMS hypothesis from a hunch.
• Mediation as a stated path. Hypothesize the indirect effect (X → M → Y) explicitly so the analysis can test it directly, rather than inferring process from a significant total effect.
• Boundary conditions that are theoretically motivated, not data-mined — name the moderator before you see the interaction, and tie it to the lens.
• Keep the wording identical to the conceptual model figure and the results section; drift between them is a classic reviewer catch.