Psychology Article Review Paper

 

Article 1 Due: Monday, February 11th 8:30am via Canvas Article 2 Due: Monday, March 18th 8:30am via Canvas

General Information: Over the course of the quarter you will need to find and read two different articles related to a topic on psychology. Based on your review, you will need to write a summary and review paper and then present your findings to the class. For your review paper and presentation, you will need to find an article that is related to a topic on psychology you find interesting. Articles must be academic in nature (peer- reviewed). To find your article:Psychology Article Review Paper.

ORDER NOW

1. Go to the BC Library and Media Center website. 2. Click on ‘Databases’ under ‘Quick Links’ 3. Click on the database you wish to search. I recommend using EBSCOhost and/or

ProQuest. a. EBSCOhost – click the ‘Select/deselect all’ box then click ‘continue’ (this will

allow you to search all of the sub-databases). i. In the search box, enter the topic you are interested in (i.e. role of

emotions in marketing). Be sure to check the boxes for ‘Full Text’ and ‘Peer Reviewed’ then click ‘search.’

b. ProQuest – In the search box, enter the topic you are interested in (i.e. role of emotions in marketing). Be sure to check the boxes for ‘Full Text,’ ‘Peer Reviewed,’ and ‘Scholarly Journals’ then click ‘search.’Psychology Article Review Paper

4. Find an article that is of interest to you and then read it. Article Review: 100 Points Total The write-up should be:

 1 FULL page, double-spaced, & 12 point font,

 Include your name, date, and class name in the top right corner.

 The 1st½ of the paper is a summary of the article (what did you read?).

 The 2nd½ should be written from your own ‘voice’ connecting the article to your own experience (i.e. why did you choose the article and what did you learn from the article?).Psychology Article Review Paper

 Include a link to the article you used in your review paper at the top or bottom of the paper.Psychology Article Review Paper

To Turn In: Upload to Canvas by due date and time.

Presentation: 100 Points Total Your presentation needs to be between 2-3 minutes in length and cover the guiding questions below. You do not need to create a PowerPoint or any other formal presentation.

Guiding Questions for Presentation (Projected on the screen during your presentation)  What is the article about?  Why did you choose this article?  What did you learn from the article?

*If you have difficulty writing, you may orally record the review of your article and upload it to CANVAS. **If you have difficulty public speaking, you may give your presentation to the instructor individually on an agreed upon time.Psychology Article Review Paper

 

Literature reviews survey research on a particular area or topic in psychology. Their main purpose is to knit together
theories and results from multiple studies to give an overview of a field of research.Psychology Article Review Paper
How is a Literature Review Different from a Research Article?
Research articles:
• are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research
question
• are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion
The Introduction of a research article includes a condensed literature review. Its purpose is to describe what is known
about the area of study, with the goal of giving the context and rationale for the study itself.Psychology Article Review Paper
Published literature reviews are called review articles. Review articles emphasize interpretation. By surveying the key
studies done in a certain research area, a review article interprets how each line of research supports or fails to
support a theory. Unlike a research article, which is quite specific, a review article tells a more general story of an area
of research by describing, comparing, and evaluating the key theories and main evidence in that area.Psychology Article Review Paper
The Two Purposes of a Literature Review
Your review has two purposes: (1) to describe and compare studies in a specific area of research and (2) to evaluate
those studies. Both purposes are vital: a thorough summary and comparison of the current research is necessary
before you can build a strong evaluative argument about the theories tested.Psychology Article Review Paper
Getting Started
(1) Select a research topic and identify relevant articles.
(2) Read the articles until you understand what about them is relevant to your review.
(3) Digest the articles: Understand the main points well enough to talk about them.
(4) Write the review, keeping in mind your two purposes: to describe and compare, and to evaluate.
SELECT A TOPIC AND COLLECT ARTICLES
Choose a Current, Well-Studied, Specific Topic
Pick a topic that interests you. If you’re interested in a subject,
University of Washington | Psychology Writing Center
http://www.psych.uw.edu/psych.php?p=335 | psywc@uw.edu
Copyright 2017, University of Washington litrev.pdf
2
inspiration. Find an area that is well defined and well studied, meaning that several research groups are studying the
topic and have approached it from different perspectives. If all the articles you find are from the same research group
(i.e., the same authors), broaden your topic or use more general search terms.
You may need to narrow your topic. The subject of a short literature review must be specific enough, yet have
sufficient literature on the subject, for you to cover it in depth. A broad topic will yield thousands of articles, which is
impossible to survey meaningfully. If you are drowning in articles, or each article you find seems to be about a
completely different aspect of the subject, narrow your topic. Choose one article that interests to you and focus on
the specific question investigated. For example, a search for ‘teenage alcohol use’ will flood you with articles, but
searching for ‘teenage alcohol use and criminal behavior’ will yield both fewer and more focused articles.
You may need to broaden your topic. You need enough articles on your topic for a thorough review of the research. If
you’re unable to find much literature on your topic, or if you find articles you want that are not easy to find online,
broaden your topic. What’s a more general way to ask your question of interest? For example, if you’re having a hard
time finding articles on ‘discrimination against Asian-American women in STEM fields,’ broaden your topic (e.g.,
‘academic discrimination against Asian-American women’ or ‘discrimination against women in STEM.’)
Consider several topics, and keep an open mind. Don’t fall in love with a topic before you find how much research has
been done in that area. By exploring different topics, you may discover something that is newly exciting to you!
Search the Research Literature
Do a preliminary search. Use online databases (e.g., PsycInfo, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Medline) to search
the research literature. If you don’t know how to search online databases, ask your instructor or reference librarian.
Reference librarians are invaluable!
Search for helpful articles. Find one or more pivotal articles that can be a foundation for your paper. A pivotal article
may be exceptionally well written, contain particularly valuable citations, or clarify relationships between different
but related lines of research. Two sources of such articles in psychology are:
• Psychological Bulletin
• Current Directions in Psychological Science (published by the American Psychological Society) has general,
short articles written by scientists who have published a lot in their research area.
Older review articles (5-10 years old) may help you to understand the history of a research area and to find more
current research in that area. To follow up on an older review article:
• Search PsycInfo for whether authors cited in an earlier article have continued to do research in the area
• Search SSCI for recent studies that have cited the authors of an earlier review
How many articles? Although published review articles may cite more than 100 articles, literature reviews for courses
are often shorter because they present only highlights of a research area and are not exhaustive. A short literature
review may survey 7-12 research articles and be about 10-15 pages long. For course paper guidelines, ask your
instructor.Psychology Article Review Paper
Choose representative articles, not just the first ones you find. This consideration is more important than the length of
your review.
Choose readable articles. Some research areas are harder to understand than others. Scan articles in the topic areas
you are considering to decide on the readability of the research in those areas.
READ THE ARTICLES
To write an effective review, you’ll need a solid grasp of the relevant research. Begin by reading the article you find
easiest. Read, re-read, and mentally digest it until you have a conversational understanding of the paper. You don’t
know what you know until you can talk about it. And if you can’t talk about it, you won’t be able to write about it.
University of Washington | Psychology Writing Center
http://www.psych.uw.edu/psych.php?p=335 | psywc@uw.edu
Copyright 2017, University of Washington litrev.pdf
3
Read selectively. Don’t start by reading the articles from beginning to end. First, read just the Abstract to get an
overview of the study.
Scan the article to identify the answers to these “Why-What-What-What” questions:
(1) Why did they do the study? Why does it matter?
(2) What did they do?
(3) What did they find?
(4) What does it mean?
The previous four questions correspond to these parts of a research article:
(1) Introduction: the research question and hypotheses
(2) Methods
(3) Results
(4) Discussion
Create a summary sheet of each article’s key points. This will help you to integrate each article into your paper.
Read for depth. After you understand an article’s main points, read each section in detail for to gain the necessary indepth understanding to compare the work of different researchers.
WRITE THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Main Goal
Your goal is to evaluate a body of literature; i.e., to “identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies” and
“suggest next steps to solve the research problem” (APA Publication Manual 2010, p. 10). Begin writing when you
have decided on your story and how to organize your research to support that story.Psychology Article Review Paper
Organization
Organize the literature review to highlight the theme that you want to emphasize – the story that you want to tell.
Literature reviews tend to be organized something like this:
Introduction:
(1) Introduce the research topic (what it is, why does it matter)
(2) Frame the story: narrow the research topic to the studies you will discuss
(3) Briefly outline how you have organized the review
Body:
(1) Headings. Use theme headings to organize your argument (see below)
(2) Describe, compare, and evaluate studies for each section of your argument under your headings
(a) Describe the relevant parts of each study and explain why it is relevant to the subtopic at hand.Psychology Article Review Paper
(b) Compare the studies if need be, to discuss their implications (i.e., your interpretation of what the
studies show and whether there are important differences or similarities)
(c) Evaluate the importance of each study or group of studies, as well as the implications for the
subtopic, and where research should go from here (on the level of the subtopic)
Conclusion: Final evaluation, summation and conclusion
Headings. Use headings to identify major sections that show the organization of the paper. (Headings also help you to
identify organizational problems while you’re writing.) Avoid the standard headings of research articles (Introduction,
Method, Results, Discussion). Use specific, conceptual headings. If you are reviewing whether facial expressions are
universally understood, headings might include Studies in Western Cultures and Studies in Non-Western Cultures. Psychology Article Review Paper
Organize your argument into topics that fit under each heading (one or more per heading).
University of Washington | Psychology Writing Center
http://www.psych.uw.edu/psych.php?p=335 | psywc@uw.edu
Copyright 2017, University of Washington litrev.pdf
4
Describe. For each section or subtopic, briefly describe each article or line of research. Avoid sudden jumps betewen
broader and narrower ideas. Keep your story in mind to help keep your thoughts connected.
Compare. For each section or topic, compare related studies, if this is relevant to you story. Comparisons may involve
the research question, hypotheses, methods, data analysis, results, or conclusions. However, you don’t want to
compare everything. That wouldn’t be a story! Which parts are relevant? What evidence supports your arguments?
Identifying strengths and weaknesses of each study will help you make meaningful comparisons.
If you’re having trouble synthesizing information, you probably don’t understand the articles well. Reread sections
you don’t understand. Discuss the studies with someone: you don’t know what you know until you can talk about it.Psychology Article Review Paper
Evaluate. Descriptions/comparisons alone are not illuminating. For each section or topic, evaluate the studies you
have reviewed based on your comparisons. Tell your reader what you conclude, and why. Evaluating research is the
most subjective part of your paper. Even so, always support your claims with evidence. Evaluation requires much
thought and takes on some risk, but without it, your paper is just a book report.Psychology Article Review Paper
Final evaluation and summation. On a broader scale, relating to your main theme, tell your reader what you conclude
and why. Reiterate your main claims and outline the evidence that supports them.
Conclusion. How does your evaluatio change or add to current knowledge in the field field? What future studies are
implied by your analysis? How would such studies add to current knowledge of the topic?
Tips
Allow enough time. Don’t underestimate the time required to choose the right articles. Select your topic and collect
articles early. Budget half of your time for research and reading, and the other half for writing. Psychology Article Review Paper
Don’t start writing too early. You need a solid understanding of the research before you can evaluate it, and you need
to evaluate the research before you can write about it. This takes more time than many novice writers realize.
Take breaks. Leave time to step away from the paper so that you’ll have a fresh perspective when you return.
Revise and revise. Expect to revise multiple times. Ask others to read your paper before you write the final version.
Use specific language and concrete examples. Avoid vague references such as “this” (e.g., not “this shows”, but “this
result shows”). Sentences that start with “I feel” signal unsupported statements; revise or delete. Have a reason for
everything you write. Make every word mean something.
Paraphrase, don’t quote. Direct quotes are seldom used in scientific writing and should be avoided; paraphrase
instead (APA Publication Manual, 2010).
Don’t plagiarize. Plagiarism is easy to avoid if you give credit where due. Whenever you cite someone else’s ideas or
use their language, identify the author and year of publication. If you’re not sure whether to cite, cite. Using old
review articles is not plagiarism as long as you cite those papers and don’t present their ideas as your own.Psychology Article Review Paper
CONCLUSION
The purpose of a literature review is to survey, describe, compare, and evaluate research articles on a particular topic.
Choose a current topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow. Find the story that you want to tell. Spend a lot of
time reading and thinking before you write. Think critically about the main hypotheses, findings, and arguments in a
line of research. Identify areas of agreement among different articles as well as their differences and areas for future
study. Expect to revise your review many times to refine your story. A well-written literature review gives the reader a
comprehensive understanding of the main findings and remaining questions brought about by research on that topic.Psychology Article Review Paper

Looking back on the hundreds of articles I read during the course of my doctoral research, a few have left a lasting and indelible impression on me and still influence my thinking to this day. Some of these articles fall into the ‘classic’ experiment or study category and represent ground-breaking research that changed the way psychologists viewed and theorised on a particular behavioural phenomenon or adopted a unique methodological approach that paved the way for future research. Others were narrative or systematic reviews of a particular field or area, but were equally as influential on my, and certainly many others’, thinking and were highly influential in advancing knowledge in the area and catalysed future research.Psychology Article Review Paper Reflecting on these highly influential review articles led me to further ruminate on the key ingredients that make a ‘good’ review article; a highly pertinent question for the editor of a review journal such as Health Psychology Review (HPR) which has ambitions to be the lead forum for reviews on health psychology and behavioural medicine! Perusing the characteristics and features of the reviews that made such an impression on me, and likely many others, I have drawn up the following shortlist of candidate features that make a ‘good’ review article and present them here:Psychology Article Review Paper

1.
Originality.

2.
Advances knowledge and original thinking.

3.
Theory-based.

4.
Evidence-based.

5.
Accurate, comprehensive and rigorous.

6.
Recommendations for future enquiry.

7.
Stimulates debate.

I will touch upon each of these features in turn and how they pertain to the articles published in a journal like HPR in the hope that this will help guide those considering authoring a review in the field and submitting to the journal. I reference recently published reviews from HPR which are excellent examples of the features I propose and I strongly encourage prospective authors to read these articles paying attention to the features that make them ‘good’ reviews.Psychology Article Review Paper

Originality
It will come as no surprise to readers of the journal that the reviews published in HPR have been accepted because they are judged to make a unique contribution to the literature. By this, I do not mean that a review should, necessarily, report the creation or development of a new theory, model or way of thinking, but it should report on a new and innovative way of viewing a particular field or phenomenon in health psychology of behavioural medicine or offer unique insight into a particular relationship or effect observed in the field. Some review manuscripts submitted to HPR for consideration for publication are expertly executed and very well designed, but, alas, do not offer anything new. Such submissions, consequently, fall at the first hurdle. A good review must be informative about the field and focus on a topic in a way that has not been done before. All reviews published in HPR fulfil this criterion, but good illustrations are DeFrank and Brewer’s (2010 DeFrank , J. , & Brewer , N. 2010 .Psychology Article Review Paper A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 112 – 127 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.500482
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) proposed model of false positives for mammography, Sweeny and Cavanaugh’s (2011 Sweeny , K. , & Cavanaugh , A.G. 2011 . Waiting is the hardest part: A model of uncertainty navigation in the context of health news . Health Psychology Review , Advance online publication . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.520112
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
) model on uncertainty and responses to health news, DiMatteo, Haskard-Zolnierek and Martin’s (2011 DiMatteo , M.R. , Haskard-Zolnierek , K.B. , & Martin , L.R. 2011 . Improving patient adherence: A three-factor model to guide practice . Health Psychology Review , 6 , 74 – 91 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.537592
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
) meta-analytically derived three-factor model of patient practice and Hall and Fong’s (2010 Hall , P.A. , & Fong , G.T. 2010 . Temporal self-regulation theory: Looking forward . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 83 – 92 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.487180
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) rejoinder on their temporal self-regulation theory and associated commentaries (Borland, 2010 Borland , R. 2010 . Habits and temporality: A commentary on Hall and Fong’s temporal self-regulation theory . Health Psychology Review , 4 , doi: 10.1080/17437191003700816 66 – 69
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Cameron, 2010 Cameron , L. 2010 . Temporal self-regulation theory: Towards a more comprehensive understanding of health behavior . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 70 – 74 . doi: 10.1080/17437191003681537
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Sallis, 2010 Sallis , J.F. 2010 . Temporal self-regulation theory: A step forward in the evolution of health behavior models . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 75 – 78 . doi: 10.1080/17437191003681545
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Webb & Sheeran, 2010 Webb , T.L. , & Sheeran , P. 2010 . A viable, integrative framework for contemporary research in health psychology: Commentary on Hall and Fong’s (2007) temporal self-regulation theory . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 79 – 82 . doi: 10.1080/17437191003717497
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
). In contrast, descriptive reviews of a particular field may have some value in terms of summarising the state-of-the-literature, but its impact will be limited as it offers no new perspective on the field.

Advances thinking and knowledge
Closely related to originality, a ‘good’ review will also challenge previous ideas and contribute to understanding of certain topics, areas or ideas. Again, this means that review articles need to go beyond mere description and ‘state-of-the-literature’ summaries and develop new ideas and ways of thinking. While reviews should be evidence-based and well designed, they should also offer new insight into understanding the topic through innovative thinking that logically emerges from the evidence and, in all likelihood, extends it beyond the current knowledge. Although it may not appear so on the surface, this ideal applies to all review types, including meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The latter, although empirical, should not only seek to synthesise the literature but also demonstrate how the synthesis can help further understanding of health behaviour and other salient outcomes in the field (e.g., Annesi, Marti, & Stice, 2010 Annesi , J. , Marti , C. , & Stice , E. 2010 . A meta-analytic review of the youth fit for life intervention for effects on body mass index in 5- to 12-year-old children . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 6 – 21 . doi: 10.1080/17437190903168561
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Dodd & Forshaw, 2010 Dodd , L. , & Forshaw , M. 2010 . Assessing the efficacy of appearance-focused interventions to prevent skin cancer: A systematic review of the literature . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 93 – 111 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.485393
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Floyd & Moyer, 2010 Floyd , A. , & Moyer , A. 2010 . Group vs. individual exercise interventions for women with breast cancer: A meta-analysis . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 22 – 41 . doi: 10.1080/17437190903384291
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
). In summary, no reader should feel it necessary to raise the ‘so what’ question after reading a review article, narrative or empirical, published in HPR.

Theory based
Health Psychology Review should be based on theory. Reviews published in HPR are an excellent platform on which to develop ideas and propose new ways of thinking about phenomena in psychology. Review articles, therefore, need to take into consideration what has gone before, as well as current thinking, and use these, along with evidence, as a basis to develop new ideas. In addition, psychology is a very ‘theory rich’ discipline and, if anything, there are probably too many different approaches to understanding phenomena in psychology applied to health and illness.Psychology Article Review Paper This can lead to confusion and bewilderment, especially from the perspective of early-career researchers and students who seek to develop a basic understanding of health behaviour and behavioural phenomena about health and illness. HPR reviews can assist in this regard by helping to integrate the plethora of theories present in the discipline towards eliminating redundancies (e.g., constructs with similar content but different terms) and increase complementarity (e.g., demonstrate that one theory can help address the shortcomings of another) (Hagger, 2009 Hagger , M.S. 2009 . Theoretical integration in health psychology: Unifying ideas and complimentary explanations . British Journal of Health Psychology , 14 , 189 – 194 . doi: 10.1348/135910708X397034
[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
, 2010 Hagger , M.S. 2010 . Health Psychology Review: Advancing theory and research in health psychology and behavioural medicine . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 1 – 5 . doi: 10.1080/17437191003647306
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
).

Evidence based
New theories cannot be ‘plucked from thin air’, and the author of a review cannot advance and extend knowledge on a whim. Authors need to pay due diligence by taking previous research findings into consideration when developing new ideas. Just as a researcher needs to use previous investigations as a basis for his or her latest empirical study, so the author of a review article needs to consider previous evidence regarding the psychological phenomenon under scrutiny and use this as a basis for forming new ideas and theories regarding that phenomenon (for an excellent example of an evidence-based theoretical review see Morton et al., 2010 Morton , K. , Barling , J. , Rhodes , R.E. , Masse , L.C. , Zumbo , B.D. , & Beauchamp , M.R. 2010 . Extending transformational leadership theory to parenting and adolescent health behaviors: An integrative and theoretical review . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 128 – 157 . doi: 10.1080/17437191003717489
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
).

Accurate, comprehensive and rigorous
Authors of review articles need to adhere to the highest methodological standards when it comes to the conduct of the review process and the reporting of previous research, both of which are key considerations when review article manuscripts are reviewed by referees in HPR. Many times have reviews been rejected from the journal because an author has neglected important studies without appropriate justification which severely limits the validity and impact of the research. In such cases, authors need to ensure that no stones have been left unturned when it comes to encompassing previous research. The methods also need to be highly appropriate and tailored to the type of review and phenomenon under scrutiny.Psychology Article Review Paper Authors of reviews need to make sure that they adopt an appropriate and systematic approach to their review, such as the selection of analytic method in the case of quantitative and systematic reviews (e.g., Dodd & Forshaw, 2010 Dodd , L. , & Forshaw , M. 2010 . Assessing the efficacy of appearance-focused interventions to prevent skin cancer: A systematic review of the literature . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 93 – 111 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.485393
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Floyd & Moyer, 2010 Floyd , A. , & Moyer , A. 2010 . Group vs. individual exercise interventions for women with breast cancer: A meta-analysis . Health Psychology Review , 4 , 22 – 41 . doi: 10.1080/17437190903384291
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
), the need for selecting the optimal search strategy and studies to be included when it comes to narrative reviews (e.g., Gilliam & Schwebel, 2011 Gilliam , M.B. , & Schwebel , D.C. 2011 . Physical activity in child and adolescent cancer survivors: A review . Health Psychology Review , Advance online publication . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.603641
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
; Perez & Cruess, 2011 Perez , G.K. , & Cruess , D. 2011 . The impact of familism on physical and mental health among Hispanics in the United States . Health Psychology Review , Advance online publication . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.569936
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
), and the identification of appropriate phenomena and narrative sources in qualitative research (e.g., Lyons, 2011 Lyons , A.C. 2011 . Advancing and extending qualitative research in health psychology . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 1 – 8 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.544638
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Soundy et al., 2011 Soundy , A. , Smith , B. , Dawes , H. , Pall , H. , Gimbrere , K. , & Ramsay , J. 2011 . Patient’s expression of hope and illness narratives in three neurological conditions: A meta-ethnography . Health Psychology Review , Advance online publication . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.568856
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
; Stephens, 2011 Stephens , C. 2011 . Narrative analysis in health psychology research: Personal, dialogical and social stories of health . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 62 – 78 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.543385
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
). Finally, review authors need to ensure that they communicate their ideas using the appropriate scientific discourse and do so in an efficient and lucid manner. Far too often the HPR editorial team receives reviews that are encumbered by over description and lax language which only serves to frustrate the reader who is often looking for a pithy overview of the salient ‘headline’ findings, an associated evidence-based take-home message, and, most importantly, what gaps exist in knowledge.Psychology Article Review Paper

Recommendations for further research
An important aspect of advancing thinking and knowledge on a particular topic is to foster future research enquiry and stimulate further empirical work. This should be a key aspect of the studies published in HPR; we consider recommendations for future research an essential aspect of the process by which reviews develop thinking. Review articles should therefore be diligent in generating new questions that need to be addressed through future empirical research and serve to drive the field forward by posing the questions and hypotheses that need to be the targets of new studies. Excellent examples abound in HPR, but for a particularly cogent example of the provision of future research directions arising from a review of the extant research, I point readers in the direction of van’t Riet and Ruiter’s (2011 van’t Riet , J. , & Ruiter , R.A.C. 2011 . Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: An overview and implications for future research . Health Psychology Review , Advance online publication . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.606782
[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
) article on defensive reactions to health-promoting information.Psychology Article Review Paper

Stimulating debate
Review articles should not only serve as a catalyst for future research endeavours, but they should also stimulate future debate among theorists and researchers on the key questions relating to theory, research and practice in health psychology. HPR as well as many other review journals recognise the value of scholarly debate about salient issues and contemporary thinking about particular theories and processes in the field. Theorists and researchers frequently hold differing, or even diametrically opposed, views on particular issues, and reviews can be an important source for the airing, discussion, refuting and reconciliation of these viewpoints.Psychology Article Review Paper This is why it has been part of the editorial team’s venture to further stimulate debate in HPR, and our initiative to include more commentaries and rebuttals on key reviews is an integral part of this mission. Excellent examples of this mission exist, including the debates found in the commentaries (Conner, Prestwich, & Ayres, 2011 Conner , M.P. , Prestwich , A. , & Ayres , K. 2011 . Using explicit affective attitudes to tap impulsive influences on health behavior: A commentary on Hoffman et al. (2009) . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 145 – 149 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.539969
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Gibbons, Wills, Kingsbury, & Gerrarg, 2011 Gibbons , F.X. , Wills , T.A. , Kingsbury , J.H. , & Gerrarg , M. 2011 . Two ways of thinking about dual processing: A response to Hofmann, Friese and Wiers (2008) . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 158 – 161 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.541823
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Perugini & Richetin, 2011 Perugini , M. , & Richetin , J. 2011 . Time matters . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 154 – 157 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.529635
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Veling & Aarts, 2011 Veling , H. , & Aarts , H. 2011 . Stopping impulsive behavior by changing impulsive determinants of behavior . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 150 – 153 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.539970
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) and rejoinder (Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2011 Hofmann , W. , Friese , M. , & Wiers , R.W. 2011 . Impulsive processes in the self-regulation of health behaviour: Theoretical and methodological considerations in response to commentaries . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 162 – 171 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.565593
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) to Hofmann, Friese, and Wiers’ (2008) original article on dual process models in health behaviour and Smith’s (2011a Smith , J.A. 2011a . Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis . Psychology Article Review PaperHealth Psychology Review , 5 , 9 – 27 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.510659
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) lead article and rebuttal (Smith, 2011b Smith , J.A. 2011b . Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis: A reply to the commentaries and further development of criteria . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 55 – 61 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.541743
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
) on the use of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis in health psychology and the diverse and varied commentaries from other health psychologists (Chamberlain, 2011 Chamberlain , K. 2011 . Troubling methodology . Health Psychology Review , 5 , doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.520113 48 – 54 .Psychology Article Review Paper
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Kaptein, 2011 Kaptein , A.A. 2011 . Pick up the pieces and go home – on the demise of health psychology . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 39 – 47 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.520114
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Shaw, 2011 Shaw , R.L. 2011 . The future’s bright: Celebrating its achievements and preparing for the challenges ahead in IPA research . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 28 – 33 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.524808
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
; Todorova, 2011 Todorova , I. 2011 . Explorations with interpretative phenomenological analysis in different socio-cultural contexts – comment on J. Smith: “Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis” . Health Psychology Review , 5 , 34 – 38 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.520115
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
).Psychology Article Review Paper

The value of review articles in making sense of the important theoretical and research developments in health psychology is rising. In this editorial I have identified what I think makes a ‘good’ review article and makes them an essential to researchers’ and scholars’ endeavours to make sense of the vast research literature in the field. I encourage readers to visit the articles I cite here (and others) bearing these features in mind in the hope that this inspires more academics, researchers and students to conduct original, rigorous, evidence and theory-based reviews that advance thinking and future research in health psychology.Psychology Article Review Paper