Writing the Empirical Journal Article 14
Jargon
Jargon is the specialized vocabulary of a discipline,
and it serves a number of legitimate functions in scientific
communication. A specialized term may be more general,
more precise, or freer of surplus meaning than any natural
language equivalent (e.g., the term disposition encom-
passes, and hence is more general than, beliefs, attitudes,
moods, and personality attributes; reinforcement is more
precise and freer of surplus meaning than reward). And
the technical vocabulary often makes an important con-
ceptual distinction not apprehended by the layperson’s
vocabulary (e.g., genotype versus phenotype).
But if a jargon term does not satisfy any of these cri-
teria, opt for English. Much psychological jargon has be-
come second-nature to us in the profession and serves
only to muddy our prose for the general reader. (I once
had to interrogate an author at length to learn that a prison
program for “strengthening the executive functions of the
ego” actually taught prisoners how to fill out job applica-
tions.) Unless the jargon term is extremely well known
(e.g., reinforcement), it should be defined—explicitly,
implicitly, or by example—the first time it is introduced.
(See the sample opening statements earlier in this article
for ways to do this.)
Voice and Self-Reference
In the past, scientific writers used the passive voice
almost exclusively and referred to themselves in the third
person: “This experiment was designed by the authors to
test ...” This practice produces lifeless prose and is no
longer the norm. Use the active voice unless style or con-
tent dictates otherwise; and, in general, keep self-
reference to a minimum. Remember that you are not the
topic of your article. You should not refer to yourself as
“the author” or “the investigator.” (You may refer to “the
experimenter” in the method section, however, even if
that happens to be you; the experimenter is part of the
topic under discussion there.) Do not refer to yourself as
“we” unless there really are two or more authors. You
may refer to yourself as “I,” but do so sparingly. It tends
to distract the reader from the topic, and it is better to re-
main in the background. Leave the reader in the back-
ground, too. Do not say, “The reader will find it hard to
believe that ... “ or “You will be surprised to learn...”
(This article violates the rule because you and your prose
are the topic.) You may, however, refer to the reader indi-
rectly in imperative, “you-understood” sentences: “Con-
sider, first, the results for women.” “Note particularly the
difference between the means in Table 1.”
In some contexts, you can use “we” to refer collec-
tively to yourself and your readers: “We can see in Table
1 that most of the tears...” The Publication Manual, how-
ever, emphasizes that the referent of “we” must be unam-
biguous; for example, copy editors will object to the sen-
tence “In everyday life, of course, we tend to overesti-
mate...” because it is not clear just who is meant by “we.”
They will accept “In everyday life, of course, we humans
tend to overestimate...” or “In everyday life, of course,
human decision makers often make errors; for example,
we tend to overestimate...”
Tense
Use the past or present perfect tense when reporting
the previous research of others (“Bandura reported...” or
“Hardin has reported…”) and past tense when reporting
how you conducted your study (“Observers were posted
behind...”) and specific past behaviors of your participants
(“Two of the men talked...”). Use the present tense for
results currently in front of the reader (“As Table 2
shows, the negative film is more effective ...”) and for
conclusions that are more general than the specific results
(“Positive emotions, then, are more easily expressed
when...”).
Avoid Language Bias
Like most publishers, the APA now has extensive
guidelines for language that refers to individuals or
groups. If your article requires you to discuss any of the
groups mentioned in this section, you should probably
consult the detailed advice in the Publication Manual
(APA, 2001, pp. 61-76)
Research Participants. One distinctive group of peo-
ple who appear in our journal articles are those whom we
study. It is no longer considered appropriate to objectify
them by calling them subjects. Instead use descriptive
terms that either identify them more specifically or that
acknowledge their roles as partners in the research proc-
ess, such as college students, children, individuals, par-
ticipants, interviewees, or respondents. You may still use
the terms subjects, subject variables, and subject sample
when discussing statistics or (at least for now) when refer-
ring to non-human participants.
Sex and Gender. The issue of language bias comes up
most frequently with regard to sex or gender, and the
most awkward problems arise from the use of masculine
nouns and pronouns when the content refers to both sexes.
The generic use of man, he, his, and him to refer to both
sexes is not only misleading in many instances, but re-
search shows that readers think of male persons when
these forms are used (Martyna, 1978). Sometimes the
results are not only sexist, but humorous in their naive
androcentrism: “Man’s vital needs include food, water,
and access to females” (Quoted in Martyna, 1978).
In most contexts, the simplest alternative is the use of
the plural. Instead of writing, “The individual who dis-
plays prejudice in his personal relations...,” write “Indi-
viduals who display prejudice in their personal relations
are ...” Sometimes the pronoun can simply be dropped or
replaced by a sex-neutral article (the, a, or an). Instead of
writing, “The researcher must avoid letting his precon-
ceptions bias his interpretation of results,” you can write,
“The researcher must avoid letting preconceptions bias
the interpretation of results.”
If it is stylistically important to focus on the single
individual, the use of “he or she,” “him or her,” and so