How to Write a Literature Review

by

How to Write a Literature Review in Psychology: A Definitive Guide

Writing a literature review can feel like an intimidating task, especially in a field as vast and nuanced as psychology. It’s more than just a list of summaries; it’s a critical synthesis of existing research that lays the foundation for your own work. A well-crafted literature review demonstrates your expertise, positions your research within the broader academic conversation, and identifies gaps that your study aims to fill. This guide will walk you through every step of the process, from initial planning to final polishing, providing concrete, actionable advice tailored specifically for psychology students and researchers.

Part 1: Pre-Writing – The Foundation of Your Review

Before you even write a single sentence, a substantial amount of preparation is necessary. This is where you define your scope, organize your thoughts, and build the scaffolding for a successful review. Skipping this step often leads to a disjointed, unfocused final product.

1. Defining Your Scope and Research Question

The first and most critical step is to narrow your topic. Psychology is a sprawling discipline. A literature review on “social psychology” is too broad; one on “the effects of social media on well-being” is getting closer, but still needs refinement. A more manageable topic might be “the impact of Instagram’s ‘likes’ feature on adolescent body image.” This focused approach makes your search more efficient and your review more coherent.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question or a set of questions. This question acts as a compass, directing your search and helping you decide which articles are relevant. For example, your guiding question could be: “What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying the placebo effect in pain management, and what is the current evidence for psychological factors influencing this effect?” This question has two clear parts: the “what” (cognitive mechanisms) and the “how” (psychological factors).

2. Strategic Keyword and Database Searching

Once you have your research question, it’s time to find the literature. This isn’t a random process; it’s a strategic hunt. Start by brainstorming a comprehensive list of keywords related to your topic. Think about synonyms, related concepts, and different ways researchers might phrase your variables. For our placebo example, keywords could include: “placebo effect,” “nocebo effect,” “pain perception,” “expectancy theory,” “classical conditioning,” “cognitive mechanisms,” “psychological factors,” and specific populations like “chronic pain patients.”

Next, utilize the right databases. While Google Scholar is a great starting point, a comprehensive review requires more specialized resources. The major databases for psychology include:

  • PsycINFO: This is the gold standard for psychology research. It contains abstracts and citations from thousands of journals, books, and dissertations.

  • PubMed/MEDLINE: Excellent for topics with a biological or medical component, such as cognitive neuroscience, psychopharmacology, or clinical psychology.

  • Web of Science: A multidisciplinary database that can help you find relevant articles in related fields like sociology, public health, or education.

  • JSTOR: Useful for finding historical or foundational articles in the field.

Use advanced search operators like AND, OR, and NOT to refine your searches. For instance, “placebo effect AND (pain OR analgesia) NOT surgery” will return more specific and relevant results.

3. The Art of Critical Reading and Annotation

You will likely collect dozens, if not hundreds, of articles. You cannot possibly read them all in detail. This is where critical reading comes in. Start by reading the abstract to see if the article is relevant. If it is, move to the introduction and conclusion to understand the core arguments and findings. Only then, if the article is highly pertinent, should you read the full text.

As you read, annotate and take detailed notes. Don’t just summarize; critically evaluate each source. Ask yourself:

  • What is the study’s central hypothesis and methodology? Is the design sound?

  • What were the key findings? Are they statistically significant and practically meaningful?

  • What are the limitations of the study? Did the authors use a small sample size? Is the population unrepresentative?

  • How does this study relate to my research question? Does it support, contradict, or extend previous findings?

  • What are the implications for future research? Did the authors suggest new avenues of inquiry?

A systematic approach to note-taking is essential. You can use a spreadsheet with columns for author, year, key findings, methodology, limitations, and how it relates to your topic. This creates a powerful, searchable database of your sources.

Part 2: Structuring and Writing Your Review

Once you have a solid foundation of notes and a clear understanding of the literature, you can begin to write. The structure of your literature review is not a rigid template but a logical framework that guides your reader through the existing research.

1. The Introduction: Setting the Stage

The introduction is your first chance to engage the reader and set the context. It should not be a summary of your entire paper. Instead, think of it as a funnel.

  • Broad Overview: Start with a broad statement about the general topic and its importance in psychology. For example, “The placebo effect has long fascinated researchers, highlighting the powerful link between mind and body.”

  • Narrowing the Focus: Gradually narrow your focus to the specific area your review will cover. “While the clinical efficacy of placebos is well-documented, the underlying cognitive and psychological mechanisms remain a subject of intense investigation.”

  • Stating Your Purpose: Clearly state the purpose of your literature review. This is your thesis statement. “This review critically examines the current literature on the cognitive mechanisms and psychological factors that mediate the placebo effect, with a specific focus on expectancy theory and conditioning models, and identifies key gaps in the current research.”

  • Roadmap: Briefly outline the structure of your review. This helps the reader follow your argument. “The review begins by defining the placebo effect, then explores expectancy-based models, followed by a discussion of conditioning principles, and concludes by synthesizing these findings and suggesting directions for future research.”

2. Body Paragraphs: Synthesizing the Literature

This is the heart of your review. Avoid simply summarizing each article one after another. Instead, organize your paragraphs by themes, trends, or methodologies, not by author. Your job is to synthesize, not just summarize. This is a critical distinction.

  • Thematic Organization: Group studies that address a common theme or subtopic. For our placebo example, you might have sections on:
    • Expectancy-Based Models: Discuss studies that propose the placebo effect is primarily driven by a patient’s belief or expectation of a positive outcome. You would group studies by researchers like Irving Kirsch and Ted Kaptchuk here, comparing and contrasting their findings and methodologies.

    • Classical Conditioning Models: Dedicate a section to studies that argue the placebo response is a learned association, where a neutral stimulus (e.g., a sugar pill) becomes associated with an active treatment.

    • Neurobiological Correlates: Discuss studies using fMRI or PET scans to identify brain regions involved in the placebo response, such as the prefrontal cortex and endogenous opioid systems.

  • Chronological Organization (When Appropriate): Sometimes, a chronological approach is necessary to show the historical development of a theory. You might trace the evolution of a concept from its initial proposal to its modern, refined form. This is particularly useful for demonstrating how a field has matured over time. For example, you could show how early behavioral models of anxiety evolved into modern cognitive-behavioral models.

  • Methodological Organization: If your topic is heavily influenced by a specific type of research design, you might group studies by methodology. For example, a review on infant attachment might have sections on:

    • Observational studies using the Strange Situation procedure.

    • Cross-sectional studies using self-report questionnaires.

    • Longitudinal studies following children from infancy to adulthood.

3. Incorporating Critical Analysis and Synthesis

The mark of an excellent literature review is not just describing what others have found, but critically evaluating and synthesizing those findings.

  • Critical Evaluation: Don’t just report findings; evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. “While Smith et al.’s (2020) study provides compelling evidence for the role of expectations, its reliance on a small, all-male sample limits the generalizability of its findings.” This demonstrates a deeper level of understanding.

  • Synthesis and Connection: Show how different studies connect, build on, or contradict each other. Use transition words to guide your reader. “Building on the work of Johnson (2018), who first proposed a link between self-esteem and social media use, a subsequent study by Williams et al. (2021) demonstrated that this relationship is mediated by social comparison processes.”

  • Identifying Gaps: As you synthesize the literature, you’ll naturally uncover gaps. This is the most important part of your review. A gap is not just a missing study; it’s an unanswered question or an unaddressed area of a research problem. You might find that most studies on the placebo effect have used pain as the outcome, but few have explored its role in psychological disorders like depression. This is a key gap your own research could address.

4. The Conclusion: Tying It All Together

Your conclusion should not introduce new information or simply repeat your introduction. It should powerfully summarize your synthesis and set the stage for your own research.

  • Summarize Key Findings and Trends: Briefly reiterate the major themes and conclusions you’ve drawn from the literature. “The existing literature demonstrates that the placebo effect is a complex phenomenon driven by both cognitive expectancy and learned associations, with distinct neural correlates.”

  • Reaffirm the State of the Field: Synthesize the current state of knowledge. “While significant progress has been made, particularly in understanding the neurobiological underpinnings, a major limitation is the lack of longitudinal studies examining the long-term maintenance of placebo responses.”

  • Highlight the Gaps and Future Directions: Clearly articulate the gaps you’ve identified. This is where you justify the need for your own research. “Consequently, a crucial gap remains in understanding how these mechanisms interact over time and how they might be leveraged for more effective clinical interventions. Future research should focus on a longitudinal examination of these processes.”

  • Connect to Your Own Research: If the literature review is part of a larger thesis or dissertation, briefly explain how your proposed study will address these gaps. “Our study will address this gap by employing a longitudinal design to investigate the interplay between expectancy and conditioning in the placebo response among patients with chronic neuropathic pain.”

Part 3: The Refinement Process – Editing and Polishing

Once you have a full draft, the work isn’t over. A great literature review is not just written; it’s meticulously refined.

1. Ensuring a Cohesive and Logical Flow

Read your draft out loud to catch awkward phrasing and abrupt transitions. Does each paragraph logically flow into the next? Do your headings accurately reflect the content of each section? Ensure a strong thesis statement in the introduction and a powerful synthesis in the conclusion. Use transition sentences at the beginning and end of paragraphs to create a seamless narrative.

2. Checking for Clarity and Precision

In academic writing, every word counts.

  • Avoid Vague Language: Instead of saying “research shows,” specify which research and what it showed. “A meta-analysis by Smith and Jones (2022) revealed a moderate effect size…”

  • Use Active Voice: “Researchers found” is more direct than “It was found by researchers.”

  • Define Your Terms: In psychology, many terms have specific, technical definitions (e.g., “cognitive dissonance,” “operant conditioning”). Make sure you are using these terms correctly and, if necessary, briefly define them in context.

3. Final Formatting and Proofreading

Before submission, give your review a final polish.

  • Citations: Double-check that every in-text citation corresponds to an entry in your reference list, and that the formatting (APA, MLA, etc.) is consistent and correct.

  • Readability: Break up long paragraphs. Use headings and subheadings to make your review scannable. A solid literature review is dense, but it shouldn’t feel like an impenetrable wall of text.

By following these steps, you’ll produce a literature review that is not only comprehensive and well-researched but also a compelling, scholarly argument that establishes the intellectual foundation for your own contributions to the field of psychology.