A literature review in an empirical psychology thesis is read for theory, constructs, and the weight of each cited finding. This guide is for students with a draft review at bachelor's or master's level who want to know what your supervisor or the assessors will look for before the thesis is handed in. It covers where the review sits in an empirical psychology thesis, how to organize it by construct, how to report the design, sample and measures of the studies you lean on, how meta-analysis and replication results change the weight of a finding, and the APA habits a psychology reader notices. Department guidance from Sweden, Latvia, Poland, and Canada is quoted along the way.
Esmond doesn't open your sources. From within your field, it points out where your use of them leaves a claim unsupported, where you cite a source in two conflicting ways, and other blind spots.
In an empirical psychology thesis that follows APA structure, there is often no chapter called "literature review". The review is the introduction: it sets out the theory, evaluates the studies that bear on the question, and ends with the hypotheses. Longer master's theses and some European programs use a separate theoretical chapter instead, which the Daugavpils guide quoted below calls the theoretical part. In both forms the review leads to the hypotheses. The order of all sections is on the psychology thesis structure page, and the paragraphs that lead into the hypotheses are on the psychology introduction page. Other chapters and fields are listed under thesis chapter feedback.
Umeå University's syllabus for the master's thesis in psychology lists among the expected outcomes that the student can “describe a problem area and identify knowledge gaps based on a relevant literature review and current theories and concepts”. Theory, concepts, and a gap are named together, and that is a usable test for a draft: can a reader point to the theory, to the constructs it uses, and to the gap, each in a sentence of yours? How to state a gap that holds up is covered in research gap in a thesis.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour review says mindfulness training "reliably reduces" test anxiety and cites one meta-analysis. Two paragraphs later you describe the included trials as small and mostly unblinded. Which of the two statements does your first hypothesis rest on?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free preview| Part of the review | What the reader looks for | Typical question in the margin |
|---|---|---|
| Theory | One named theory or model, with its constructs and the mechanism it proposes | Which theory predicts this, and what would it predict if it were wrong? |
| Constructs | Each construct defined once, and measured in the cited studies the way you define it | Is "stress" here perceived stress, cortisol, or a diary rating? |
| Key studies | Design, sample, and measures reported for the studies the argument depends on | Was this study correlational? Then where does the causal verb come from? |
| Size of effects | Effect sizes, or at least the direction and consistency of effects across studies | How large is the effect, and in which population? |
| Weight of evidence | Meta-analytic reviews, replication attempts, and preregistered studies identified as such | Has this finding been replicated, and by whom? |
| Synthesis | Paragraphs built around constructs, moderators, or disagreements | Is this paragraph about a question or about one paper? |
| Lead-in to hypotheses | Each hypothesis traceable to a paragraph of the review | Where in the review does H2 come from? |
At Daugavpils University in Latvia, the methodological instructions for research in psychology tie the review to the hypotheses: “Research questions or hypothesis are to follow logically from the analysis of scientific literature.” The same guide sets the terms for evaluating studies: “criticism is to be directed exclusively against theoretical or methodological failings.” A weakness you name should be a weakness in a design, a sample, a measure, or an inference, stated so that a reader can check it.
The University of Lethbridge's honours thesis guidelines in psychology cover the case where the thesis is a review of existing literature, quantitative or qualitative. There, the guidelines say, a student will often have to interpret and assess the statistical results of published studies, and “it is critical that one recognises whether acceptable procedures have been followed”. Western University's honours thesis course based on meta-analysis lists as a learning outcome that students “Apply data collection methods consisting of systematic searches, extracting information, and evaluating quality of studies”. Both describe a review that reads the numbers in the studies it cites.
The Daugavpils guide names one weakness directly: “It is not advisable to draft the literature review as a range of fragmented summaries of articles found on the respective topic.” In psychology the alternative is to build sections around constructs and the relations between them. A study then appears wherever it informs a point, and some studies appear in more than one section. One outline that fits many empirical theses:
A psychology reader asks how much each cited finding can carry. One experiment with 40 undergraduates and a large effect carries less than a meta-analysis of 60 studies, and a meta-analysis carries less when its studies are small, differ widely, or may be a selection of the published positive results. When you cite a meta-analysis, give the pooled effect with its confidence interval, say how much the studies differed (heterogeneity), and say whether the authors tested for publication bias. When one study carries a central claim, say whether it has been replicated.
Replication status is now part of the evidence. In the Open Science Collaboration's 2015 project, which repeated 100 published studies, about a third of the replications produced a statistically significant result, and the average effect was about half the original one. A multi-lab replication of the ego-depletion effect published in 2016 found an effect close to zero. A review that cites an original finding and leaves out the later replication attempts gives a reader an easy question. For the general length and scope of the chapter, see how long should a literature review be.
Some programs set conditions on replication theses. SWPS University in Poland states in its standards for master's theses in psychology: “A master's thesis should not focus on the replication of a study that has already been replicated numerous times or has been included in one of the replication projects (e.g., ManyLabs), unless the student can provide a reasonable rationale for such a choice.” If your thesis replicates a study, the review is where that rationale has to stand.
To check that each in-text citation has a reference entry with the same year and spelling, use the citation checker.
These fragments are made up. None of them comes from a real thesis.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond reads the review you made. It can flag, in the text you upload, what a psychology reader may question: a causal claim resting on correlational studies, an effect called strong with no number behind it, a central claim carried by a single study, a construct that changes name between sections, a hypothesis that no paragraph of the review prepares. The sample report shows what such a review looks like, and how Esmond works explains the steps.
Esmond reads what you upload. If the file holds the whole draft, it can set this chapter against the others; if it holds one chapter, the review stays within that chapter and may raise a point that another chapter already answers.
Esmond doesn't search the literature, open the studies you cite, or rerun their statistics, and it adds no text to your review. You decide which points to act on, with your supervisor.
In an empirical thesis, the review forms the introduction or a theoretical chapter. It moves from the phenomenon to the theory, the constructs and how they are measured, the evidence on the relations between them, the open question, and the hypotheses. Sections follow constructs or debates, and a paper appears wherever it informs a point. Your department's guide decides whether the review is a separate chapter.
The departments quoted here work with APA style: the Daugavpils instructions refer to the APA Publication Manual, and SWPS names the current APA edition in its evaluation criteria. Check which edition your department uses and whether it wants APA heading levels inside the review.
Give the theory, each main construct, each relation you test, and the open question a heading of its own. List the key studies under each heading before you start the text; a study can sit under several headings. The outline section above gives one order that fits many empirical theses.
Esmond doesn't provide example texts. Review articles in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, and past theses in your university's repository, show how reviews are built around questions. Use them to study structure, and keep the wording your own.
Where they exist for your question, a reader expects them, along with what they report on heterogeneity and publication bias. A meta-analysis doesn't replace the primary studies your hypotheses depend on: describe those as well.
The checks on this page apply at both levels. What changes is how many literatures you review and how deeply you cover measurement debates and competing theories. Ask your supervisor what scope is expected for your degree.
Read on November 8, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit