1

I am trying to write an APA style paragraph with equations in the paragraph, however LaTeX seems to be deciding to try and keep the equation on a full line, instead of naturally wrapping on to the next line much like text would. Here is an example of how it looks now:

example

It should just wrap. Is there an automatic way to just allow it to wrap just like any other text not in the $$ signs?

Edit:

Here is my text including packages:

\documentclass[letterpaper,man,natbib]{apa6}

\usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{breqn}

$F(3,36) = 14.017, p < 0.001, n^2_{partial} = 0.539$. Specifically,
participants who were in the no perfume group ($M = 6.4, SE = 0.34$)
gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the No
Name ($M=3.4, SE=0.37$), $q(3,36) = 8.30, p < 0.01, d = 2.67$,
PopStar($M=3.7, SE = 0.33$), $q(3,36) = 7.47, p < 0.01, d = 5.53$, or
MovieStar($M=4.3, SE = 0.40$), $q(3,36) = 5.81, p < 0.01, d = 1.81$
groups.

This is a sample of my full paper, I hope that is enough.

  • 1
    Welcome to TeX.SE! Please show us the code you've used to generate the screenshot you posted. – Mico Oct 7 '16 at 6:41
  • Yes, formulas between $...$ will wrap, unless you put them in boxes, or you have some weird parameters set up. What's an APA style paragraph? Show your code. – Pieter van Oostrum Oct 7 '16 at 7:26
  • I assume that \raggedright is applied in your document and that you write the "equations" as NoName $(M=3.4, SE=0.37)$, $q(4,36)=7.47, p<0.01, d=2.67$. Please confirm or disconfirm this hunch. – Mico Oct 7 '16 at 7:26
  • 1
    @PietvanOostrum hi welcome to the site:-) – David Carlisle Oct 7 '16 at 7:45
  • @PietvanOostrum I am using the APA document class and writing and APA style format to report statistical analysis findings. That is what I meant. – ComputerLocus Oct 8 '16 at 2:20
5

It appears that your document uses \raggedright style rather than full justification and that you input the "equations" in the following format:

NoName $(M=3.4, SE=0.37)$, $q(4,36)=7.47, p<0.01, d=2.67$;
PopStar $(M=3.7, SE=0.33)$, $q(4,36)=8.30, p<0.01, d=5.53$; or
MovieStar $(M=4.3, SE=0.40)$, $q(4,36)=5.81, p<0.01, d=1.81$ groups.

See panel A. below, which pretty much manages to replicate the "look" of your screenshot. I will call this math style "long equations" style.

Assuming this hunch is correct, there are two remedies to consider:

  • Use \RaggedRight (a macro provided by the ragged2e package) instead of \raggedright, and

  • use "short" equations, i.e., write

    NoName ($M=3.4$, $SE=0.37$), $q(4,36)=7.47$, $p<0.01$, $d=2.67$;
    PopStar ($M=3.7$, $SE=0.33$), $q(4,36)=8.30$, $p<0.01$, $d=5.53$; or
    MovieStar ($M=4.3$, $SE=0.40$), $q(4,36)=5.81$, $p<0.01$, $d=1.81$ groups.
    

    Observe that there are now five rather than two equations per line. I certainly recommend the "short equations" style.

As panels B, C, and D below illustrate, you'll get much more satisfying output if you use one of the combinations of \RaggedRight and "short" equation style.

Panel E shows the "look" that's generated if (a) full justification is in effect and (b) short equations are used.

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amstext,ragged2e}
\usepackage[textwidth=5.6in]{geometry}
\usepackage{setspace} \onehalfspacing
\begin{document}

\begingroup
\noindent
\verb+A. \raggedright, "long" equations+

\noindent\raggedright
ratings $F(3.36)=14.017$, $p<0.001$, $n^2_{\text{partial}}=0.539$. Specifically, participants who were in the no perfume group ($M=6.4, SE=0.34$) gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the NoName $(M=3.4, SE=0.37)$, $q(4,36)=7.47, p<0.01, d=2.67$;
PopStar $(M=3.7, SE=0.33)$, $q(4,36)=8.30, p<0.01, d=5.53$; or
MovieStar $(M=4.3, SE=0.40)$, $q(4,36)=5.81, p<0.01, d=1.81$ groups.

\endgroup
\bigskip\bigskip
\begingroup
\noindent
\verb+B. \RaggedRight, "long" equations+

\noindent\RaggedRight
ratings $F(3.36)=14.017$, $p<0.001$, $n^2_{\text{partial}}=0.539$. Specifically, participants who were in the no perfume group ($M=6.4, SE=0.34$) gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the NoName $(M=3.4, SE=0.37)$, $q(4,36)=7.47, p<0.01, d=2.67$;
PopStar $(M=3.7, SE=0.33)$, $q(4,36)=8.30, p<0.01, d=5.53$; or
MovieStar $(M=4.3, SE=0.40)$, $q(4,36)=5.81, p<0.01, d=1.81$ groups.

\endgroup

\bigskip\bigskip
\begingroup

\noindent
\verb+C. \raggedright, "short" equations+

\raggedright
\noindent
ratings $F(3.36)=14.017$, $p<0.001$, $n^2_{\text{partial}}=0.539$. Specifically, participants who were in the no perfume group ($M=6.4$, $SE=0.34$) gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the NoName ($M=3.4$, $SE=0.37$), $q(4,36)=7.47$, $p<0.01$, $d=2.67$;
PopStar ($M=3.7$, $SE=0.33$), $q(4,36)=8.30$, $p<0.01$, $d=5.53$; or
MovieStar ($M=4.3$, $SE=0.40$), $q(4,36)=5.81$, $p<0.01$, $d=1.81$ groups.

\endgroup

\bigskip\bigskip
\begingroup
\noindent
\verb+D. \RaggedRight, "short" equations+

\noindent\RaggedRight
ratings $F(3.36)=14.017$, $p<0.001$, $n^2_{\text{partial}}=0.539$. Specifically, participants who were in the no perfume group ($M=6.4$, $SE=0.34$) gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the NoName ($M=3.4$, $SE=0.37$), $q(4,36)=7.47$, $p<0.01$, $d=2.67$;
PopStar ($M=3.7$, $SE=0.33$), $q(4,36)=8.30$, $p<0.01$, $d=5.53$; or
MovieStar ($M=4.3$, $SE=0.40$), $q(4,36)=5.81$, $p<0.01$, $d=1.81$ groups.

\endgroup
\bigskip\bigskip
\noindent
\verb+E. full justification, "short" equations+

\noindent
ratings $F(3.36)=14.017$, $p<0.001$, $n^2_{\text{partial}}=0.539$. Specifically, participants who were in the no perfume group ($M=6.4$, $SE=0.34$) gave significantly higher ratings than participants who were in the NoName ($M=3.4$, $SE=0.37$), $q(4,36)=7.47$, $p<0.01$, $d=2.67$;
PopStar ($M=3.7$, $SE=0.33$), $q(4,36)=8.30$, $p<0.01$, $d=5.53$; or 
MovieStar ($M=4.3$, $SE=0.40$), $q(4,36)=5.81$, $p<0.01$, $d=1.81$ groups.

\end{document} 
  • Full justification with "long" equations gives almost the same output as with "short" equations. – Pieter van Oostrum Oct 7 '16 at 10:14
  • @PietvanOostrum - Thanks. A serious downside of the "long" equations is that the spacing after the commas is simply wrong for the material at hand. – Mico Oct 7 '16 at 11:02
  • observe that with example B, using \RaggedRight, the spaces after the commas are narrower than the spaces around the equal signs and other signs of relation. can't think of a better demonstration that "short" equations are more appropriate than "long" equations. – barbara beeton Oct 7 '16 at 15:38
  • Thank you. I did not specifically change anything with the justifications, however I am using Overleaf.com for my editing and it may change things. I have a document class with letterpaper,man,natbib {apa6} and the english/babel, utf8x/inputenc, amsmath, graphicx, breqn packages. I ended up going with the short equation format you suggested as I was in a bit of a time crunch, however for the future I will look at the RaggedRight and hopefully figure out why the full justication was not happening. – ComputerLocus Oct 8 '16 at 2:12
  • 1
    @ComputerLocus - By all means, then, keep using the apa6 document class, just without the man option. Separately, do create "short" rather than "long' equations... – Mico Oct 10 '16 at 21:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.