Article

Guiding the Process of Construct Building: An Exploration Based on Heidegger’s Ontological Difference

Heribert Gierl ORCID

    Received: 24 September 2025 | Revised: 7 November 2025 | Accepted: 12 November 2025 | Published Online: 19 November 2025

    Abstract

    Numerous academic disciplines are dedicated to the study of human behavior. Within these disciplines, a well-established standard governs the conduct of research, encompassing construct building, theory formulation, measurement development, and statistical analysis. While literature provides extensive criteria to ensure the quality of theory formulation, measurement construction, and the use of statistical procedures, comparatively little attention has been paid to ensuring the quality of construct building. This work begins by seeking to clarify different conceptions of the nature of constructs. We posit that they are assumed to be invented, developed, or disclosed. Our first aim is to discuss the option that constructs are equal to disclosed reality. Drawing on Heidegger’s ontological difference, we propose that this philosophical framework offers a lens through which this option can be understood. Our second aim is to explore how researchers can provide evidence for the existence of a particular construct depending on the construct’s nature. Our third objective is to examine whether Heidegger’s philosophy can inform the derivation of criteria for the quality of construct conceptualization. From this analysis, we propose a separation between the definitional and clarificatory parts of disclosed constructs. Their definitional component should be articulated independently of temporal and spatial contingencies. The disclosure of the clarificatory component should emerge through an iterative ontic-ontological process and allow for such contingencies. Furthermore, we advocate for the reporting of the stage of disclosure reached within the hermeneutic process. To illustrate the practical applicability of these proposed criteria, we examine the marketing construct of brand age.

    Keywords

    Brand Age, Constructs, Disclosure Process, Heidegger’s Epistemology, Hermeneutic Process, Ontological Difference, Philosophy and Consumer Research

    References
    1. [1] DeVellis, R.F., Thorpe, C.T., 2022. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 5th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
    2. [2] Carnap, R., 1936. Testability and Meaning. Philosophy of Science. 3(4), 419–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/286432
    3. [3] Anderson, P., 1983. Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing. 47(4), 18–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298304700403
    4. [4] Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research. 16(1), 64–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
    5. [5] Mulhall, S., 2005. Heidegger’s Being and Time, 2nd ed. Routledge: London, UK.
    6. [6] Heidegger, M., 1967. Sein und Zeit [Being and Time], 11th ed. Max Niemeyer: Tübingen, Germany (in German. Reprint of the 1st ed. in 1927).
    7. [7] Gilliam, D.A., Voss, K., 2013. A Proposed Procedure for Construct Definition in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing. 47(1–2), 5–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311285439
    8. [8] Summers, J.O., 2001. Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization Through the Review Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 29(4), 405–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03079450094243
    9. [9] MacKenzie, S.B., 2003. The Dangers of Poor Construct Conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 31(3), 323–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003011
    10. [10] Suddaby, R., 2010. Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization. Academy of Management Review. 35(3), 346–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.3.zok346
    11. [11] Edwards, J.R., Bagozzi, R.P., 2000. On the Nature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructs and Measures. Psychological Methods. 5(2), 155–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
    12. [12] Maraun, M.D., Gabriel, S.M., 2013. Illegitimate Concept Equating in the Partial Fusion of Construct Validation Theory and Latent Variable Modeling. New Ideas in Psychology. 31(1), 32–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.006
    13. [13] Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, 2nd ed. University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA.
    14. [14] Kerlinger, F.N., 1973. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Reinhart & Winston: New York, NY, USA.
    15. [15] Loevinger, J., 1957. Objective Tests as Instruments of Psychological Theory. Psychological Reports. 3(3), 635–694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
    16. [16] Michell, J., 2013. Constructs, Inferences, and Mental Measurement. New Ideas in Psychology. 31(1), 13–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.004
    17. [17] Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E., 1955. Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin. 52(4), 281–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
    18. [18] Bergkvist, L., Eisend, M., 2021. The Dynamic Nature of Marketing Constructs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 49(3), 521–541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00756-w
    19. [19] Kelly, G.A., 2003. The Psychology of Personal Construct. Vol. 1: Theory and Personality. Taylor & Francis: London, UK.
    20. [20] Kelly, G.A., 2017. A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. Costruttivismi. 4(1), 3–25.
    21. [21] Arvey, R.D., 1992. Constructs and Construct Validation: Definitions and Issues. Human Performance. 5(1–2), 59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1992.9667924
    22. [22] Schnegg, M., 2015. Epistemology: The Nature and Validation of Knowledge. In: Bernard, H.R., Gravlee, C.C. (Eds.). Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA. pp. 21–54.
    23. [23] Lewis, D., 1970. How to Define Theoretical Terms. Journal of Philosophy. 67(13), 427–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2023861
    24. [24] Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W., 1959. Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56(2), 81–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
    25. [25] Middendorp, C.P., 1991. On the Conceptualization of Theoretical Constructs. Quality and Quantity. 25(3), 235–252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167530
    26. [26] Bartunek, J.M., Spreitzer, G.M., 2006. The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century. Journal of Management Inquiry. 15(3), 255–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291201
    27. [27] Lambert, L.S., Newman, D.A., 2023. Construct Development and Validation in Three Practical Steps: Recommendations for Reviewers, Editors, and Authors. Organizational Research Methods. 26(4), 574–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
    28. [28] Rossiter, J.R., 2002. The C–OAR–SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 19(4), 305–335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6
    29. [29] Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1994. The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising. 23(4), 59–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459
    30. [30] Teas, R.K., Palan, K.M., 1997. The Realms of Scientific Meaning Framework for Constructing Theoretically Meaningful Nominal Definitions of Marketing Concepts. Journal of Marketing. 61(2), 52–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100204
    31. [31] Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1998. Grounded Theory. Strategien Qualitativer Forschung. Huber: Bern, Switzerland. (in German)
    32. [32] Weems, C.F., Costa, N.M., Dehon, C., et al., 2004. Paul Tillich’s Theory of Existential Anxiety: A Preliminary Conceptual and Empirical Examination. Anxiety, Stress & Coping. 17(4), 383–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800412331318616
    33. [33] van Bruggen, V., ten Klooster, P., Westerhof, G., et al., 2017. The Existential Concerns Questionnaire (ECQ): Development and Initial Validation of a New Existential Anxiety Scale in a Nonclinical and Clinical Sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 73(12), 1692–1703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22474
    34. [34] Bouchard Jr., T.J., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., et al., 1990. Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science. 250(4978), 223–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2218526
    35. [35] Berger, P., Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, UK.
    36. [36] Samalikova, J., Kusters, R.J., Trienekens, J.J., 2014. Process Mining Support for Capability Maturity Model Integration-Based Software Process Assessment, in Principle and in Practice. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. 26(7), 714–728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1645
    37. [37] Aghion, P., Howitt, P., 1990. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction. Econometrica. 60(2), 323–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2951599
    38. [38] Kim, Y., Srivastava, J., 2024. The “Achilles Heel” of Established Brands: The Effect of Brand Age on Consumers’ Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research. 61(2), 290–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437231178544
    39. [39] Zeng, S., Wu, S., Yuan, Y., et al., 2025. Designing Age: The Impact of Logo Color Lightness on Brand Age Perception and Brand Attitude. Psychology & Marketing. 42(4), 1188–1200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22172
    40. [40] Repace, J., Gertner, D., 2014. An Assessment of the Impact of Perceived Brand Age on Brand Attitudes. World Journal of Management. 5(1), 62–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21102/wjm.2014.03.51.05
    41. [41] Guillory, M.D., 2012. Perceived Brand Age and Its Influence on Choice [Master’s thesis]. Georgia State University: Atlanta, GA, USA.
    42. [42] Huber, F., Meyer, F., Vogel, J., et al., 2013. Endorser Age and Stereotypes: Consequences on Brand Age. Journal of Business Research. 66(2), 207–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.014
    43. [43] Zhang, C., Kashmiri, S., Cinelli, M., 2019. How Does Brand Age Influence Consumer Attitudes Toward a Firm’s Unethical Behavior? Journal of Business Ethics. 158(3), 699–711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3696-y
    44. [44] Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research. 34(3), 347–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897
    45. [45] Coulter, R.H., Zaltman, G., 1994. Using the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique to Understand Brand Images. In: Allen, C., John, D.R. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21. Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA. pp. 501–507.
    46. [46] Aaker, J., Fournier, S., 1995. A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality. In: Kardes, F.R., Sujan, M. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22. Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA. pp. 391–395.
    47. [47] Zaltman, G., 2002. Eliciting Mental Models Through Imagery. In: Galaburda, A.M., Kosslyn, S.M., Christen, Y. (Eds.). The Languages of the Brain. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. pp. 363–375.
    Back to top