Conjunctionitis: a call for clarity in construct definitions

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to determine the extent to which the use of coordinating conjunctions enhances or impairs definitional clarity. Design/methodology/approach In two studies, a sample of 736 construct definitions from the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a 30-year period was judged for ambiguity and vagueness by both academic and lay judges. Findings The authors demonstrate that constructing definitions using both “and” and “or” increases the ambiguity and vagueness of the construct’s meaning. The most frequently used conjunction is “and” which appeared in 42 per cent of the definitions. A significant percentage (26 per cent) contain the conjunction “or.” Research limitations/implications A framework for understanding alternative interpretations of “and” or “or” is developed. Five recommendations are proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists in all academic fields should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition. Practical implications A five-step process is proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition. Originality/value This is the first exploration of how specific wording patterns used in construct definitions in academic research affect the clarity of the definition.

Hallmarks and potential pitfalls of customer‐ and consumer engagement scales: A systematic review

“…While 21 of the 28 articles define their proposed CE‐based concept, an explicit conceptualization was not detected in the remaining articles (e.g., Lourenço et al, 2022), which is problematic given the key role of concept definition in setting the scene for its subsequent operationalization (Voss et al, 2020). Our analysis also reveals a multiplicity of CE study contexts, including social media (e.g., Hollebeek et al, 2014), tourism (e.g., So et al, 2014), and mobile phones (e.g., Dwivedi, 2015), to name a few.…”

“…At the heart of any rigorous conceptualization lies a clear concept definition (Voss et al, 2020). “Good definitions should (a) specify the construct's conceptual theme, (b) [be] unambiguous…, (c) [be] consistent with prior research, and… (d) [be] clearly distinguish[able] from related constructs” (MacKenzie, 2003, p. 325).…”

“…For example, Ndhlovu and Maree (2022, p. 229) define CBE , a term originally coined by Hollebeek et al (2014), as “a consumer's psychological state and behavioral manifestations that occur through the process of value cocreation involving resource integration and service exchanges in consumer‐brand interactive service systems,” thus making explicit reference to the concepts of cocreation and resource integration in their definition. Not only can this approach be problematic in terms of yielding the proposed concept's expected theoretical overlap with these literature‐based constructs (e.g., Voss et al, 2020), but it may also lack consistency with prior CE‐based insight, exposing a further threat to its robustness (MacKenzie, 2003).…”

“…First, though Ndhlovu and Maree's (2022) scale measures CBE, their conceptualization is inconsistent with Hollebeek et al's (2014) original CBE definition. Specifically, by adopting Hollebeek et al's (2014) concept designation (i.e., name), but operationalizing it differently, Ndhlovu and Maree's (2022) interpretation of CBE is unlikely to fit with prior literature, creating a theoretical chasm in this respect and tampering with the proposed construct's validity (MacKenzie, 2003; Voss et al, 2020). We, thus, offer the following recommendations to researchers: Those applying existing CE scales in their empirical studies : To adopt a rigorous full construct conceptualization‐ and operationalization package, to which Ng et al (2020, p. 236) refer as “a unified conceptualization and measurement of CE,” or Those developing a new CE‐based construct and associated scales : To create a unique, conceptually distinct construct bearing a unique construct designation or name (vs. adopting an existing concept to refer to a distinct theoretical entity; MacKenzie, 2003), or Those refining existing CE scales : To maintain the original construct name and retain its theoretical essence.…”

Rolling up our sleeves and pulling up our socks: a critical review of safety culture definitions and measures, and innovative ways to move the field forward

“…A lack of conceptual clarity and implementation of misaligned measurement methods presents a critical challenge for academics and practitioners alike. For instance, when scholars fail to sharply define their focal constructs, it can have a profound adverse effect on measurement, such as reducing face validity and impacting item response quality (Voss et al, 2020); items that are either deficient in their measurement or contaminated by overlapping conceptually with other established concepts in the field, and poor overall construct validity (Podsakoff, Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 2003). In safety culture research, construct definitions tend to be poorly defined, all-encompassing, and/or lack clear conceptual boundaries (such as using safety culture and safety climate interchangeably).…”