Journals / Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH FOR DEFINING AND CLASSIFYING CONSTRUCTS IN MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH: EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD OF DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR

Pages
55–65
Publication Date
2018-03-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion- Current paper concludes that using hierarchical criteria map for defining and classifying constructs may cause meaningful, distinct (but not disconnected) construct definitions, which clearly target real world phenomena.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose - Construct clarity and overlapping problems are obvious in management and marketing literatures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Moreover, they cause serious methodological problems.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion- Current paper concludes that using hierarchical criteria map for defining and classifying constructs may cause meaningful, distinct (but not disconnected) construct definitions, which clearly target real world phenomena.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Construct definition · dysfunctional behavior · construct clarity

Abstract

Purpose - Construct clarity and overlapping problems are obvious in management and marketing literatures. Moreover, they cause serious methodological problems. It is vital to provide meaningful definition and classification procedures for management and marketing phenomena. Current paper argues that defining and classifying constructs using hierarchical approach can provide clear and practically meaningful construct definitions and classifications. Methodology - Current paper reviews construct definition articles in the fields of management, marketing and psychology in order to provide hierarchical construct definition and classification procedure. Authors also apply this procedure in the field of dysfunctional behavior, which has seriously suffered from construct definition overlaps. Findings- Although previous literature tends to classify constructs dichotomously (latent constructs and observable variables), our literature review discovers more than two levels in the hierarchical abstraction-generalizability continuum, such as umbrella and bridging constructs. Conclusion- Current paper concludes that using hierarchical criteria map for defining and classifying constructs may cause meaningful, distinct (but not disconnected) construct definitions, which clearly target real world phenomena.

🔖

Cite This Article

OKAN, M., ELMADAG, A. B. (2018). A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH FOR DEFINING AND CLASSIFYING CONSTRUCTS IN MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH: EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD OF DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 55–65. https://ajindex.com/articles/423275

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Ackroyd, S., and Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational Misbehaviour: London: SAGE Publications. Aquino, K., and Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60 (1), 717-741.
  2. Babakus, E., and Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business research, 24(3), 253-268.
  3. Babin, B. J., and Babin, L. A. (1996). Effects of moral cognitions and consumer emotions on shoplifting intentions. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 785-802.
  4. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Criteria Some for Evaluation What Theory Is Not: Data, Typologies, and Metaphors, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
  5. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007) On the Meaning of Formative Measurement and How It Differs from Reflective Measurement: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 229–237.
  6. Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research: Methodological and Philosophical Foundations”, MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 261–292.
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., and Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 45-87.
  8. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Baron, R. A., and Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive behavior, 22(3), 161-173.
  9. Brady, M. K., and Cronin Jr, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
  10. Brady, M. K., Cronin Jr, J. J., and Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of business research, 55(1), 17-31.
  11. Buss, A. H. (1961).
  12. The Psychology of Aggression, New York: Wiley. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
  13. Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., and O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job Burnout and Employee Engagement: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Construct Proliferation. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1550–1581.
  14. Cronin Jr, J. J., and Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension, The Journal of Marketing, 56 (3), 55-68.
  15. Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., and Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for