Constructs are broadly considered as the foundation of theory. In this paper, we review past writings on constructs and construct validity and highlight how logical errors, or fallacies, are frequent in how constructs are developed and validated in management research. We elaborate four common construct fallacies—a novelty, a self-referential, a reification, and a weak or false analogy fallacy—that affect the validity of a claimed construct and contribute to construct proliferation. As existing construct validity procedures are insufficient in avoiding such construct fallacies, we conceptualize a complementary argumentation-based view of constructs that we extend into a framework for construct validation. We illustrate the uses and value of the framework in developing stronger constructs and in detecting construct fallacies, and, in doing so, draw out its broader implications for theory development and research.
Cornelissen et al. (Tue,) studied this question.