Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dynamic nature of marketing constructs

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study proposes an ideal, four-stage model of construct evolution (emergence → conceptualization → competition → consensus) to explain construct development over time. An in-depth analysis of conceptualizations of two constructs, market orientation (MO) and customer-based brand equity (CBBE), however, reveals different evolutionary stages and trajectories that deviate from the ideal model. The final stage for MO and CBBE is fragmentation, not consensus, characterized by customized operationalizations and variable construct definitions. A supplementary analysis of need for cognition (NFC) and involvement constructs provides additional support. For example, the final stage of NFC is dominance, characterized by nearly complete reliance on standard definitions and operationalizations. Conceptual research, formal measure development, and differing types of constructs all can influence the evolution of constructs. These findings have deep implications for marketing research: Diverse definitions and operationalizations can impede knowledge accumulation. This article proposes guidelines for improving research practices and managing constructs across evolutionary stages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The other components are discovery of new entities and new causal relationships between entities.

  2. “Fade away” also could follow as a Stage 5 after one of the other versions of Stage 4.

  3. Google Scholar citations for the introductory articles for these constructs (as of August 28, 2020) are as follows: Jaworski and Kohli (1993) 11,074 cites; Narver and Slater (1990) 13,557 cites; and Keller (1993) 20,605 cites.

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Biel, A. L. (1993). Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. In F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Eds.), Advances in consumer research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D. A., & Jacobson, R. (2001). The value relevance of brand attitude in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 485–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity. Marketing Letters, 7, 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37, 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APA (n.d.) Heuristic, available at https://dictionary.apa.org/heuristic/ (Accessed September 2, 2020).

  • Argouslidis, P. C., & Baltas, G. (2007). Structure in product line management: The role of formalization in service elimination decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T. L., Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (1999). The impact of Suppliers' perceptions of reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2013). The Innovator's license: A latitude to deviate from category norms. Journal of Marketing, 77, 120–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67, 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of thought in organizational learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Langner, T. (2017). Construct measurement in advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 46, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. N. (2011). To JM on its 75th anniversary. Journal of Marketing, 75, 129–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böttger, T., Rudolph, T., Evanschitzky, H., & Pfrang, T. (2017). Customer inspiration: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Marketing, 81, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). The reciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, L., Simmons, C. J., & Bickart, B. A. (1999). Brand equity dilution: Retailer display and context brand effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2012). The role of lean launch execution and launch timing on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano, C. R., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal of Marketing, 43, 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, H., Ailawadi, K. L., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). How well does consumer-based brand equity align with sales-based brand equity and marketing mix response? Journal of Marketing, 81, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J., Kirmani, A., & Mukherjee, S. (2001). Understanding What's in a brand rating: A model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 79, 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, P. D. (2006). Market orientation and performance: A meta-analysis and cross-National Comparisons. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1089–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 131–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). A Validity-Based Framework for Understanding Replication in Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 316–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frösén, J., Luoma, J., Jaakkola, M., Tikkanen, H., & Aspara, J. (2016). What counts versus what can be counted: The complex interplay of market orientation and marketing performance measurement. Journal of Marketing, 80, 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. (2006). Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70, 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, L. K. M., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28, 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., Johnson, J., & Mallapragada, G. (2013). Environments, unobserved heterogeneity, and the effect of market orientation on outcomes for high-tech firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 206–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinstein, A. (2008). The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 166–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62, 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Reimann, M., & Schilke, O. (2012). What drives key informant accuracy? Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J., & Houston, M. B. (2020). Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: An introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 351–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, resource-advantage theory. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2011). Theory status, inductive realism, and approximate truth: No miracles, no charades. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Hansen, J. (2010). The philosophical foundations of marketing research: For scientific realism and truth. In P. Maclaran, M. Saren, B. Stern, & M. Tadajewski (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of marketing theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, S., & Workman Jr., J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68, 114–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaju, A., Joiner, C., & Reddy, S. K. (2006). Consumer evaluations of corporate brand redeployments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer Price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. H., Bearden, W., & Roth, K. (2011). Implementation of market orientation in the subsidiaries of global companies: The role of institutional factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 683–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market orientation throughout the organization: A social learning theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1995). Stock market reactions to brand extension announcements: The effects of brand attitude and familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luffarelli, J., Mukesh, M., & Mahmood, A. (2019a). Let the logo do the talking: The influence of logo descriptiveness on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 862–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luffarelli, J., Stamatogiannakis, A., & Yang, H. (2019b). The visual asymmetry effect: An interplay of logo design and brand personality on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, B. A., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Sivakumar, K., & Liu, S. S. (2005). Globalization, marketing resources, and performance: Evidence from China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75, 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 323–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Rentz, J. O. (2000). A refinement and validation of the MARKOR scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66, 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, S., Mentzer, J. T., & Ladd, R. T. (2007). A market orientation in supply chain management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. J., & Sarin, S. (2009). Drucker's insights on market orientation and innovation: Implications for emerging areas in high-technology marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Lutz, R. J. (2002). Passing the torch: Intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 66, 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63, 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. Y., Gao, G. Y., & Kotabe, M. (2011). Market orientation and performance of export ventures: The process through marketing capabilities and competitive advantages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 252–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54, 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., Sinha, R. K., & Kumar, A. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A longitudinal assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ou, Y.-C., Verhoef, P., & Wiesel, T. (2017). The effects of customer equity drivers on loyalty across services industries and firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özturan, P., Özsomer, A., & Pieters, R. (2014). The role of market orientation in advertising spending during economic collapse: The case of Turkey in 2001. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. The Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 159–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptok, A., Jindal, R. P., & Reinartz, W. J. (2018). Selling, general, and administrative expense (SGA)-based metrics in marketing: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 987–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G. N., & Hillyer, C. L. (2004). A cognitive model of customer-based brand equity for frequently purchased products: Conceptual framework and empirical results. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rego, L. L., Billett, M. T., & Morgan, N. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehm, M. L., & Brady, M. K. (2007). Consumer responses to performance failures by high-equity brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2016). How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures. European Journal of Marketing, 50, 1924–1941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saini, A., & Johnson, J. L. (2005). Organizational capabilities in E-commerce: An empirical investigation of E-brokerage service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 360–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1173–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siguaw, J. A., Brown, G., & Widing II, R. E. (1994). The influence of the market orientation of the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Baker, T. L. (1998). Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: The distributor perspective. Journal of Marketing, 62, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirianni, N. J., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Mandel, N. (2013). Branded service encounters: Strategically aligning employee behavior with the brand positioning. Journal of Marketing, 77, 108–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-PerformanceRelationship? Journal of Marketing, 58, 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 915–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., & Parry, M. E. (2009). The desired level of market orientation and business unit performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: An application to E-business. Journal of Marketing, 66, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2012). The impact of brand equity on customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin. Journal of Marketing, 76, 44–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, K. (2013), "Underdetermination of Scientific Theory," available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ (Accessed September 2, 2020).

  • Steinman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (2000). Beyond market orientation: When customers and suppliers disagree. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35, 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 405–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, S., Kim, K. H., & Yorkston, E. A. (2019). What drives herding behavior in online ratings? The role of rater experience, product portfolio, and diverging opinions. Journal of Marketing, 83, 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J., & Dubelaar, C. (1993). The equalization Price: A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 52–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Alba, J. W. (2000). Consumer learning and brand equity. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Locus of equity and brand extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. R. (2017). Research on market orientation: Some lessons shared and issues discussed in a doctoral seminar. AMS Review, 7, 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing Department’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 73, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosgerau, J., Scopelliti, I., & Huh, Y. E. (2020). Exerting self-control ≠ sacrificing pleasure. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, J. G. (2004). A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management, 22, 629–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R., Gupta, A., & Grewal, R. (2017). Mobility of top marketing and sales executives in business-to-business markets: A social network perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 650–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. F., & IV, Beck, J. T., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. 1496,. (2015). Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 790–825.

  • Webb, J., Ireland, R., Hitt, M., Kistruck, G., & Tihanyi, L. (2011). Where is the opportunity without the customer? An integration of marketing activities, the entrepreneurship process, and institutional theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachary, M., McKenny, A., Short, J., Davis, K., & Wu, D. (2011). Franchise branding: An organizational identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z. K., Yim, C. K. B., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69, 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for comments on earlier versions of this paper from Daniel Bruns, Constantine Katsikeas, Marc Mazodier, and John R. Rossiter. They are also grateful for contructive feedback and encouragement from the editor-in-chief, John Hulland, the area editor and the reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zayed University, P.O. Box 144534, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Lars Bergkvist

  2. European University Viadrina, Große Scharrnstraße 59, D-15230, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Martin Eisend

Authors
  1. Lars Bergkvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Eisend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Bergkvist.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Manjit Yadav served as Area Editor for this article.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(PDF 102 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 120 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 114 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bergkvist, L., Eisend, M. The dynamic nature of marketing constructs. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 49, 521–541 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00756-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00756-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation