Marketing ZFP – Journal of Research and Management publishes four issues and 16-20 peer-reviewed articles per year. As subscriber you find fulltext access (PDF) and search function to the complete archive of all issues on elibrary.vahlen.de.
Please find detailed information on the current issues below:
ISSUE 2/2026
Grounded in Reality or Invented? Lessons on Construct Ontology from Demonic Possession and Trust
Heribert Gierl
This paper addresses the distinction between reality-grounded constructs (i.e., discovered within reality by researchers) and invented constructs (i.e., created by researchers for scientific purposes). Our objective is to identify and categorize criteria for justifying the premise that a specific construct is grounded in reality. Utilizing a time-travel scenario and a Socratic-style dialectical dialogue as a methodological framework, we first develop a catalogue of criteria (Type A) that are inadequate for distinguishing between reality-grounded and invention-based constructs. Next, we describe criteria (Type B) that may be used to raise suspicion about whether particular constructs are grounded in reality. Finally, we offer suggestions regarding criteria (Type C) that may serve as evidence for the ontological anchoring of constructs in reality. We argue that scientific disciplines increasingly relying on invented constructs risk construct inflation, as invention is often more convenient than the discovery of reality. We therefore propose adding examinations of the ontological status of constructs when used in the sciences (-> Executive Summary)
Four commentaries on Grounded in Reality or Invented?
Marion Garaus, Harald Hruschka, Martin Klarmann, and Hans Mühlbacher
The commentaries engage with Heribert Gierl’s argument that marketing research suffers from “construct inflation,” driven by the proliferation of theoretical constructs whose connection to reality is often unclear. While the contributors broadly share the concern that excessive construct creation can fragment knowledge and hinder cumulative theory development, they offer differing perspectives on the ontological status of constructs and the appropriate criteria for evaluating them. The discussions address realism, instrumentalism, and constructivism, emphasizing issues such as construct validity, ecological validity, nomological networks, subjective experience, and historical context. Several authors argue that new constructs are valuable when they capture meaningful distinctions in consumer behavior and are supported by strong theoretical and empirical justification. Others stress that constructs should be subjected to rigorous and potentially risky validation tests rather than multiplied for the sake of novelty. Overall, the commentaries converge on the view that marketing research requires fewer arbitrary constructs and stronger standards of conceptual development, validation, and theoretical integration. The goal is not to discourage construct development, but to ensure that new constructs contribute meaningfully to scientific understanding and cumulative knowledge.
On the Ontological Status of Constructs: Reply to Commentaries and Application
Heribert Gierl
We sincerely appreciate that our paper addressing a methodological issue was selected as a target article in Marketing ZFP to stimulate discussion among distinguished colleagues. We focus on non-sensory states and processes residing in the human mind and body that enable or assist individuals in processing reality and responding to it; they shape how individuals experience and understand their sensory impressions. We posit that, in science, such states and processes are either derived by researchers from their empirical existence – resulting in realitygrounded constructs (e.g., intelligence, emotions, memory) – or invented by researchers (e.g., free will or rationality when used as consumer- behavior constructs). This distinction defines a construct’s ontological status. The target article proposes incorporating ontological audits for the constructs employed in consumer- behavior research to indicate whether they are reality-grounded or invented constructs. It proposes three types of criteria that should or should not be used to examine the ontological status of a particular construct. The commentaries on this typology of criteria reflect mixed reactions. First, we summarize the key concerns regarding each type of criterion. Second, we aim to increase the comprehensibility of our proposal by using a flagship construct in marketing: part-worth utility. Our intention is not to oppose the proponents of this specific construct, but rather to illustrate how an ontological debate can be structured. Third, we contrast our thoughts about the ontological status of part-worth utility with the arguments raised in the commentaries. (-> Executive Summary)
How Do Complainants and Observers Become Ambassadors: Importance of Customer Orientation and Entertainment Value in Generating Favourable Social Media Engagement
Silke Bambauer-Sachse and Sanja Maria Stuhldreier
Interactions between companies and consumers can leverage the corporate social network presence by encouraging favourable social media engagement. However, do companies need to reply to every user comment? This research investigates the effects of different corporate response strategies on commenters’ and observers’ intentions to engage favourably with companies on social networks, as well as the mediating roles of perceived customer orientation and entertainment value. We present focus group insights, build on social network and social exchange theory, and examine the most promising strategies (replying to some positive and negative vs. all comments) in a quantitative study. The results show that companies can enhance their social network presence by replying to all comments. Perceived customer orientation is essential for stimulating favourable engagement intentions of complaining commenters, while perceived entertainment value is important for engaging observers. (-> Executive summery)