Constructing Psychological Objects: The Rhetoric of Constructs
Kathleen L. Slaney and Donald A. Garcia
Simon Fraser University
The concept ‘construct’ has been used to denote a large class of phenomena, including
more classically defined traits (such as introversion and extroversion), clinical and
diagnostic categories (e.g., psychopathy), cognitive functions (e.g., cognitive control,
verbal memory), and more specific attitudinal and/or behavioral phenomena (ranging
from “attitudes towards work schedules” to “pharmacists’ care of migraineurs”).
Moreover, how construct as a general category is characterized varies considerably,
and constructs are often portrayed at the same time as theoretical concepts and the very
phenomena designated by those theoretical concepts. In the present work, we draw on
Michael Billig’s descriptions of some of the implications of privileging a particular
style of writing in social science discourse to provide a partial explanation as to why
the constructed connotation of constructs (i.e., as theoretical concepts created by
psychological researchers) has largely given sway to the reification of constructs (i.e.,
as objects under study) in the discourse of construct validation, and psychological
discourse, more generally. We conclude by providing recommendations for psycho-
logical researchers regarding how to ward against ambiguous uses of the concept
‘construct.’
Keywords: construct, construct validity, nominalization, passivization, rhetoric
Construct validity theory (CVT) has become
an influential paradigm for theory construction
in psychology and the scientific investigation of
psychological constructs is, in many domains,
now the primary objective of psychological re-
searchers (Maraun, Slaney, & Gabriel, 2009).
As a class of theoretical concepts, psychological
constructs encompass a very large category, de-
noting a broad range of phenomena, everything
from personality traits (such as introversion and
extroversion) to clinical and diagnostic catego-
ries (e.g., psychopathy) to cogn