Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences pp 2119–2124Cite as

Hypothetical Constructs

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Functions of Constructs

Scientific constructs are basically words, or series of words, that have certain meanings attached to them. Scientists use constructs to communicate about the phenomena that interest them, in a way that makes one scientist understand, at least to some degree, what another scientist is referring to. For that to happen, the meaning that is associated with a construct label needs to be shared among scientists. If Dr. Abelson has no idea of what Dr. Bengtson is referring to when using terms like “gravity” (or “energy,” or “narcissism,” or “evolution”), the two of them will be unable to have a useful conversation.

In this regard, scientific constructs are no different than terms from our everyday language. For example, when someone uses the term “desk,” most people will think of something that entails (a) a horizontal plate suitable for placing items on it, which is (b) located approximately 90 cm above ground so one may work on it while sitting and which is also (c)...

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   3,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   5,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buntins, M., Buntins, K., & Eggert, F. (2016). Psychological tests from a (fuzzy-)logical point of view. Quality & Quantity, 50, 2395–2416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buntins, M., Buntins, K., & Eggert, F. (2017). Clarifying the concept of validity. From measurement to everyday language. Theory & Psychology, 27, 703–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Bureau of Weights and Measures. (2006). The International System of units (SI) (8th ed). Retrieved from: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf

  • Leising, D., & Zimmermann, J. (2011). An integrative conceptual framework for assessing personality and personality pathology. Review of General Psychology, 15, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., Ostrovski, O., & Borkenau, P. (2012). Vocabulary for describing disliked persons is more differentiated than vocabulary for describing liked persons. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 393–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., Scherbaum, S., Locke, K., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). A model of “substance” and “evaluation” in person judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., Scherbaum, S., Packmohr, P., Zimmermann, J. (in press). Substance and evaluation in personality disorder diagnoses. Journal of Personality Disorders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. G., Licht, B. G., & Pearl, R. A. (1982). Some dangers of using personality questionnaires to study personality. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 572–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Epskamp, S., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weßels, N. M., Zimmermann, J., & Leising, D. (2016). Toward a shared understanding of important consequences of personality. Review of General Psychology, 20, 426–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder. On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47, 373–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23, 279–291.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Daniel Leising

  2. University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Matthias Borgstede

Authors
  1. Daniel Leising
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Borgstede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Leising .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Virgil Zeigler-Hill

  2. Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Psychology, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, NC, Germany

    John F. Rauthmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Leising, D., Borgstede, M. (2020). Hypothetical Constructs. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_679

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation