What is the MTS task?

The MTS task is a forced-choice experimental framework widely used in cognitive and developmental psychology to assess categorization and conceptual understanding in both children and adults (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Poulin and Kelley2015). In a typical MTS task, participants are presented with a sample stimulus (e.g., an image or video exemplifying a target concept), followed by two or more comparison stimuli, only one of which belongs to the same conceptual category as the sample. Successful performance requires the participant to identify the option that is “the same kind of thing” as the sample. Crucially, the MTS task can be designed to test abstract concepts, such as participants’ ability to categorize social and relational phenomena (e.g., Gentner & Asmuth, Reference Gentner and Asmuth2017; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Poulin and Kelley2015). By manipulating the stimuli, researchers can determine whether participants represent a concept distinctly from competing or adjacent concepts in different contexts.

When adapted for workplace research, the MTS task enables I-O psychologists to address a foundational question that is often assumed rather than empirically tested: whether employees can implicitly distinguish among abstract psychological constructs. This question is especially salient in light of the focal article’s concern that construct proliferation frequently stems from insufficient conceptual and empirical differentiation as perceived by one of I-O psychology’s primary populations of interest: the average worker.

Why MTS Is relevant for addressing construct proliferation

The focal article highlights two primary mechanisms through which construct proliferation occurs: (a) insufficient conceptual distinctiveness and (b) failures of empirical distinctiveness due to measurement error. The MTS task offers a solution by shifting the focus from discriminant validity of measures to discriminability of constructs themselves. Rather than asking whether two self-report scales correlate too highly, the MTS assesses whether individuals can reliably distinguish one theoretically defined construct from another when both are represented behaviorally in researcher-controlled scenarios. This capacity is important given that many I-O constructs, such as leadership, are enacted in ambiguous and socially embedded workplace contexts.

Because MTS tasks are implicit, forced choice, and rely less on verbal ability, they reduce several sources of bias highlighted in the focal article. They do not require participants to articulate distinctions using verbal descriptors (e.g., Parolini et al., Reference Parolini, Patterson and Winston2009), nor do they rely on self-reported evaluations (e.g., “my supervisor is ethical”). Instead, MTS tasks leverage categorization, a fundamental cognitive process that operates across language boundaries and mirrors how people may encounter psychological constructs in real-world settings (Harnard, Reference Harnad, Margolis, Samuels and Stich2017).

Empirical findings: MTS and servant leadership categorization

Recent research applying the MTS paradigm to leadership provides an empirical example of how this method can inform debates about construct proliferation. In a series of studies, leadership behaviors were defined using established theory and embedded into short events of characters interacting. Participants were presented with a sample event portraying servant leadership, followed by two comparison events, only one of which also represented servant leadership, while the other portrayed a different interaction (e.g., task-focused leadership or social interaction without leadership). Across studies, adults selected the correct servant leadership match at rates significantly above chance, indicating that they were able to categorize servant leadership as distinct from nonservant leadership (Bragger et al., Reference Bragger, Hunt, Helisch, Myszko, Kozas, Parlitsis, Abbasi, Morales, Stone-Taylor and Lakusta2023; Lakusta et al., Reference Lakusta, Helisch, Sherman, Buczek, Bragger and Myszko2025). This effect emerged even when social contexts varied across stimuli (e.g., pursuing goals such as kicking a ball into a net versus baking a cake) and when characters were depicted as anthropomorphized animals, thereby minimizing the influence of gender and race stereotypes. Together, these findings suggest that categorization was driven by theoretically defined relational patterns rather than superficial cues. These findings align with prior work arguing that servant leadership is a conceptually distinct leadership construct while also demonstrating that this distinctiveness is cognitively represented by perceivers (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams and Harrington2018; Hoch et al., Reference Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn and Wu2018). Rather than inferring distinctiveness from scale-level discriminant validity, MTS directly tests whether non-SME individuals can distinguish fine-grained servant leadership behaviors from theoretically related alternatives.

Extending MTS to moral leadership constructs

Looking forward to how the MTS can be applied to I-O research, the focal article uses moral leadership constructs, such as ethical, authentic, and servant leadership, as a primary example of potential construct redundancy. This makes moral leadership an ideal domain in which to extend MTS methods. As reviewed by Lemoine and colleagues (Reference Lemoine, Hartnell and Leroy2019), these constructs share substantial conceptual overlap but are theoretically distinguished by their core emphases: ethical leadership (EL) centers on norm adherence and moral management; authentic leadership (AL) emphasizes self-awareness, transparency, and alignment between values and behavior; servant leadership (SL) prioritizes balancing stakeholder needs and follower development.

An MTS paradigm could be designed to test whether these distinctions are cognitively represented. For example, to assess whether SL is reliably distinguishable from other forms of moral leadership, participants could be presented with a sample event portraying servant leadership, followed by two comparison events, one servant leadership event and one ethical or authentic leadership event. By systematically varying samples, researchers can test whether non-SME (or SME) participants reliably discriminate among moral leadership styles.

Such an approach would directly address the focal article’s call to examine whether purportedly distinct constructs “bring something new to the table.” If leadership researchers, practitioners, or followers cannot reliably distinguish among moral leadership constructs in an MTS task, this would provide strong evidence of conceptual redundancy. Conversely, successful discrimination would support the theoretical claim that these constructs represent distinct forms of leadership understanding.

The theory of focus would be the “sample” tested against both closely related and more conceptually distinct leadership theories. In an ideal pattern, the central construct would show correlated yet statistically distinct responses relative to related constructs, while exhibiting weaker and qualitatively different relationships with conceptually distant constructs. This aligns with the broader goal of evaluating tightly defined concepts directly against one another in one assessment rather than proliferating new labels for similar relational patterns across several differentially specified constructs. A conceptual figure illustrating this approach could depict leadership constructs (ethical, authentic, and servant) embedded across multiple contexts designed by leadership researchers.

Broader implications and conclusion

We strongly agree with the focal authors that I-O psychology must remain open to multiple ways of understanding work-related phenomena. The goal is not to eliminate new constructs entirely but to ensure that those introduced are theoretically meaningful and empirically warranted. The MTS task represents one such method that can strengthen construct evaluation without replacing existing approaches. By enabling researchers to assess conceptual discrimination directly, the MTS offers a way to complement factor correlations and scale development. It provides a tool for testing whether constructs are distinguishable in the minds of those who perceive and enact them. In doing so, MTS can help the field address construct proliferation not by slowing inquiry but by sharpening it.

We therefore encourage leadership and I-O researchers to consider MTS methods alongside traditional approaches when evaluating new constructs, particularly in domains exhibiting problematic conceptual overlap. Doing so may help ensure that future theoretical developments rest on firmer conceptual foundations, advancing understanding rather than adding to the proliferation problem the focal article thoughtfully identifies.