Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) identify how incentives drive construct proliferation. This commentary reframes the problem through Reichers and Schneider’s (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990) three-stage model of construct evolution—introduction/elaboration, evaluation/augmentation, and consolidation/accommodation—exposing how these incentives repeatedly reset promising constructs at Stage 1, stranding them in Stages 1 and 2, and preventing Stage 3 consolidation into robust models.

Reichers and Schneider (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990) describe a three-stage evolutionary model for the development of scientific constructs in organizational research, progressing from:

• • Stage 1: Introduction and elaboration (where a new or borrowed concept is legitimized through definitions, initial operationalizations, and preliminary evidence of its existence), to

• • Stage 2: Evaluation and augmentation (marked by critical reviews challenging conceptualization and measurement, alongside refinements, distinctiveness tests, and applications addressing boundary conditions), and finally to

• • Stage 3: Consolidation and accommodation (where controversies resolve, one or two definitions and measures predominate, antecedents/consequences are well-mapped, and the construct embeds as a moderator, mediator, or contextual factor in broader theories and textbooks, with standalone research declining as it matures into “normal science”).

Reichers and Schneider (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990) see cumulative “normal science” as the patterned progression through these stages; construct maturity is evident when the construct is no longer the “star of the show” but is instead a well-understood component in larger theories.

Considering the construct proliferation issue in light of the Reichers and Schneider (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990) model exposes how Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) identified incentives repeatedly reset promising constructs at Stage 1, stranding them in Stages 1–2, and preventing Stage 3 consolidation into robust models.

This suggests that the problem is not merely construct proliferation but the systematic undersupply of Stage 2 and Stage 3 constructs relative to novel Stage 1 introductions. The Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) example of the workplace aggression literature reveals extensive Stage 1 elaboration (interpersonal conflict, incivility, abusive supervision, etc.) but little follow-through on available integration tools, despite acknowledgment that pruning is essential. In short, this is reminiscent of Kerr’s (Reference Kerr1975) “folly of rewarding A while hoping for B,” as our field rewards “viral” Stage 1 construct introductions while hoping for Stage 3 construct maturity.

Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) give the example of the development of the Five Factor Model of personality, which I would suggest is an example of a construct or model that was able to progress through the stages of construct evolution, with a wide range of constructs ultimately being subsumed under Conscientiousness and other broad factors. Briefly put, the personality literature provides a paradigmatic success story of Stage 1 exploration followed by serious Stage 2 evaluation and Stage 3 consolidation. The focal article highlights that, in many contemporary domains, we are stuck in repeated Stage 1 cycles, with limited willingness or ability to carry our constructs through the process of sustained evaluation and pruning despite authors proposing new constructs almost universally acknowledging that this pruning would be essential for the adequate development of the newly proposed constructs.

Why does this happen? Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) identify things like citation incentives, journal impact factors, SIOP-level recognition, and the high visibility of papers introducing “novel” constructs. Other drivers, such as various zeitgeist effects (e.g., simultaneous proliferation of workplace aggression constructs), disciplinary silos, and measurement practices that make constructs appear distinct, are also active. The result is a process in which some constructs are like TikTok videos that “go viral”: For reasons that can be hard to identify or predict, some novel constructs spread rapidly across literatures and get attached to multiple outcomes, thus becoming attractive vehicles for new studies. Other constructs, perhaps equally or more theoretically promising, receive only a brief Stage 1 introduction and then languish without the Stage 2 scrutiny and Stage 3 integration that Reichers and Schneider describe. This isn’t to suggest that all constructs deserve the full evolutionary process; culling is part of evolution, but that culling likely happens for reasons other than construct conceptual viability.

With apologies to Steve Kerr (Reference Kerr1975), the process is essentially a folly of “rewarding new constructs while hoping for mature ones.” Readers are likely familiar with Kerr’s argument that organizations frequently “reward A while hoping for B,” designing incentive programs (formal or informal) that promote behavior contrary to their stated goals and then express surprise when the outcomes are what they rewarded rather than what they hoped for. Our field seems to hope for cumulative, parsimonious theories and mature constructs (Reichers & Schneider’s Stage 3), but our institutions and profession reward the introduction and promotion of new constructs (Stage 1) as the primary currency of success. In Kerr’s terms, we are rewarding the introduction of ever more constructs (A) while hoping for the consolidation and refinement of a smaller set of powerful constructs (B), thereby systematically interrupting the evolution Reichers and Schneider outline. In the focal article, the call for a moratorium implicitly recognizes this misalignment but focuses more on restricting A (new constructs) than on actively rewarding B (processes that reward and support appropriate evolutionary processes for constructs).

Bowling and colleagues highlight the workplace aggression literature as an example of the problem, given the proliferation of constructs such as interpersonal conflict, incivility, abusive supervision, social undermining, ostracism, and bullying, with highly overlapping content and nomological networks. They point out that tools for integration (e.g., factor analysis, item sorts) have been available for years, yet systematic consolidation efforts have been rare. In Reichers and Schneider’s (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990) terms, the workplace aggression research domain represents a construct family stuck between Stages 1 and 2, with rich elaboration and some critique, but little genuine Stage 3 consolidation. Looking at the incentives active in our field suggests that workplace aggression researchers are like the rest of us, responding to systems that cause us to gain more by attaching a new label or differentiating a construct than by conducting integrative work that might render constructs redundant, including their own.

Further, our focus on narrow expertise and the prevalence of silos helps explain why construct differentiation often arises naturally rather than resulting from researchers simply “following the rewards regardless of science” or any form of ill intent. Through deep specialization and disciplinary silos, we develop finer perceptual acuity—what our cognitive colleagues refer to as a smaller “just noticeable difference”—allowing us to detect subtle variations in how constructs manifest or are measured that laypeople or less specialized colleagues might overlook. Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) illustrate this with leadership items, where subject matter experts distinguish ethical decision-making from holding ethical standards, whereas typical employees respond to a more global sense of supervisor ethics. This sharpening of perception, valuable as it is, fuels Stage 1 elaboration under current incentives, which is why the solution lies not in faulting researchers but in redirecting rewards toward the Stage 2 and Stage 3 integration that only the field collectively can achieve.

Having reframed the issues, we are left with a question: What, then, shall we do? Bowling and colleagues advocate for a moratorium on new constructs, along with their suggested checklist for distinctiveness, advocacy for registered reports, and calls for special issues and replications. I propose to extend their proposal with (a) a continuation of the reframing and (b) a specific suggestion. First, as a field we would likely benefit from considering the current challenge as a portfolio imbalance: We have an oversupply of Stage 1 constructs and an undersupply of Stage 2 and Stage 3 constructs. Naturally flowing from that perspective would be the suggestion that journals, including IOP, explicitly value and solicit:

• • integrative taxonomies and meta-analytic work that subsume overlapping constructs into fewer, higher-order constructs;

• • programmatic studies designed primarily to test redundancy versus distinctiveness among existing constructs (not to introduce yet another label);

• • conceptual pieces that make the case for retiring or merging constructs, in line with Reichers and Schneider’s notion of constructs being “subsumed” into broader frameworks.

Second—and I speak here as one who has taught research methods for many, many years—it follows that we need to make construct life cycles explicit in training and reviewing. I fully support the focal article’s call to integrate construct proliferation topics into graduate methods and substantive courses, especially with respect to measurement error and nomological nets. I would add the recommendation that the Reichers and Schneider or other similar lifecycle models be taught explicitly as a way for students to diagnose where a construct is in its evolution and to design studies that move it forward.

From a journal standpoint, it also follows that reviewers and editors should routinely be asking questions like:

• • Does this manuscript move an existing construct meaningfully from Stage 1 to Stage 2, or from Stage 2 to Stage 3?

• • If a new construct is proposed, has the author convincingly ruled out the possibility that this is merely a re-labeling of existing constructs, using the kind of rigorous designs the focal article recommends?

When our premiere journals signal the value of “maturity work” (evaluation, consolidation), that will gradually serve to realign the reward structure away from Kerr’s A (our current rewards for novelty) and toward B (our desired outcome of mature constructs).

To recap, Bowling and colleagues cogently point out that construct proliferation is harmful. This is not only because there are too many constructs, but because continual invention diverts attention from the evolutionary processes that produce well-specified, integrated constructs and models. The Reichers and Schneider model of construct evolution offers a useful roadmap for what a healthy construct life cycle should look like, and we must recognize that those current incentives—in Kerr’s terms—systematically disrupt that healthy cycle by rewarding what we do not hope for.

Can we build on the focal article’s recommended moratorium and criteria with an equally strong commitment to rewarding the science of consolidation? Let’s stop rewarding new constructs while hoping for mature ones, and let’s commit to finishing what we’ve started: fewer constructs, stronger science.