Insiders Only: Are Our Ideas about What Makes “Good Theory” Holding Us Back?

Abstract Consumer researchers often prize relevance but overlook how narrow assumptions about good theory limit it. Much work focuses on construct-to-construct theorizing, which involves introducing new constructs or new links among them. Far less valued is phenomenon-to-construct theorizing, which begins with real-world patterns and seeks to explain them by identifying the underlying active ingredient constructs. Examples include why GMO labels reduce demand or why drip pricing leads people to choose higher-cost options. Our survey of authors in four leading journals shows that most believe only construct-to-construct work counts as theory. We argue that this view is too narrow. Drawing on a Bayesian framework for updating beliefs within a theoretical network, we show that phenomenon-to-construct theorizing follows the same logic of scientific inference. Both approaches rely on established links in the nomological network to draw stronger conclusions about the focal link of interest. Using well-supported construct-to-construct mechanisms to explain real-world phenomena is therefore a strength, not a weakness. We clarify how phenomenon-to-construct theorizing differs from both “mere application” and “empirics-first” research. Embracing this form of theorizing can broaden the reach of consumer research by connecting abstract ideas to meaningful, actionable phenomena that matter to scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.