Jump to content

Jingle-jangle fallacies

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).[1][2][3] In research, a jangle fallacy is the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. By comparison, a jingle fallacy is the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct.[4][5][6]

In recent years, jingle-jangle fallacies have received increasing attention in psychological science, as they can pose a significant threat to research validity, by causing inefficient scientific labelling and misinterpretation in research and theory development.[7] In psychology, jingle fallacies can be interpreted more broadly to mean two or more distinct psychological phenomena being erroneously labeled with the same term,[8] while jangle fallacies refer to different terms being used to describe the same phenomenon.[9] Jangle fallacies are also termed the "déjà variable" phenomenon in social psychology, where researchers who encounter a new construct know it by a different name.[10]

An example of the jangle fallacy can be found in tests designed to assess emotional intelligence. Some of these tests measure merely personality or regular IQ-tests.[11] An example of the jingle fallacy is that personality and values are sometimes conflated and treated as the same construct.[12] Jingle and jangle fallacies have important implications for psychological research, as they make it challenging to review literatures for meta-analysis, and can perpetuate the replication crisis. Solutions have been tested to overcome jingle-jangle fallacies, although their efficacy remains uncertain: for instance, machine learning tools have been created to discover relevant papers even when the same construct is named differently in different articles.[13]

Overview and history

[edit]

Jingle-jangle fallacies emerged from early efforts to clarify construct validity and improve measurement theory in psychology. One of the first to develop the concept was psychologist Edward Thorndike: in An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements (1904),[14] he introduced the jingle fallacy and criticised the assumption that identical labels imply identical meaning or value. Thorndike argued that this distorted subsequent data analysis, and emphasised the importance of aligning theoretical constructs with their operational definitions.  

Psychologist Truman Lee Kelley later coined the term “jingle-jangle fallacies” in Interpretation of Educational Measurements (1927).[15] Kelley observed that terms like "achievement" and "intelligence" were often treated as distinct, despite empirical evidence suggesting a large degree of overlap. This linguistic confusion was termed the "jangle" fallacy, defined as applying different labels to extremely similar constructs. The "jingle" fallacy was defined as applying one term to multiple conceptually distinct phenomena. Kelley noted how superficial naming could hinder classification and interpretation in research.

Jingle-jangle fallacies have been linked to construct validity, as they can lead to misinterpretations of both convergent validity and discriminant validity by obscuring the true relationships between psychological constructs.

Examples in Psychological Research

[edit]
  1. Sports Psychology: studies such as “Sport Motivation Orientations: Beware of Jingle-Jangle Fallacies”[16] (1994) have examined the presence of jingle-jangle fallacies in sports-related psychological research. The study revealed inconsistencies in construct measurement and labelling, emphasising the need for sport psychologists to conduct further construct validity studies to ensure accurate measurement and interpretation of motivation constructs.
  2. Work–nonwork Balance: studies such as “The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork balance”[17] (2018) have examined the presence of jingle-jangle fallacies in work–nonwork balance. Results found inconsistent definitions and measurement of work–nonwork balance, attributed to poor construct clarity, measurement, and heterogeneous theories. The study proposed a comprehensive conceptual definition, measurement strategy, and theoretical basis for future research.

Causes

[edit]

Jingle-jangle fallacies have numerous causes, including linguistic ambiguity, overlapping psychological constructs, and unstandardised measurement practices. These issues contribute to confusion in construct labeling and can cause misinterpretation of data.

The key factors contributing to jingle-jangle fallacies in psychology are summarised below:

  • Increase in Scientific Research: the 1950s saw a substantial increase in scientific research, and hence the need for its systematic organisation and categorisation. Without such practices, researchers tend to operate independently, causing a disjointed theoretical landscape lacking overarching theories.[18]
  • Linguistic Ambiguity: Many psychological terms are broad or metaphorical, allowing multiple interpretations and perpetuating terminology confusion.[19] Researchers may assign the same label to different constructs (jingle fallacy) or use different names for similar constructs (jangle fallacy) when comparing studies, particularly across subfields.
  • Overlapping Constructs: Human behavior is complex, and many traits or processes naturally overlap (e.g. persistence and grit). Thorndike (1904) and Kelley (1927) in particular attribute jingle-jangle fallacies to this weak connection between psychological theory and its operationalisation in research.[20]
  • Lack of Standardisation: Psychology lacks universally standardised measures for many constructs, which can cause the development of new scales that may overlap with existing ones in content but differ in name.[21]
  • Disciplinary Silos: Psychology is divided into a wide range of areas including clinical, educational, and social psychology,[22] where terminology and theoretical frameworks may vary. Different researchers may create new measures for similar traits without clear distinctions, or study similar concepts independently across different subfields.[23]

Research implications

[edit]

Jingle-jangle fallacies have crucial negative implications for psychological research, such as hindering scientific communication and knowledge convergence.[24] In particular, they may adversely affect the following areas:

  • Meta-analysis: These statistical reviews depend on identifying studies that measure the same construct. Jingle fallacies may group unrelated measures together, while jangle fallacies may exclude relevant studies due to differences in terminology.
  • Replication Crisis: Replicability suffers when researchers unknowingly use different constructs under the same label or test the same construct under a different name.
  • Theory building: Instead of refining existing theories, researchers may inadvertently create new labels or merge distinct ideas into one overly-broad construct.

Solutions

[edit]

Efforts to address jingle-jangle fallacies include both theoretical and technological solutions. In the 1970s, meta-analysis emerged as a major tool for synthesizing findings across studies.[25] Systematic reviews, a research technique aiming to collect all empirical evidence in a particular field and summarise its research[26] also gained prominence. However, while widely adopted, they have limitations including susceptibility to bias and difficulty detecting construct labeling inconsistencies.[27][28] Theoretical tools such as extrinsic convergent validity, a formal approach to evaluate construct overlap were also developed to better understand and identify the fallacies.[29]

More technologically advanced approaches have recently emerged. For instance, in 2016, Larsen and Bong developed a machine learning tool to map constructs based on shared terminology, definitions, and citations. This helps researchers identify when constructs are truly distinct or merely mislabeled, making literature reviews and meta-analyses more accurate.[30] Building on this, in 2023, Wulff and Mata used language model embeddings to detect jingle-jangle fallacies and propose more consistent psychological taxonomies, eliminating redundant constructs.[31]

Researchers note that solutions addressing jingle-jangle fallacies should require clearer construct definitions, routine validation studies that test both convergent and discriminant validity, and collaborative efforts to develop unifying construct taxonomies across psychological subfields.[32] Educational measures can also help new researchers critically evaluate construct labels and their measurement, promoting clarity across psychological science.

Criticism

[edit]

Some scholars criticise the term jingle-jangle fallacies for being too lighthearted, trivialising serious methodological issues in psychological research. One such critic is psychologist Gordon Hodson, who argued for the jangle fallacy to be renamed the “construct redundancy fallacy”, to draw greater attention to the problem and encourage more critical reflection.[33]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Kelley, Truman Lee (1927). Interpretation of Educational Measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Company. pp. 62–65.
  2. ^ Roeser, Robert W.; Peck, Stephen C.; Nasir, Nailah Suad (2006). "Self and Identity Processes in School Motivation, Learning, and Achievement". In Alexander, Patricia k.; Winne, Philip H. (eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. pp. 392–393. ISBN 978-0-8058-4937-0.
  3. ^ Pedhazur, Elazar J.; Pedhazur Schmelkin, Liora (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-89859-555-0.
  4. ^ Corsini, Raymond J. (1991). The Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Routledge. pp. 513, 514. ISBN 978-1-58391-328-4.
  5. ^ Marsh, Herbert W. (2007). "Physical Self-Concept and Sport". In Jowett, Sophia; Lavallee, David (eds.). Social Psychology in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-7360-5780-6.
  6. ^ Thorndike, Edward (1904). An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measures. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. pp. 10–11.
  7. ^ Hanfstingl, Barbara; Oberleiter, Sandra; Pietschnig, Jakob; Tran, Ulrich S.; Voracek, Martin (2024). "Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications - a call for research". Frontiers in Psychology. 15: 1404060. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 11393684. PMID 39282677.
  8. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
  9. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
  10. ^ Hagger, Martin S. (2014-01-31). "Avoiding the "déjà-variable" phenomenon: social psychology needs more guides to constructs". Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 52. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00052. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 3907697. PMID 24550871.
  11. ^ Gignac, Gilles E. (2009). "Psychometrics and the Measurement of Emotional Intelligence". In Stough, Con; Saklofske, Donald H.; Parker, James D. A. (eds.). Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Springer. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-387-88370-0.
  12. ^ Higgs, Malcolm; Scott, Lichtenstein (2010). "Exploring the 'Jingle Fallacy': a study of personality and values". Journal of General Management. 36 (1): 43–61. doi:10.1177/030630701003600103.
  13. ^ Larsen, Kai R.; Bong, Chih How (2016-03-03). "A Tool for Addressing Construct Identity in Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses". MIS Quarterly. 40 (3): 529–551. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.3.01.
  14. ^ Thorndike, Edward L. (1913). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements, second edition--revised and enlarged. New York: Teachers College Press. doi:10.1037/10866-000.
  15. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
  16. ^ Marsh, Herbert W. (1994-12-01). "Sport Motivation Orientations: Beware of Jingle-Jangle Fallacies". Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 16 (4): 365–380. doi:10.1123/jsep.16.4.365. ISSN 1543-2904.
  17. ^ Casper, Wendy J.; Vaziri, Hoda; Wayne, Julie Holliday; DeHauw, Sara; Greenhaus, Jeffrey (2018). "The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement". Journal of Applied Psychology. 103 (2): 182–214. doi:10.1037/apl0000259. ISSN 1939-1854.
  18. ^ Hanfstingl, Barbara; Oberleiter, Sandra; Pietschnig, Jakob; Tran, Ulrich S.; Voracek, Martin (2024). "Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications - a call for research". Frontiers in Psychology. 15: 1404060. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 11393684. PMID 39282677.
  19. ^ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Sauvigné, Katheryn C.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Cautin, Robin L.; Latzman, Robert D.; Waldman, Irwin D. (2015). "Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 1100. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 4522609. PMID 26284019.
  20. ^ Hanfstingl, Barbara; Oberleiter, Sandra; Pietschnig, Jakob; Tran, Ulrich S.; Voracek, Martin (2024-08-30). "Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications – a call for research". Frontiers in Psychology. 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 11393684. PMID 39282677.
  21. ^ Flake, Jessica Kay; Fried, Eiko I. (2020-12-01). "Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them". Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 3 (4): 456–465. doi:10.1177/2515245920952393. ISSN 2515-2459.
  22. ^ "Psychology Subfields". www.apa.org. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
  23. ^ Flake, Jessica Kay; Fried, Eiko I. (2020-12-01). "Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them". Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 3 (4): 456–465. doi:10.1177/2515245920952393. ISSN 2515-2459.
  24. ^ Block, Jack (2000). Developmental Science and the Holistic Approach (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 155–164. ISBN 9781410605405.
  25. ^ Kavale, Kenneth A. (2001). "Meta-Analysis: A Primer". Exceptionality. 9 (4): 177–183. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0904_2. ISSN 0936-2835.
  26. ^ Fernández-Alemán, José Luis; Señor, Inmaculada Carrión; Lozoya, Pedro Ángel Oliver; Toval, Ambrosio (2013-06-01). "Security and privacy in electronic health records: A systematic literature review". Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 46 (3): 541–562. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.12.003. ISSN 1532-0464. PMID 23305810.
  27. ^ Drucker, Aaron M.; Fleming, Patrick; Chan, An-Wen (2016-11-01). "Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews". Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 136 (11): e109 – e114. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021. ISSN 0022-202X. PMID 27772550.
  28. ^ Hanfstingl, Barbara; Oberleiter, Sandra; Pietschnig, Jakob; Tran, Ulrich S.; Voracek, Martin (2024-08-30). "Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications – a call for research". Frontiers in Psychology. 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 11393684. PMID 39282677.
  29. ^ Gonzalez, Oscar; MacKinnon, David P.; Muniz, Felix B. (2021-01-02). "Extrinsic Convergent Validity Evidence to Prevent Jingle and Jangle Fallacies". Multivariate Behavioral Research. 56 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1707061. ISSN 0027-3171. PMC 7369230. PMID 31958017.
  30. ^ Larsen, Kai R.; Bong, Chih How (2016). "A Tool for Addressing Construct Identity in Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses". MIS Quarterly. 40 (3): 529–552. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.3.01. ISSN 0276-7783. JSTOR 26629026.
  31. ^ Wulff, Dirk U.; Mata, Rui (2025-03-11). "Semantic embeddings reveal and address taxonomic incommensurability in psychological measurement". Nature Human Behaviour: 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02089-y. ISSN 2397-3374. PMID 40069366.
  32. ^ Hanfstingl, Barbara; Oberleiter, Sandra; Pietschnig, Jakob; Tran, Ulrich S.; Voracek, Martin (2024). "Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications - a call for research". Frontiers in Psychology. 15: 1404060. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 11393684. PMID 39282677.
  33. ^ Hodson, Gordon (2021). "Construct jangle or construct mangle? Thinking straight about (nonredundant) psychological constructs". Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology. 5 (4): 576–590. doi:10.1002/jts5.120. ISSN 2475-0387.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Marsh, Herbert W. (1994). "Sport Motivation Orientations: Beware of Jingle-Jangle Fallacies". Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 16 (4): 365–380. doi:10.1123/jsep.16.4.365.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jingle-jangle_fallacies&oldid=1287741472"