01 · The Question
What If Two Literatures Seem to Study the Same Thing Under Different Names?
You search the literature for a construct and encounter several neighboring terms. Their definitions sound remarkably similar. Their questionnaire items overlap. They predict many of the same outcomes. Yet each research tradition treats its preferred label as though it identifies something distinct.
Should you choose one name? Treat all of them as synonyms? Include every term in your literature search? Or assume that different labels must represent different constructs?
The last option is particularly risky. Researchers have long recognized the jangle fallacy: assuming that constructs or measures are different merely because they have different names. Different terminology can reflect genuine theoretical distinctions, but it can also arise from disciplinary traditions, independent scale development, historical naming conventions, or construct proliferation.
03 · What You Need to Know
Different Names Can Hide Similar Constructs
This problem is known as the jangle fallacy
The jangle fallacy occurs when differently named constructs or measures are assumed to represent different phenomena even though they may be identical or substantially similar. Its counterpart, the jingle fallacy, occurs when the same or similar label encourages researchers to assume equivalence even though the underlying constructs or measures differ. Both problems can occur at the level of theoretical constructs and at the level of their measures.
Jangle problem
Different names encourage an assumption of difference even though the constructs may substantially overlap.
Jingle problem
The same name encourages an assumption of equivalence even though the underlying constructs may differ.
These are not merely terminological curiosities. They can fragment research into separate literatures, encourage redundant measure development, complicate evidence synthesis, and make apparently novel findings less novel than their terminology suggests. Research on construct proliferation has consequently emphasized the importance of examining overlap rather than assuming that every newly named construct represents a genuinely new theoretical contribution.
Start with definitions, not construct names
Suppose one literature studies academic confidence and another studies academic self-efficacy. The similarity of the labels is suggestive but not decisive.
Retrieve the theoretical definitions used in foundational and contemporary studies. Ask what each construct includes, what it excludes, whether it is domain-specific or general, whether it concerns perceived capability or some broader self-evaluation, and what theoretical framework gives it meaning.
This is where careful understanding of what a construct actually represents becomes essential. Two constructs can sound similar in ordinary language while occupying different theoretical positions.
Compare the conceptual domain and boundaries
Definitions should be compared at a finer level than “these sound roughly alike.”
Ask whether the constructs refer to the same:
- phenomenon or attribute;
- population or unit of analysis;
- time orientation;
- level of specificity;
- dimensions or facets;
- antecedents and consequences; and
- theoretical boundaries.
For example, two constructs might both concern confidence but differ because one refers to confidence in performing specific future tasks while another concerns a broader evaluation of competence. That distinction may be theoretically consequential even if everyday language makes the constructs sound nearly interchangeable.
Compare operational definitions and measures
The next question is how researchers actually represent the constructs empirically.
Examine questionnaire items, behavioral indicators, scoring procedures, observational criteria, and other operationalizations. If two differently named constructs use nearly identical item content, that is evidence worth investigating. Conversely, similar theoretical definitions accompanied by very different measures may indicate that the literature has not operationalized the construct consistently.
This is why construct definitions and operational definitions should be examined separately. A construct's label can remain stable while its empirical representation changes, and different labels can conceal nearly identical operationalizations.
Research has documented such patterns empirically. Studies of construct proliferation have found differently named measures with overlapping content, while work on listening effort has shown how insufficient construct validation can produce both jingle and jangle problems.
Similar measures provide evidence, not automatic proof of equivalence
Suppose two scales contain highly similar items. That strengthens the case that the constructs overlap, but equivalence should not be declared from item resemblance alone.
Two measures might intentionally sample overlapping behavior while representing theoretically distinct constructs. Alternatively, different item wording could still capture the same underlying characteristic.
The relevant question is therefore broader: do the theoretical definitions and empirical evidence converge on the same substantive interpretation?
Examine relationships with other variables
Constructs can also be compared through their nomological networks, meaning the patterns of relationships they are expected to have with other constructs or criteria.
If two differently named measures have similar relationships with theoretically relevant external variables, that can provide additional evidence of overlap. Research on extrinsic convergent validity has proposed precisely this kind of comparison as one way to investigate potential jingle and jangle fallacies.
More recent methodological work likewise recommends examining similarities and differences in nomological networks rather than relying on labels or simple correlations alone.
| Evidence to compare |
Question to ask |
What it can reveal |
| Definitions |
Do the authors describe essentially the same phenomenon? |
Conceptual similarity or distinction |
| Dimensions |
Do the constructs contain the same components or facets? |
Differences in scope or structure |
| Measures |
Do the items or indicators capture similar content? |
Operational overlap |
| External relationships |
Do the constructs relate similarly to relevant criteria? |
Similarity in nomological networks |
| Theoretical role |
Do the constructs perform the same function within their theories? |
Substantive equivalence or differentiation |
High correlation does not necessarily mean the constructs are identical
Two measures can correlate strongly while still representing theoretically distinguishable constructs. Related psychological or educational characteristics often share substantial variance.
Conversely, a modest correlation does not automatically prove that two similarly defined constructs are distinct. Differences in reliability, populations, measurement methods, item content, and contextual specificity can attenuate observed relationships.
Construct equivalence therefore should not be decided using a single correlation coefficient.
Different names may reflect different levels of abstraction
Sometimes apparently competing constructs are related hierarchically rather than synonymously.
One construct might represent a broad domain while another represents a narrower facet. For example, a general engagement construct could encompass behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions, while behavioral engagement refers only to one part of that broader domain.
Collapsing the two because they are strongly related would erase a meaningful difference in scope.
Different names may reflect disciplinary traditions
Fields can develop parallel vocabularies for related phenomena. Education, psychology, sociology, organizational research, health research, and communication may conceptualize similar processes from different theoretical starting points.
That does not mean the constructs are necessarily identical. But disciplinary boundaries can prevent researchers from noticing neighboring literatures, contributing to duplicated terminology and fragmented knowledge.
Recent work on construct proliferation argues that the problem extends beyond simple redundancy and may involve deeper differences in definitions, disciplinary taxonomies, and how constructs are used in research and practice.
Your literature search should include plausible alternative labels
If different names may refer to the same or overlapping construct, searching only your preferred label can produce an artificially narrow literature review.
Identify synonyms, historical labels, spelling variants, neighboring construct names, and terms used in adjacent disciplines. Then examine whether retrieved studies genuinely concern the phenomenon of interest rather than including everything that shares a vaguely related word.
This is particularly important for systematic and scoping reviews, where terminology choices can influence which evidence enters the synthesis.
Do not create another name unless you can justify another construct
Construct proliferation can occur when researchers rename an existing idea, make a modest modification, and present the result as a theoretically distinct construct without adequately demonstrating what the new construct contributes. Research in psychology has raised concerns that proliferating constructs and measures can fragment cumulative knowledge when distinctions are poorly established.
A new label may be justified when the proposed construct has a meaningful conceptual boundary, theoretical role, or empirical distinction. Novel terminology should follow substantive differentiation rather than substitute for it.
Watch Out
Do not merge constructs merely because their names, definitions, or measures appear similar at first glance. The jangle fallacy is avoided by investigating possible equivalence, not by assuming equivalence in the opposite direction.
04 · A Practical Example
When Two Construct Names Look Suspiciously Similar
Hypothetical Example
Academic technology confidence and digital self-efficacy
A researcher finds one literature examining “academic technology confidence” and another examining “digital self-efficacy.” Both appear to concern students' beliefs about their capability to perform technology-related academic tasks.
Compare definitions The researcher extracts the formal definitions rather than assuming equivalence from the labels.
Compare scope Digital self-efficacy may concern a broad range of digital activities, while academic technology confidence may be restricted to university learning tasks.
Compare measures The researcher examines whether the instruments ask about the same capabilities or substantially different behaviors.
Compare theoretical relationships The researcher checks whether both constructs are expected to relate similarly to technology use, persistence, performance, anxiety, and other relevant variables.
Decide how to report them If evidence suggests substantial equivalence, the researcher can explain the terminology and justify treating the literatures together. If meaningful differences remain, those differences should be preserved explicitly.
The appropriate conclusion could therefore be “these constructs appear substantially overlapping,” “one appears to be a narrower form of the other,” or “despite similar terminology, they are theoretically distinct.” The literature, rather than the labels alone, should determine which conclusion is defensible.
