What Should You Do When Researchers Use the Same Term to Mean Different Things?

What If Everyone Uses the Same Word but Means Something Different?

You search for studies of “engagement,” “resilience,” “trust,” “digital literacy,” or another familiar construct. The terminology looks reassuringly consistent until you read the definitions.

One article defines the construct narrowly. Another includes several additional dimensions. A third uses a questionnaire that seems to measure something different again. Yet all three papers use exactly the same label.

This creates a deceptively difficult literature-review problem. Findings that appear to concern one construct may actually concern several different conceptualizations. Combining them without checking what the term means can produce comparisons that are tidy on paper but theoretically incoherent.

This problem is closely related to the jingle fallacy: assuming that constructs or measures are equivalent because they share the same name.

A Shared Label Is Not Evidence of a Shared Construct

The Same Construct Name Can Conceal Different Phenomena

This is the jingle side of the jingle-jangle problem

A jingle fallacy occurs when the same or similar label leads researchers to assume that constructs or measures are equivalent even though they actually represent different phenomena. The opposite problem, the jangle fallacy, occurs when different labels encourage an assumption of difference despite substantial conceptual similarity.

These problems interfere with cumulative knowledge because researchers can unknowingly compare non-equivalent measurements or separate evidence that actually concerns the same phenomenon. Construct validation research has documented both patterns across several areas of psychology and applied research.

Start by collecting the actual definitions

When terminology is inconsistent, build your understanding from definitions rather than labels.

For each influential or relevant study, identify how the authors define the construct. If no explicit definition is provided, inspect the theoretical framework, cited foundational sources, instrument description, and item content to determine what meaning is being operationalized.

This exercise can reveal disagreements that ordinary keyword searching conceals.

For example, research on work-nonwork balance identified 233 conceptual definitions across 290 papers, with those definitions clustering into several distinct types despite the shared construct label. The study illustrates how extensive conceptual heterogeneity can exist beneath apparently consistent terminology.

Compare what each definition includes and excludes

Two definitions can share a central phrase while differ substantially in scope.

Suppose “student engagement” is defined in one study as observable participation in learning activities. Another defines it as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive involvement. A third focuses primarily on students' psychological investment.

All three use engagement, but they do not necessarily define the same construct.

Ask:

• What is the core phenomenon?
• Which dimensions are included?
• Which dimensions are excluded?
• Is the construct a state, trait, behavior, perception, relationship, or outcome?
• At what level does it operate?
• What distinguishes it from neighboring constructs?

This conceptual work should precede decisions about whether studies can legitimately be compared.

Check whether the operationalization matches the definition

Authors can provide similar definitions but use substantially different measures. They can also provide different definitions while using nearly identical instruments.

This means the conceptual and operational levels need to be examined separately.

The relationship between constructs and their operational definitions is therefore central when resolving terminological ambiguity. What researchers say they study and what their indicators actually represent are both relevant.

Empirical research on advertising constructs, for example, has documented considerable heterogeneity in how identically named constructs were operationalized across studies.

The instrument title does not settle the question

If two questionnaires both contain “resilience” in their titles, they do not necessarily measure identical constructs.

Read the instrument development papers. Examine the theoretical definition, dimensions, item content, scoring procedure, and validation evidence. A shared instrument label can mask different content just as a shared construct label can.

Conversely, two differently titled instruments may provide evidence about substantially similar characteristics. This is why measurement comparisons need to look beyond naming conventions.

Conceptual heterogeneity can explain inconsistent findings

Suppose ten studies examine whether “engagement” predicts academic achievement. Five find a strong association and five find little relationship.

It is tempting to interpret this as conflicting evidence about one construct. But if some studies measure behavioral participation, others emotional involvement, and others a broad multidimensional composite, the inconsistency may partly reflect differences in what was actually measured.

Research on listening effort provides an example of how insufficient construct validation and inconsistent measurement can hinder interpretation of a literature.

Before asking why studies disagree statistically, therefore, ask whether they were asking the same conceptual question.

Do not resolve disagreement by choosing the most popular definition automatically

A frequently cited definition may be influential, but popularity does not make it uniquely correct.

Different definitions may arise because researchers are addressing different theoretical questions, populations, levels of analysis, or contexts. One conceptualization may fit your study better even if another dominates the literature.

Your task is to justify the definition in relation to the research question and theoretical framework, not conduct a popularity contest among citations.

A broad umbrella term may contain several legitimate subconstructs

Sometimes the literature is not actually inconsistent. A broad term may intentionally encompass several narrower dimensions.

For example, a multidimensional framework may define engagement as comprising behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components. A study examining only behavioral engagement is not necessarily contradicting the broader framework if it explicitly identifies that narrower dimension.

Problems arise when the narrower measure is labeled simply “engagement” and interpreted as though it represented the entire multidimensional construct.

This is why researchers should distinguish broad constructs from their dimensions and facets.

The same label can shift meaning over time

Construct definitions can evolve. Later researchers may expand, narrow, or reconceptualize an earlier term while retaining the original label.

A literature review should therefore pay attention to chronology. Foundational papers may not define a construct in exactly the same way as contemporary studies.

This does not necessarily mean one period is wrong. The field may have developed theoretically. But researchers should avoid citing definitions from different periods as though they were interchangeable when the conceptualization has changed.

Different disciplines can attach different meanings to the same term

Words such as resilience, engagement, literacy, trust, and performance travel easily across disciplines. Their definitions do not always travel with them.

A construct used in psychology may emphasize individual cognition or behavior, while the same label in sociology, education, organizational research, or public health may refer to a broader relational or contextual phenomenon.

When searching interdisciplinary literature, discipline should therefore be treated as potential context for meaning rather than merely another database filter.

Construct heterogeneity matters in evidence synthesis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to same-name problems. Combining studies solely because they use the same construct label can introduce conceptual heterogeneity into the synthesis.

Eligibility criteria should therefore consider how the construct is defined and operationalized. Reviewers may need to code different conceptualizations separately, conduct subgroup or sensitivity analyses where appropriate, or decide that some measures do not represent the target construct sufficiently well to combine.

Meta-analysis can aggregate effect sizes. It cannot make conceptually different variables become the same construct simply because they share a column heading.

Your own study should declare which meaning it adopts

Once you identify competing definitions, do not hide the disagreement.

A concise conceptual clarification can state that the literature uses the term in several ways, identify the definition adopted in your study, explain why it fits the theoretical framework and research question, and specify how it will be operationalized.

If terminology is particularly unstable, it may also be useful to state what your definition excludes.

That statement gives readers something much more useful than simply declaring that “engagement is an important variable.”

Do not silently redefine an established construct

If you adopt a narrower, broader, or otherwise modified definition, make the change explicit.

Using an established construct name while substantially changing its meaning can contribute to the very jingle problem you are trying to avoid. Recent work on construct proliferation emphasizes that semantic divergence under shared labels can be as consequential as redundant constructs carrying different names.

When “Digital Literacy” Means Different Things Across Studies

The problem was invisible at the keyword level. It became apparent only after examining definitions and measures.

Common Mistakes When One Term Has Several Meanings

How Should You Handle an Ambiguous Construct?

Treat conceptual ambiguity as part of the research problem rather than an inconvenience to hide in a footnote. A few explicit decisions can make the rest of the study much easier to interpret.

Then maintain alignment. Your literature review, conceptual framework, measurement strategy, results, and discussion should refer to the same meaning of the construct. Conceptual definitions should not quietly broaden once the findings become interesting.

Before Assuming a Shared Term Has a Shared Meaning

Questions About Constructs With the Same Name but Different Meanings

A Shared Name Is Only the Beginning of the Comparison

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.