Jingle-jangle fallacies
Terminology leading to erroneous conclusions
- 2 min read
- 2 chapters
Related on Lably
Through Emotional intelligence
Examples
An example of the jangle fallacy can be found in tests designed to assess emotional intelligence. Some of these tests merely measure personality or regular IQ. An example of the jingle fallacy is that personality and values are sometimes conflated and treated as the same construct. Jingle and jangle fallacies make it challenging to review literatures for meta-analysis. Machine learning tools have been created to discover relevant papers even when the same construct is named differently in different articles. Some authors have stated that the personality traits Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable".
Sign in to keep reading
One more chapter is free with a Lably account.
Views on the phenomenon
Herbert Marsh highlighted the issue of jingle-jangle fallacies through a factor analysis of two distinct motivation assessments. His analysis revealed that while the mastery and performance subscales from both instruments aligned with shared underlying factors, the competition subscales, despite being labeled identically, actually represented different psychological constructs: one tied to performance orientation, the other to task orientation. This discrepancy illustrates the importance of conducting thorough construct validity studies to evaluate the true meaning behind measurement instruments. Simply demonstrating that items from a single scale load onto one factor when assessed in isolation does not confirm their distinctiveness when compared with items from other constructs in a broader factor analysis. Moreover, assigning a label to a factor does not justify assumptions about its relationship to other constructs, regardless of how similar or different they might appear. Heyman and Dweck (1992) also warned that researchers must ensure they are not inadvertently measuring the same construct under different names. Pajares (2009) echoed this concern, pointing out how conceptually similar variables may be operationalized differently across studies to serve specific research aims, often leading to confusion, particularly when perceptions of competence are misrepresented as self-efficacy. Likewise, Bong & Skaalvik (2003) recommended the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to rigorously test the structural, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of motivational constructs, helping to avoid what they termed a "conceptual mess."