» Articles » PMID: 39282677

Detecting Jingle and Jangle Fallacies by Identifying Consistencies and Variabilities in Study Specifications - a Call for Research

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2024 Sep 16
PMID 39282677
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Over the past few years, more attention has been paid to jingle and jangle fallacies in psychological science. Jingle fallacies arise when two or more distinct psychological phenomena are erroneously labeled with the same term, while jangle fallacies occur when different terms are used to describe the same phenomenon. Jingle and jangle fallacies emerge due to the vague linkage between psychological theories and their practical implementation in empirical studies, compounded by variations in study designs, methodologies, and applying different statistical procedures' algorithms. Despite progress in organizing scientific findings via systematic reviews and meta-analyses, effective strategies to prevent these fallacies are still lacking. This paper explores the integration of several approaches with the potential to identify and mitigate jingle and jangle fallacies within psychological science. Essentially, organizing studies according to their specifications, which include theoretical background, methods, study designs, and results, alongside a combinatorial algorithm and flexible inclusion criteria, may indeed represent a feasible approach. A jingle-fallacy detector arises when identical specifications lead to disparate outcomes, whereas jangle-fallacy indicators could operate on the premise that varying specifications consistently yield overrandomly similar results. We discuss the role of advanced computational technologies, such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), in identifying these fallacies. In conclusion, addressing jingle and jangle fallacies requires a comprehensive approach that considers all levels and phases of psychological science.

Citing Articles

Evaluating flourishing: a comparative analysis of four measures using item pool visualization.

Ploke V, Batinic B, Stieger S Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1458946.

PMID: 39569090 PMC: 11576295. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1458946.

References
1.
Steegen S, Tuerlinckx F, Gelman A, Vanpaemel W . Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016; 11(5):702-712. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616658637. View

2.
Skinner E . A guide to constructs of control. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 71(3):549-70. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.549. View

3.
Foulds J, Knight J, Young J, Keen C, Newton-Howes G . A Novel Graphical Method for Data Presentation in Alcohol Systematic Reviews: The Interactive Harvest Plot. Alcohol Alcohol. 2021; 57(1):16-25. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agaa145. View

4.
Glass G . Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 6(3):221-31. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1133. View

5.
Simonsohn U, Simmons J, Nelson L . Specification curve analysis. Nat Hum Behav. 2020; 4(11):1208-1214. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0912-z. View