Search

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 jinglefallacy 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sexually differentiated digit ratios of the hand (2D:4D and other) are currently widely studied, owing to their presumed role as a retrospective diagnostic window into prenatal androgen action. This study was only the second one (following McFadden & Shubel, 2002) to examine all 6 possible finger-length ratios (excluding the thumb) and all 10 possible toe-length ratios (including the big toe). Data from a sample of 59 male and 69 female Austrian adults (M age =27 yr., SD = 7.9) were collected. Replicating the prior study, the majority of toe-length ratios exhibited significant sex differences, which was similar to finger-length ratios, but of weaker effect size. Ipsilateral correlations of toe-length and finger-length ratios were largely absent, except for those of corresponding or adjacent length ratios of the right body side among women. However, these associations were directionally opposite, such that among women, feminized finger-length ratios corresponded to masculinized toe-length ratios. Foot preference (among both sexes) and wearing of toe rings (among women) were not correlates of toe-length ratios. Discussed are implications of these findings for digit ratio research, along with ideas for further inquiry on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]