Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. This article raises some of those questions to illustrate the point. A related point is that, although an agreed upon set of conceptual definitions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice - and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables - these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. The article explores several reasons for this overlap and discusses the implications. References