Introduction: prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, workers were exposed to psychosocial risks that were aggravated, negatively impacting their health. This has generated a boom in its study; however, theoretical ambiguities persist. Objective: to explain the theoretical ambiguity present in the study of psychosocial risks at work. Methods: the analytical article explores the theoretical ambiguity of psychosocial risks in the workplace. It incorporates various sources of information, including classical authors and contemporary approaches. Additionally, the authors offer critical insights and provide considerations for future research in the field. Result: there is a theoretical-conceptual ambiguity in the study of psychosocial risks at work. It is recommended: 1. To generate less abstract conceptual proposals to address semantic confusion and lack of taxonomic clarity. 2. Adopt an interdisciplinary conceptual approach that includes perspectives from psychology, sociology, and occupational health nursing. 3. Incorporate qualitative methodologies instead of continuing to use quantitative approaches, questioning the appropriateness of measuring a construct with traditional methods that have theoretical omissions. 4. develop unifying theoretical proposals. Conclusions: there is an urgent need for integrative theoretical proposals. In the opinion of the present authors, these proposals should have a low level of abstraction and include interdisciplinary perspectives that transcend psychology and sociology, as well as use qualitative methodologies.