Improving the Dependability of Research in Personality and Social Psychology: Recommendations for Research and Educational Practice

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 3-12

  Funder, David C ^a   Levine, John M ^b   Mackie, Diane M ^c   Morf, Carolyn C ^d   Sansone, Carol ^e   Vazire, Simine ^f   West, Stephen G ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^f WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

educational practice; effect size; replicability; research methods; statistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; PERSONALITY; REPLICABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH METHODS; SAMPLE SIZE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE; EFFECT SIZE; REPLICABILITY; RESEARCH METHODS; STATISTICS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PERSONALITY; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84892462851     PISSN: 10888683     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1088868313507536     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abelson R. P.A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot.Psychological Bulletin. 1985;97:129-133.
2. Asendorpf J. B.,Conner M.,De Fruyt F.,De Houwer J.,Denissen J. J. A.,Fiedler K.,Wicherts J. M.Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology.European Journal of Personality. 2013;27:108-119.
3. BemD. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524.
4. CarverR. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378-399. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/616376408?accountid=14521.
5. Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988:.
6. Cohen J.The earth is round (p <. 05).American Psychologist. 1994;49:997-1003.
7. Cumming G.Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge; 2012:.
8. Cumming G.,Finch S.Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data.American Psychologist, 6. 2005;0:170-180.
9. Dallow N.,Fina P.The perils with the misuse of predictive power.Pharmaceutical Statistics. 2011;10:311-317.
10. Dennis M. L.,Lennox R. D.,Foss M.The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Bryant K. J.Windle M.West S. G., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997:367-404.
11. Diaconis P.Exploring data tables, trends and shapes. Hoaglin D.Mosteller F.Tukey J., ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1985:1-36.
12. Faul F.,Erdfelder E.,Lang A.-G.,Buchner A.G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:175-191.
13. Fraley R. C.,Marks M. J.Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. Robins R. W.Fraley R. C.Krueger R. F., ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007:149-169.
14. Hoenig J. M.,Heisey D. M.The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis.American Statistician. 2001;55:19-24.
15. Ioannidis J. P. A.Why most published research findings are false.PLoS: Medicine. 2005;2 (8): e124.
16. JohnL. K.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524-532. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
17. Kass R. E.,Raftery A. E.Bayes factors.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1995;90:773-795.
18. Kelley K.Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package.Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:970-984.
19. Kelley K.,Maxwell S. E.APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Cooper H., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012:181-202.
20. Lenth R. V.Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination.American Statistician. 2001;55:187-193.
21. LenthR. V. (2007). Post hoc power: Tables and commentary (Technical Report No. 378). Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/sites/default/files/techrep/tr378.pdf.
22. Lipsey M. W.,Wilson D.Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001:.
23. Masicampo E. J.,Lalande D. R.A peculiar prevalence of p values just below.05.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2012;65:2271-2279.
24. Maxwell S. E.Methodological issues in planning and interpreting replication studies. Honolulu, HI: American Psychological Association; 2013:.
25. McGrath R. E.,Meyer G. J.When effect sizes disagree: The case of r and d.Psychological Methods. 2006;11:386-401.
26. Meehl P. E.Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox.Philosophy of Science. 1967;34:103-115.
27. Muthén L. K.,Muthén B. O.How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power.Structural Equation Modeling. 2002;4:599-620.
28. Overman E. S.Methodology and epistemology for social science: Selected papers of Donald T. Campbell. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1988:.
29. RehmanJ. (2013, September1). Cancer research in crisis: Are the drugs we count on based on bad science?Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/09/01/is_cancer_research_facing_a_crisis/.
30. Richard F. D.,Bond C. F.,Stokes-Zoota J. J.One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described.Review of General Psychology. 2003;7:331-363.
31. Rogers J. L.,Howard K. I.,Vessey J. T.Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups.Psychological Bulletin. 1993;113:553-565.
32. Rosenthal R.Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:.
33. Rossi J. S.Handbook of psychology: Volume 2. Research methods in psychology. 2013). Statistical power analysis. In SchinkaJ. A.VelicerW. F. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 2. Research methods in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 71-108). New York, NY: Wiley.Schinka J. A.Velicer W. F., ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2013:71-108.
34. Schimmack U.The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles.Psychological Methods. 2012;17:551-566.
35. Seaman M. A.,Serlin R. C.Equivalence confidence intervals for two-group comparisons of means.Psychological Methods. 1998;3:403-411.
36. Shadish W. R.,Cook T. D.,Campbell D. T.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin; 2002:.
37. SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
38. VulE.HarrisC.WinkielmanP.PashlerH. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274-290. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01125.x.
39. YangY.ChiuC. (2009). Mapping the structure and dynamics of psychological knowledge: Forty years of APA journal citations (1970-2009). Review of General Psychology, 13, 349-356. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017195.
40. Yong E.Replication studies: Bad copy.Nature. 2012;485:298-300.
41. Yuan K.-H.,Maxwell S.On the post hoc power in testing mean differences.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2005;30:141-167.