Approaching a fair deal for significance and other concerns

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 65, Issue , 2016, Pages 1-6

  Giner Sorolla, Roger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960332006     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.010     Document Type: Editorial

References (38)

1. Abelson R.P. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin 1985, 97(1):129-133.
2. Aiken L.S., West S.G., Reno R.R. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions 1991, SAGE Publications, Hillsdale, NJ.
3. American Psychological Association Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2010, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. 6th ed.
4. Bakker M., van Dijk A., Wicherts J.M. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(6):543-554.
5. Belia S., Fidler F., Williams J., Cumming G. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychological Methods 2005, 10(4):389-396.
6. Bishop D.V., Thompson P.A. Problems in using p-curve analysis and text-mining to detect rate of p-hacking (No. e1956). PeerJ PrePrints. Retrieved from. https://peerj.com/preprints/1266.
7. Bostyn D.H., Roets A. The morality of action: The asymmetry between judgments of praise and blame in the action-omission effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2016, 63:19-25. Retrieved from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300172.
8. Brandt M.J., IJzerman H., Dijksterhuis A., Farach F.J., Geller J., Giner-Sorolla R., Van't Veer A. The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2014, 50:217-224.
9. Coulson M., Healey M., Fidler F., Cumming G. Confidence intervals permit, but do not guarantee, better inference than statistical significance testing. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement 2010, 1:26.
10. Crandall C.S., Eshleman A. A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin 2003, 129(3):414-446.
11. Fabrigar L.R., Wegener D.T. Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2015, (in press).
12. Fiedler K., Schott M., Meiser T. What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011, 47(6):1231-1236. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007.
13. Gabriel K.R. A simple method of multiple comparisons of means. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1978, 73(364):724-729.
14. Gelman A. Bayes, Jeffreys, prior distributions and the philosophy of statistics. Statistical Science 2009, 24(2):176-178.
15. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2015). Effect size depends on methods. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kent. Retrieved from. https://osf.io/w4enh/.
16. Hewstone M., Stroebe W. Moving at snail's pace: Some observations on the publication process in social and personality psychology. SPSP Dialogue 2008, 23(1):17-24.
17. Hung H.M.J., O'Neill R.T., Bauer P., Kohne K. The behavior of the p-value when the alternative hypothesis is true. Biometrics 1997, 53(1):11-22.
18. Hurlbert S.H., Lombardi C.M. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neo-Fisherian. Annales Zoologici Fennici 2009, 46:311-349.
19. Ioannidis J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2005, 2(8):e124.
20. Judd C.M., Westfall J., Kenny D.A. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012, 103(1):54-69.
21. Kerr N.L. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1998, 2(3):196-217.
22. Kline R.B. The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2015, 37(4):202-213. 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349.
23. Lakens D. Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology 2014, 44(7):701-710.
24. LeBel E.P., Peters K.R. Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem's (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology 2011, 15(4):371-379.
25. Ledgerwood A., Sherman J.W. Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(1):60-66.
26. Lehmann E.L. The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: One theory or two?. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993, 88(424):1242-1249.
27. Lemmer, G. & Gollwitzer, M. (2016). The "true" indirect effect won't (always) stand up: When and why reverse mediation testing fails. Unpublished manuscript, Philipps-University Marburg.
28. Meehl P.E. Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science 1967, 34:103-115.
29. Murayama K., Pekrun R., Fiedler K. Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2013, 18(2):107-118.
30. Petty R.E., Fabrigar L.R., Wegener D.T., Priester J.R. Understanding data when interactions are present or hypothesized. Psychological Science 1996, 7(4):247-252.
31. Richard F.D., Bond C.F., Stokes-Zoota J.J. One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology 2003, 7(4):331-363.
32. Schönbrodt F. When does a significant p-value indicate a true effect? Web page retrieved from. http://shinyapps.org/apps/PPV.
33. Simonsohn U., Nelson L.D., Simmons J.P. P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2014, 143(2):534-547.
34. Spellman B.A. A short (personal) future history of Revolution 2.0. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015, 10(6):886-899.
35. Spencer S.J., Zanna M.P., Fong G.T. Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 89(6):845-851.
36. Stanley D.J., Spence J.R. Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2014, 9(3):305-318.
37. Thoemmes F. Reversing arrows in mediation models does not distinguish plausible models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2015, 37(4):226-234.
38. Ulrich R., Miller J. p-hacking by post hoc selection with multiple opportunities: Detectability by skewness test?: Comment on Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2015, 144(6):1137-1145.