Author
Listed:
- Jesse J. Chandler
- Ignacio Martinez
- Mariel M. Finucane
- Jeffrey G. Terziev
- Alexandra M. Resch
Abstract
Background: Bayesian statistics have become popular in the social sciences, in part because they are thought to present more useful information than traditional frequentist statistics. Unfortunately, little is known about whether or how interpretations of frequentist and Bayesian results differ. Objectives: We test whether presenting Bayesian or frequentist results based on the same underlying data influences the decisions people made. Research design: Participants were randomly assigned to read Bayesian and frequentist interpretations of hypothetical evaluations of new education technologies of various degrees of uncertainty, ranging from posterior probabilities of 99.8% to 52.9%, which have equivalent frequentist p values of .001 and .65, respectively. Subjects: Across three studies, 933 U.S. adults were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who recommended adopting the new technology. We also measured respondents’ certainty in their choice and (in Study 3) how easy it was to understand the results. Results: When presented with Bayesian results, participants were more likely to recommend switching to the new technology. This finding held across all degrees of uncertainty, but especially when the frequentist results reported a p value >.05. Those who recommended change based on Bayesian results were more certain about their choice. All respondents reported that the Bayesian display was easier to understand. Conclusions: Presenting the same data in either frequentist or Bayesian terms can influence the decisions that people make. This finding highlights the importance of understanding the impact of the statistical results on how audiences interpret evaluation results.
Suggested Citation
Jesse J. Chandler & Ignacio Martinez & Mariel M. Finucane & Jeffrey G. Terziev & Alexandra M. Resch, 2020.
"Speaking on Data’s Behalf: What Researchers Say and How Audiences Choose,"
Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 325-353, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:325-353
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X19834968
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:325-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.