IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127872.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Krawczyk

Abstract

In this project I investigate the use and possible misuse of p values in papers published in five (high-ranked) journals in experimental psychology. I use a data set of over 135’000 p values from more than five thousand papers. I inspect (1) the way in which the p values are reported and (2) their distribution. The main findings are following: first, it appears that some authors choose the mode of reporting their results in an arbitrary way. Moreover, they often end up doing it in such a way that makes their findings seem more statistically significant than they really are (which is well known to improve the chances for publication). Specifically, they frequently report p values “just above” significance thresholds directly, whereas other values are reported by means of inequalities (e.g. “p

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127872
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127872
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127872&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127872?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2013. "Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7436), pages 149-149, February.
    2. Humphreys, Macartan & Sanchez de la Sierra, Raul & van der Windt, Peter, 2013. "Fishing, Commitment, and Communication: A Proposal for Comprehensive Nonbinding Research Registration," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Leamer, Edward E, 1983. "Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 31-43, March.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    6. T. D. Stanley, 2005. "Beyond Publication Bias," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 309-345, July.
    7. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    9. Dewald, William G & Thursby, Jerry G & Anderson, Richard G, 1986. "Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 587-603, September.
    10. Roth, Alvin E, 1994. "Lets Keep the Con out of Experimental Econ.: A Methodological Note," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 279-289.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deversi, Marvin & Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2021. "Spin doctors: An experiment on vague disclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Nick Hanley & Christopher Boyce & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Steve Tucker & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend, 2017. "Sad or Happy? The Effects of Emotions on Stated Preferences for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 821-846, December.
    3. Grimes, David Robert, 2022. "The Ellipse of Insignificance: a refined fragility index for ascertaining robustness of results in dichotomous outcome trials," OSF Preprints 32p8t, Center for Open Science.
    4. Marvin Deversi & Alessandro Ispano & Peter Schwardmann, 2018. "Spin Doctors: A Model and an Experimental Investigation of Vague Disclosure," CESifo Working Paper Series 7244, CESifo.
    5. Robbie C M van Aert & Jelte M Wicherts & Marcel A L M van Assen, 2019. "Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-32, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    2. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2020. "Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1226-1247.
    3. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    6. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    7. Burlig, Fiona, 2018. "Improving transparency in observational social science research: A pre-analysis plan approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 56-60.
    8. Hristos Doucouliagos & Martin Paldam, 2009. "The Aid Effectiveness Literature: The Sad Results Of 40 Years Of Research," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 433-461, July.
    9. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.
    10. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2018. "Methods Matter: P-Hacking and Causal Inference in Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 11796, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A Practical Guide to Registered Reports for Economists," Post-Print halshs-03897719, HAL.
    12. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    13. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Gall, Thomas & Maniadis, Zacharias, 2019. "Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 506-515.
    15. Kewei Hou & Chen Xue & Lu Zhang, 2017. "Replicating Anomalies," NBER Working Papers 23394, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.
    17. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    18. Lucas C. Coffman & Muriel Niederle, 2015. "Pre-analysis Plans Have Limited Upside, Especially Where Replications Are Feasible," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 81-98, Summer.
    19. Johnson, Samuel G. B., 2019. "Toward a cognitive science of markets: Economic agents as sense-makers," Economics Discussion Papers 2019-10, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Paldam, Martin, 2018. "A model of the representative economist, as researcher and policy advisor," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 5-15.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0127872. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.