/ en / Traditional / help

Beats Biblionetz - Texte

False-Positive Psychology

Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant
Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, Uri Simonsohn
Publikationsdatum:
Erste Seite des Textes (PDF-Thumbnail)
Dieses Biblionetz-Objekt existiert erst seit Juli 2022. Es ist deshalb gut möglich, dass viele der eigentlich vorhandenen Vernetzungen zu älteren Biblionetz-Objekten bisher nicht erstellt wurden. Somit kann es sein, dass diese Seite sehr lückenhaft ist.

iconZusammenfassungen

In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists’ nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (≤ .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.
Von Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, Uri Simonsohn im Text False-Positive Psychology (2011)

iconBemerkungen

Calling BullshitThe paper makes a compelling case. If p-hacking can reverse the flow of time, what can it not do?
Von Carl T. Bergstrom, Jevin D. West im Buch Calling Bullshit (2020) im Text The Susceptibility of Science
Beat Döbeli HoneggerIm Artikel wird zwar der Begriff "p-hacking" nicht erwähnt, es geht aber genau um dieses Phänomen.
Von Beat Döbeli Honegger, erfasst im Biblionetz am 10.07.2022
Calling BullshitTo illustrate how powerful p-hacking techniques can be, Joseph Simmons and colleagues Leif Nelson and Uri Simonsohn tested a pair of hypotheses they were pretty sure were untrue. One was an unlikely hypothesis; the other was impossible.
The unlikely hypothesis was that listening to children’s music makes people feel older than they really are. Volunteers listened to either a children’s song or a control song, and later were asked how old they felt. With a bit of p-hacking, the researchers concluded that listening to a children’s song makes people feel older, with statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.
While suggestive, the initial study was not the most persuasive demonstration of how p-hacking can mislead. Maybe listening to a children’s song really does make you feel old. So the authors raised the bar and tested a hypothesis that couldn’t possibly be true. They hypothesized that listening to the classic Beatles song “When I’m Sixty-Four” doesn’t just make people feel younger, it literally makes them younger. Obviously this is ridiculous, but they conducted a scientific experiment testing it anyway. They ran a randomized controlled trial in which they had each subject listen either to the Beatles song or to a control song. Remarkably, they found that while people who listened to each song should have been the same age, people who heard “When I’m Sixty-Four” were, on average, a year and a half younger than people who heard the control. Moreover, this difference was significant at the p < 0.05 level! Because the study was a randomized controlled trial, the usual inference would be that the treatment—listening to the song—had a causal effect on age. Thus the researchers could claim (albeit tongue in cheek) to have evidence that listening to “When I’m Sixty-Four” actually makes people younger. To reach these impossible conclusions, the researchers deliberately p-hacked their study in multiple ways. They collected information about a number of characteristics of their study subjects, and then controlled for the one that happened to give them the result they were looking at. (It was the age of the subject’s father, for what that’s worth.) They also continued the experiment until they got a significant result, rather than predetermining the sample size. But such decisions would be hidden in a scientific report if the authors chose to do so. They could simply list the final sample size without acknowledging that it was not set in advance, and they could report controlling for the father’s age without acknowledging that they had also collected several additional pieces of personal information, which they ended up discarding because they did not give the desired result.
Von Carl T. Bergstrom, Jevin D. West im Buch Calling Bullshit (2020) im Text The Susceptibility of Science

iconDieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel erwähnt ...


Personen
KB IB clear
John P. A. Ioannidis

Begriffe
KB IB clear
Datendata, p-hacking, Psychologiepsychology, Signifikanz, Simulation, Statistikstatistics
icon
Texte
Jahr  Umschlag Titel Abrufe IBOBKBLB
2005 local web  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (John P. A. Ioannidis) 7, 7, 3, 6, 11, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 15101330

iconTagcloud

iconZitationsgraph

Diese Grafik ist nur im SVG-Format verfügbar. Dieses Format wird vom verwendeteten Browser offenbar nicht unterstützt.

Diese Grafik fensterfüllend anzeigen (SVG)

iconErwähnungen  Dies ist eine nach Erscheinungsjahr geordnete Liste aller im Biblionetz vorhandenen Werke, die das ausgewählte Thema behandeln.

iconVolltext dieses Dokuments

Auf dem WWW False-Positive Psychology: Artikel als Volltext (lokal: PDF, 420 kByte; WWW: Link OK )

iconAnderswo suchen  Auch im Biblionetz finden Sie nicht alles. Aus diesem Grund bietet das Biblionetz bereits ausgefüllte Suchformulare für verschiedene Suchdienste an. Biblionetztreffer werden dabei ausgeschlossen.

iconBeat und dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel

Beat hat Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel erst in den letzten 6 Monaten in Biblionetz aufgenommen. Er hat Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel einmalig erfasst und bisher nicht mehr bearbeitet. Beat besitzt kein physisches, aber ein digitales Exemplar. Eine digitale Version ist auf dem Internet verfügbar (s.o.). Aufgrund der wenigen Einträge im Biblionetz scheint er es nicht wirklich gelesen zu haben. Es gibt bisher auch nur wenige Objekte im Biblionetz, die dieses Werk zitieren. Beat selbst sagt, er habe dieses Dokument überflogen.

iconBiblionetz-History Dies ist eine graphische Darstellung, wann wie viele Verweise von und zu diesem Objekt ins Biblionetz eingetragen wurden und wie oft die Seite abgerufen wurde.