Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.

1975/01/01 by Anthony G. Greenwald · 30 citations
Decision Sciences · #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics

paper · doi:10.1037/h0076157

Abstract

The consequences of prejudice against accepting the null hypothesis were examined through (a) a mathematical model intended to stimulate the research-publication process and (b) case studies of apparent erroneous rejec-tions of the null hypothesis in published psychological research. The input parameters for the model characterize investigators ' probabilities of selecting a problem for which the null hypothesis is true, of reporting, following up on, or abandoning research when data do or do not reject the null hypothesis, and they characterize editors ' probabilities of publishing manuscripts concluding in favor of or against the null hypothesis. With estimates of the input parameters based on a questionnaire survey of a sample of social psychologists, the model output indicates a dysfunctional research-publication system. Particularly, the model indicates that there may be relatively few publications on problems for which the null hypothesis is (at least to a reasonable approximation) true, and of these, a high proportion will erroneously reject the null hypothesis. The case studies provide additional support for this conclusion. Accordingly, it is

Cited by

• The Benefits of Preregistration and Registered Reports
• Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
• When Do Interaction/Moderation Effects Stabilize in Linear Regression?
• How to do a meta‐analysis
• Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
• Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences
• The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports
• Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results
• Bridging Null Hypothesis Testing and Estimation: A Practical Guide to Statistical Conclusion Drawing From Research in Psychology
• Measuring the Immeasurable: Or “Could Abraham Lincoln Take the Implicit Association Test?”
• From crisis of evidence to a “crisis” of relevance? Incentive-based answers for social psychology’s perennial relevance worries
• P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.
• Registered Reports
• The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication
• A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings
• Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: challenges and potential solutions
• Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research‐productive management programs
• Assessing Publication Bias: a 7-Step User’s Guide with Best-Practice Recommendations
• A Validity-Based Framework for Understanding Replication in Psychology
• A possible disconnect in JDM research articles: Results sections display an estimation perspective while Discussion sections belie an estimation mindset
• Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model
• A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories
• Effect Size Estimation Fromt-Statistics in the Presence of Publication Bias
• Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accuracy in Parameter Estimation
• Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
• RETRACTED ARTICLE: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable
• Small Telescopes
• Publication bias, statistical power and reporting practices in the Journal of Sports Sciences: potential barriers to replicability
• Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication

Related

• A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories
• Recent reproducibility estimates indicate that negative evidence is observed over 30 times before publication
• Publication Bias (The "File-Drawer Problem") in Scientific Inference
• Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses
• The positivity trap: is a bias against null results in research literature holding back science?