Statistical Rituals: The Replication Delusion and How We Got There

被引:130
作者
Gigerenzer, Gerd [1 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Human Dev, Harding Ctr Risk Literacy, Lentzeallee 94, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
关键词
replication; p-hacking; illusion of certainty; P value; null ritual; PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH; PUBLICATION DECISIONS; NATIONAL-SURVEY; SAMPLE-SIZE; P VALUES; POWER; TESTS; NULL; MISINTERPRETATION; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1177/2515245918771329
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The "replication crisis" has been attributed to misguided external incentives gamed by researchers (the strategic-game hypothesis). Here, I want to draw attention to a complementary internal factor, namely, researchers' widespread faith in a statistical ritual and associated delusions (the statistical-ritual .hypothesis). The "null ritual," unknown in statistics proper, eliminates judgment precisely at points where statistical theories demand it. The crucial delusion is that the p value specifies the probability of a successful replication (i.e., 1 - p), which makes replication studies appear to be superfluous. A review of studies with 839 academic psychologists and 991 students shows that the replication delusion existed among 20% of the faculty teaching statistics in psychology, 39% of the professors and lecturers, and 66% of the students. Two further beliefs, the illusion of certainty (e.g., that statistical significance proves that an effect exists) and Bayesian wishful thinking (e.g., that the probability of the alternative hypothesis being true is 1 - p), also make successful replication appear to be certain or almost certain, respectively. In every study reviewed, the majority of researchers (56%-97%) exhibited one or more of these delusions. Psychology departments need to begin teaching statistical thinking, not rituals, and journal editors should no longer accept manuscripts that report results as "significant" or "not significant."
引用
收藏
页码:198 / 218
页数:21
相关论文
共 101 条
  • [1] Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
    Aarts, Alexander A.
    Anderson, Joanna E.
    Anderson, Christopher J.
    Attridge, Peter R.
    Attwood, Angela
    Axt, Jordan
    Babel, Molly
    Bahnik, Stepan
    Baranski, Erica
    Barnett-Cowan, Michael
    Bartmess, Elizabeth
    Beer, Jennifer
    Bell, Raoul
    Bentley, Heather
    Beyan, Leah
    Binion, Grace
    Borsboom, Denny
    Bosch, Annick
    Bosco, Frank A.
    Bowman, Sara D.
    Brandt, Mark J.
    Braswell, Erin
    Brohmer, Hilmar
    Brown, Benjamin T.
    Brown, Kristina
    Bruening, Jovita
    Calhoun-Sauls, Ann
    Callahan, Shannon P.
    Chagnon, Elizabeth
    Chandler, Jesse
    Chartier, Christopher R.
    Cheung, Felix
    Christopherson, Cody D.
    Cillessen, Linda
    Clay, Russ
    Cleary, Hayley
    Cloud, Mark D.
    Cohn, Michael
    Cohoon, Johanna
    Columbus, Simon
    Cordes, Andreas
    Costantini, Giulio
    Alvarez, Leslie D. Cramblet
    Cremata, Ed
    Crusius, Jan
    DeCoster, Jamie
    DeGaetano, Michelle A.
    Della Penna, Nicolas
    den Bezemer, Bobby
    Deserno, Marie K.
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2015, 349 (6251)
  • [2] American Psychological Association, 2010, AM PSYCHOL
  • [3] American Psychological Association, 2001, PUBL MAN AM PSYCH AS
  • [4] Anastasi A., 1958, DIFFER PSYCHOL, V3rd
  • [5] Anderson Britta L, 2013, J Grad Med Educ, V5, P272, DOI 10.4300/JGME-D-12-00161.1
  • [6] Anderson R.L., 1952, STAT THEORY RES, V1st
  • [7] [Anonymous], 1987, Cognition as intuitive statistics
  • [8] [Anonymous], NEW YORKER
  • [9] [Anonymous], 1986, EPIDEMIOLOGY RESOUR
  • [10] [Anonymous], 2004, The Journal of Socio-Economics, DOI [10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033, DOI 10.1016/J.SOCEC.2004.09.033]