Why "encouraging" effect size reporting is not working: The etiology of researcher resistance to changing practices

Given decades of lucid, blunt admonitions that statistical significance tests are often misused and that the tests are somewhat limited in their usefulness, what is needed is less repeated bashing of statistical tests and some honest reflection regarding the etiology of researchers' denial and psychological resistance (sometimes unconscious) to an improved practice. Three etiologies are briefly explored here: (a) atavism, (b) "is/ought" logic fallacies, and (c) confusion or desperation. Understanding the etiology of psychological resistance may ultimately lead to improved interventions to assist in overcoming researcher resistance to reporting effect sizes and using non-nil nulls and other analytic improvements.