Element contents
Series: Elements in Perception
Hypothesis Testing Reconsidered
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 May 2019
Summary
Hypothesis testing is a common statistical analysis for empirical data generated by studies of perception, but its properties and limitations are widely misunderstood. This Element describes several properties of hypothesis testing, with special emphasis on analyses common to studies of perception. The author also describes the challenges and difficulties with using hypothesis testing to interpret empirical data. Many common applications of hypothesis testing inflate the intended Type I error rate. Other aspects of hypothesis tests have important implications for experimental design. Solutions are available for some of these difficulties, but many issues are difficult to deal with.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in PerceptionOnline ISBN: 9781108582995Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 23 May 2019
References
Banerjee, P., Chatterjee, P., & Sinha, J. (2012). Is it light or dark? Recalling moral behavior changes perception of brightness. Psychological Science, 23(4), 407–409.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R. … Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49, 609–610.Google Scholar
Champely, S., Ekstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Ford, C., & Volcic, R. (2018). Package ‘pwr’: Basic functions for power analysis.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cramer, D. J., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P. … Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). Hidden multiplicity in exploratory multiway ANVOA: Prevalence and remedies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38–46.Google Scholar
Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 151–156.Google Scholar
Francis, G. (2014). The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1180–1187.Google Scholar
Francis, G. (2018). IntroStats Online 2. Sage Publications. https://introstatsonline.com/Google Scholar
Francis, G., & Neath, I. (2018). CogLab 5. Cengage Publishing. https://coglab.cengage.com/Google Scholar
Francis, G., Tanzman, J., & Matthews, W. J. (2014). Excess success for psychology articles in the journal Science, PLOS One, 9(12), e114255. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114255Google Scholar
Frick, R. W. (1998). A better stopping rule for conventional statistical tests. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 30, 690–697.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist 102, 460. doi:10.1511/2014.111.460Google Scholar
Herzog, M. H., Francis, G., & Clarke, A. (in press). How to not lie with statistics: The essentials of statistics and experimental design for everyone with many examples from medicine and bioengineering. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2010). Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(5), 658–676. doi:10.1002/wcs.72Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 0.1126/science.aac4716Google Scholar
R core team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2018). Power, dominance, and constraint: A note on the appeal of different design traditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 19–26.Google Scholar
Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551–566.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). p-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6) 666–681.Google Scholar
Smith, P. L., & Little, D. R. (2018). Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2083–2101.Google Scholar
Stefanucci, J. K., & Geuss, M. N. (2009). Big people, little world: The body influences size perception. Perception, 38, 1782–1795.Google Scholar
Ueno, T., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2016). Meta-analysis to integrate effect sizes within an article: Possible misuse and Type I error inflation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 5, 643–654.Google Scholar
van Assen, M. A. L. M., van Aert, R. C. M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 293–309.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Registered reports and replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics [Editorial]. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 781–783.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 13
- Cited by