Bayesian frequentists: Examining the paradox between what researchers can conclude versus what they want to conclude from statistical results

Matthias Haucke*, Jonas Miosga, Rink Hoekstra, Don van Ravenzwaaij

*Bijbehorende auteur voor dit werk

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

1 Citaat (Scopus)
29 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

A majority of statistically educated scientists draw incorrect conclusions based on the most commonly used statistical technique: null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Frequentist techniques are often claimed to be incorrectly interpreted as Bayesian outcomes, which suggests that a Bayesian framework may fit better to inferences researchers frequently want to make (Briggs, 2012). The current study set out to test this proposition. Firstly, we investigated whether there is a discrepancy between what researchers think they can conclude and what they want to be able to conclude from NHST. Secondly, we investigated to what extent researchers want to incorporate prior study results and their personal beliefs in their statistical inference. Results show the expected discrepancy between what researchers think they can conclude from NHST and what they want to be able to conclude. Furthermore, researchers were interested in incorporating prior study results, but not their personal beliefs, into their statistical inference.
Originele taal-2English
Artikelnummer19026
Aantal pagina's12
TijdschriftCollabra: Psychology
Volume7
Nummer van het tijdschrift1
DOI's
StatusPublished - 24-feb-2021

Citeer dit