Cited by 342Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

What to believe: Bayesian methods for data analysis

Kruschke, John K.·2010·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Although Bayesian models of mind have attracted great interest from cognitive scientists, Bayesian methods for data analysis have not. This article reviews several advantages of Bayesian data analysis over traditional null-hypothesis significance testing. Bayesian methods provide tremendous flexibility for data analytic models and yield rich information about parameters that can be used cumulatively across progressive experiments. Because Bayesian statistical methods can be applied to any data, regardless of the type of cognitive model (Bayesian or otherwise) that motivated the data collection, Bayesian methods for data analysis will continue to be appropriate even if Bayesian models of mind lose their appeal.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.001

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Bayesian framework represents parameter uncertainty directly through posterior distributions, offering interpretable estimates without relying on sampling distributions from null hypotheses.

    “The Bayesian framework was chosen specifically for its ability to represent parameter uncertainty directly through posterior distributions, offering interpretable estimates without relying on sampling distributions from null hypotheses, as required in frequentist approaches [79, 80, 81].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kruschke, J. K.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Kruschke, John K.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
14
Issue
7
Pages
293-300
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964645108
Cited by
342
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
Bayesian analysis, null hypothesis significance testing, cumulative evidence, cognitive models, statistical inference
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review