Cited by 106Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Must psychologists change the way they analyze their data?

Bem, Daryl J., Utts, Jessica, Johnson, Wesley O.·2011·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, and van der Maas (2011) argued that psychologists should replace the familiar "frequentist" statistical analyses of their data with bayesian analyses. To illustrate their argument, they reanalyzed a set of psi experiments published recently in this journal by Bem (2011), maintaining that, contrary to his conclusion, his data do not yield evidence in favor of the psi hypothesis. We argue that they have incorrectly selected an unrealistic prior distribution for their analysis and that a bayesian analysis using a more reasonable distribution yields strong evidence in favor of the psi hypothesis. More generally, we argue that there are advantages to bayesian analyses that merit their increased use in the future. However, as Wagenmakers et al.'s analysis inadvertently revealed, they contain hidden traps that must be better understood before being more widely substituted for the familiar frequentist analyses currently employed by most research psychologists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0024777

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Effect sizes in psychology typically fall in the range of 0.2 to 0.3.

    “Bem et al. (2011) and Richard et al. (2003) stated that effect sizes in psychology typically fall in the range of 0.2 to 0.3.”

    From Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes (2013) · cites this paper as Bem et al. (2011)

  • Large effect sizes are uncommon in the behavioral/psychological sciences.

    “However, large effect sizes are uncommon in the behavioral/psychological sciences.”

    From Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes (2013) · cites this paper as Bem et al. (2011)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bem, D. J., Utts, J., & Johnson, W. O.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2011-10
Volume
101
Issue
4
Pages
716-719
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2042930386
Cited by
105
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
Bayesian analysis, frequentist statistics, prior selection, reanalysis, evidence evaluation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Psychology

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