Cited by 252Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods

Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science.

Open access
Schad, Daniel J., Betancourt, Michael, Vasishth, Shravan·2021·Psychological Methods

Abstract

Experiments in research on memory, language, and in other areas of cognitive science are increasingly being analyzed using Bayesian methods. This has been facilitated by the development of probabilistic programming languages such as Stan, and easily accessible front-end packages such as brms. The utility of Bayesian methods, however, ultimately depends on the relevance of the Bayesian model, in particular whether or not it accurately captures the structure of the data and the data analyst's domain expertise. Even with powerful software, the analyst is responsible for verifying the utility of their model. To demonstrate this point, we introduce a principled Bayesian workflow (Betancourt, 2018) to cognitive science. Using a concrete working example, we describe basic questions one should ask about the model: prior predictive checks, computational faithfulness, model sensitivity, and posterior predictive checks. The running example for demonstrating the workflow is data on reading times with a linguistic manipulation of object versus subject relative clause sentences. This principled Bayesian workflow also demonstrates how to use domain knowledge to inform prior distributions. It provides guidelines and checks for valid data analysis, avoiding overfitting complex models to noise, and capturing relevant data structure in a probabilistic model. Given the increasing use of Bayesian methods, we aim to discuss how these methods can be properly employed to obtain robust answers to scientific questions. All data and code accompanying this article are available from https://osf.io/b2vx9/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000275

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Chow, S.-M., & Hoijtink, H. (2017). Bayesian estimation and modeling: Editorial to the second special issue on Bayesian data analysis. Psychological Methods, 22 (4), 609-615.
  2. Rabe, M. M., Vasishth, S., Hohenstein, S., Kliegl, R., & Schad, D. J. (2020). Hypr: An r package for hypothesis-driven contrast coding. PsyArXiv. Retrieved from 10.31234/osf.io/cqzdx · DOI
  3. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (2000). A diffusion model account of masking in two-choice letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26 (1), 127.
  4. Vandekerckhove, J., Rouder, J. N., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Bayesian methods for advancing psychological science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25 (1), 1-4.
  5. Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27 (5), 1413-1432.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., & Vasishth, S.
Affiliations
University of Potsdam (DE)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2021-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
103-126
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2941987401
Cited by
252
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
24.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (317633480—SFB 1287)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Keywords
model checking, posterior predictive checks, model sensitivity, prior distributions, reading time, relative clauses, overfitting, probabilistic programming
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Models, Psychological, Models, Statistical, Cognitive Science, Workflow

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