The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science
Open accessAbstract
If science were a game, a dominant rule would probably be to collect results that are statistically significant. Several reviews of the psychological literature have shown that around 96% of papers involving the use of null hypothesis significance testing report significant outcomes for their main results but that the typical studies are insufficiently powerful for such a track record. We explain this paradox by showing that the use of several small underpowered samples often represents a more efficient research strategy (in terms of finding p < .05) than does the use of one larger (more powerful) sample. Publication bias and the most efficient strategy lead to inflated effects and high rates of false positives, especially when researchers also resorted to questionable research practices, such as adding participants after intermediate testing. We provide simulations that highlight the severity of such biases in meta-analyses. We consider 13 meta-analyses covering 281 primary studies in various fields of psychology and find indications of biases and/or an excess of significant results in seven. These results highlight the need for sufficiently powerful replications and changes in journal policies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Also, the publication culture promotes novel, and often surprising, findings and this will motivate researchers to postulate improbable hypotheses (20).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“From a statistical point of view this problem might not be any more serious for this field than other domains of psychology (20, 21, 31) or neuroscience in general (14).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“However, one pervasive problem in the social sciences, including psychology, that threatens the accuracy of meta-analytic estimates is publication bias (Bakker et al., 2012; Franco et al., 2014, 2016)”
From Do Salient Social Norms Moderate Mortality Salience Effects? A (Challenging) Meta-Analysis of Terror Management Studies (2023) · cites this paper as Bakker et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“Given that publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom are understood to be pervasive problems in psychological science (Bakker et al., 2012; Franco et al., 2014, 2016; Hesse, 2018; John et al., 2012), unadjusted effect sizes are likely to be overestimated (Kvarven et al., 2020).”
From Do Salient Social Norms Moderate Mortality Salience Effects? A (Challenging) Meta-Analysis of Terror Management Studies (2023) · cites this paper as Bakker et al., 2012
Citations
Cites
Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal
Ndiaye, M., Lespez, L., Tribolo, C., Rassé, M., Hadjas, I., Davidoux, S., Huysecom, É., & Douze, K. (2024) · Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000667478 · Cited by 24,214
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Journal of The American Statistical Association
Fienberg, S. E. (2004) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess1317 · Cited by 6,289
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 · Cited by 5,815
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 3×
“Such practices lead to inflated ESs and increased false positive rates (Ioannidis, 2005, 2008b; Simmons et al., 2011).”
BackgroundResultCohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015575 · Cited by 3,257
Belief in the law of small numbers.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031322 · Cited by 3,246
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning
Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617693393 · Cited by 2,088
Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616658637 · Cited by 1,512
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003 · Cited by 1,077
Metadata
- Authors
- Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 543-554
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2157668596
- Cited by
- 800
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 49.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016-125-385)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- null hypothesis significance testing, statistical power, publication bias, questionable research practices, false positives, meta-analysis, replication, sample size, p-values, research integrity, editorial policy
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
