Cited by 382Academic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyPsychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses

Open access
Scheel, Anne M., Tiokhin, Leonid, Isager, Peder M., Lakens, Daniël·2021·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

For almost half a century, Paul Meehl educated psychologists about how the mindless use of null-hypothesis significance tests made research on theories in the social sciences basically uninterpretable. In response to the replication crisis, reforms in psychology have focused on formalizing procedures for testing hypotheses. These reforms were necessary and influential. However, as an unexpected consequence, psychological scientists have begun to realize that they may not be ready to test hypotheses. Forcing researchers to prematurely test hypotheses before they have established a sound "derivation chain" between test and theory is counterproductive. Instead, various nonconfirmatory research activities should be used to obtain the inputs necessary to make hypothesis tests informative. Before testing hypotheses, researchers should spend more time forming concepts, developing valid measures, establishing the causal relationships between concepts and the functional form of those relationships, and identifying boundary conditions and auxiliary assumptions. Providing these inputs should be recognized and incentivized as a crucial goal in itself. In this article, we discuss how shifting the focus to nonconfirmatory research can tie together many loose ends of psychology's reform movement and help us to develop strong, testable theories, as Paul Meehl urged.

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 · 10.1177/1745691620966795

Cites

99 of 99 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?

  • Due to lack of theory and robust data, AI researchers might simply not be ready to test specific hypotheses for certain contexts.

    “Due to this lack of theory and robust data, we as AI researchers might simply not be ready to test specific hypotheses for certain contexts-a conclusion that is not unheard of in other research fields, such as psychology (Scheel et al., 2021) and human-robot interaction (Leichtmann et al., 2022).”
  • Exploratory experimentation can help discover relationships between variables and explore boundaries on the basis of which more concrete theoretical assumptions can be made before testing hypotheses confirmatorily.

    “Scheel et al. (2021) suggested that, before testing hypotheses confirmatorily, prior steps such as exploratory experimentation can help to discover relationships between variables and to explore boundaries on the basis of which more concrete theoretical assumptions can be made.”
  • More specific theorizing enables more precise operationalizations and more adequate empirical testing.

    “Thus, it becomes evident that more specific theorizing enables more precise operationalizations and more adequate empirical testing (Scheel et al., 2021).”
  • Inconsistent use of measures is problematic for comparability between studies and their replicability.

    “Even though the studies have confirmed the significance and influence of BPN Satisfaction for HCI research, the inconsistent use of measures is problematic in terms of comparability between studies and their replicability.”

    From Development and Validation of a Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Technology Use (2024) · cites this paper as Scheel et al. (2021)

  • If a study fails to apply a valid measure, theoretical inferences cannot be made because the findings could equally measure random noise or a related but distinct construct.

    “If a study fails to apply a valid measure, theoretical inferences cannot be made as the findings could equally measure random noise or a related but nevertheless distinct construct (Scheel et al., 2021).”

    From Development and Validation of a Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Technology Use (2024) · cites this paper as Scheel et al., 2021

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: 6

  1. Dubin R. (1969). Theory building. The Free Press.
  2. Nature Human Behaviour. (2020). Registered reports: Author and reviewer guidelines. https://web.archive.org/web/20200229230434/https://media.nature.com/original/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/4825/RegisteredReportsGuidelines_NatureHumanBehaviour.pdf
  3. Pearl J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Riesch H. (2008). Scientists’ views of the philosophy of science [Doctoral dissertation, University College London]. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1446063
  5. Steinnes K. K. (2017). Too cute for words: Cuteness evokes the kama muta emotion and motivates communal sharing [Master’s thesis, University of Oslo]. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-60030
  6. Tinbergen N. (1951). The study of instinct. Clarendon Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Scheel, Anne M.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2020-12-16
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
744-755
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W3113132966
Cited by
382
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 12
FWCI
143.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VIDI grant 452-17-013)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
null hypothesis significance testing, hypothesis testing, replication crisis, Paul Meehl, theory testing, measurement validity, auxiliary hypotheses, boundary conditions
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychological Theory, Psychology, Causality

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