A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’

We applied three Bayesian methods to reanalyse the preregistered contributions to the Social Psychology special issue ‘Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology’ (Nosek & Lakens. 2014 Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc. Psychol. 45, 13...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maarten Marsman, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Richard D. Morey, Yuling Yao, Andrew Gelman, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The Royal Society 2017-01-01
Series:Royal Society Open Science
Subjects:
Online Access:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.160426
_version_ 1828762241666646016
author Maarten Marsman
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Richard D. Morey
Yuling Yao
Andrew Gelman
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
author_facet Maarten Marsman
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Richard D. Morey
Yuling Yao
Andrew Gelman
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
author_sort Maarten Marsman
collection DOAJ
description We applied three Bayesian methods to reanalyse the preregistered contributions to the Social Psychology special issue ‘Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology’ (Nosek & Lakens. 2014 Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc. Psychol. 45, 137–141. (doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192)). First, individual-experiment Bayesian parameter estimation revealed that for directed effect size measures, only three out of 44 central 95% credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. For undirected effect size measures, only four out of 59 credible intervals contained values greater than 0.10 (10% of variance explained) and only 19 intervals contained values larger than 0.05. Second, a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis for all 38 t-tests showed that only one out of the 38 hierarchically estimated credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. Third, a Bayes factor hypothesis test was used to quantify the evidence for the null hypothesis against a default one-sided alternative. Only seven out of 60 Bayes factors indicated non-anecdotal support in favour of the alternative hypothesis (BF10>3), whereas 51 Bayes factors indicated at least some support for the null hypothesis. We hope that future analyses of replication success will embrace a more inclusive statistical approach by adopting a wider range of complementary techniques.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T01:42:28Z
format Article
id doaj.art-8b5ce70fd30440968b919df8b630fd05
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2054-5703
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T01:42:28Z
publishDate 2017-01-01
publisher The Royal Society
record_format Article
series Royal Society Open Science
spelling doaj.art-8b5ce70fd30440968b919df8b630fd052022-12-22T01:25:00ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032017-01-014110.1098/rsos.160426160426A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’Maarten MarsmanFelix D. SchönbrodtRichard D. MoreyYuling YaoAndrew GelmanEric-Jan WagenmakersWe applied three Bayesian methods to reanalyse the preregistered contributions to the Social Psychology special issue ‘Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology’ (Nosek & Lakens. 2014 Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc. Psychol. 45, 137–141. (doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192)). First, individual-experiment Bayesian parameter estimation revealed that for directed effect size measures, only three out of 44 central 95% credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. For undirected effect size measures, only four out of 59 credible intervals contained values greater than 0.10 (10% of variance explained) and only 19 intervals contained values larger than 0.05. Second, a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis for all 38 t-tests showed that only one out of the 38 hierarchically estimated credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. Third, a Bayes factor hypothesis test was used to quantify the evidence for the null hypothesis against a default one-sided alternative. Only seven out of 60 Bayes factors indicated non-anecdotal support in favour of the alternative hypothesis (BF10>3), whereas 51 Bayes factors indicated at least some support for the null hypothesis. We hope that future analyses of replication success will embrace a more inclusive statistical approach by adopting a wider range of complementary techniques.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.160426preregistrationevidencereproducibilitycredible intervalbayes factor
spellingShingle Maarten Marsman
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Richard D. Morey
Yuling Yao
Andrew Gelman
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
Royal Society Open Science
preregistration
evidence
reproducibility
credible interval
bayes factor
title A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
title_full A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
title_fullStr A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
title_full_unstemmed A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
title_short A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’
title_sort bayesian bird s eye view of replications of important results in social psychology
topic preregistration
evidence
reproducibility
credible interval
bayes factor
url https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.160426
work_keys_str_mv AT maartenmarsman abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT felixdschonbrodt abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT richarddmorey abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT yulingyao abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT andrewgelman abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT ericjanwagenmakers abayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT maartenmarsman bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT felixdschonbrodt bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT richarddmorey bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT yulingyao bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT andrewgelman bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology
AT ericjanwagenmakers bayesianbirdseyeviewofreplicationsofimportantresultsinsocialpsychology