IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Colombo
  • Georgi Duev
  • Michèle B Nuijten
  • Jan Sprenger

Abstract

Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on one aspect of this question, namely the rate of inconsistencies in statistical reporting. Previous research has examined the extent to which published articles in psychology and other behavioral sciences present statistical inconsistencies in reporting the results of NHST. In this study, we used the R package statcheck to detect statistical inconsistencies in x-phi, and compared rates of inconsistencies in psychology and philosophy. We found that rates of inconsistencies in x-phi are lower than in the psychological and behavioral sciences. From the point of view of statistical reporting consistency, x-phi seems to do no worse, and perhaps even better, than psychological science.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Colombo & Georgi Duev & Michèle B Nuijten & Jan Sprenger, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194360
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194360
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194360&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194360?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Colombo, Matteo & Duev, Georgi & Nuijten, M.B. & Sprenger, Jan, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," Other publications TiSEM 075f5696-ae1a-4aae-9e17-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Coosje L S Veldkamp & Michèle B Nuijten & Linda Dominguez-Alvarez & Marcel A L M van Assen & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    5. Marjan Bakker & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Colombo, Matteo & Duev, Georgi & Nuijten, M.B. & Sprenger, Jan, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," Other publications TiSEM 075f5696-ae1a-4aae-9e17-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colombo, Matteo & Duev, Georgi & Nuijten, M.B. & Sprenger, Jan, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," Other publications TiSEM 075f5696-ae1a-4aae-9e17-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Peter Pütz & Stephan B. Bruns, 2021. "The (Non‐)Significance Of Reporting Errors In Economics: Evidence From Three Top Journals," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 348-373, February.
    3. Coosje L S Veldkamp & Michèle B Nuijten & Linda Dominguez-Alvarez & Marcel A L M van Assen & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Irwin Waldman & Scott Lilienfeld, 2016. "Thinking About Data, Research Methods, and Statistical Analyses: Commentary on Sijtsma’s (2014) “Playing with Data”," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 16-26, March.
    5. Kraft-Todd, Gordon T. & Rand, David G., 2021. "Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Klaas Sijtsma, 2016. "Playing with Data—Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Wicherts, Jelte M. & Veldkamp, Coosje Lisabet Sterre & Augusteijn, Hilde & Bakker, Marjan & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2016. "Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies A checklist to avoid p-hacking," OSF Preprints umq8d, Center for Open Science.
    8. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Aguinis, Herman & Banks, George C. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Cascio, Wayne F., 2020. "Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 27-35.
    10. Klaas Sijtsma & Coosje Veldkamp & Jelte Wicherts, 2016. "Improving the Conduct and Reporting of Statistical Analysis in Psychology," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 33-38, March.
    11. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    12. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    13. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Bruns, Stephan & Herwartz, Helmut & Ioannidis, John P.A. & Islam, Chris-Gabriel & Raters, Fabian H. C., 2023. "Statistical reporting errors in economics," MetaArXiv mbx62, Center for Open Science.
    15. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    16. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    17. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    18. Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.
    19. Anton, Roman, 2014. "Sustainable Intrapreneurship - The GSI Concept and Strategy - Unfolding Competitive Advantage via Fair Entrepreneurship," MPRA Paper 69713, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Feb 2015.
    20. Dudek, Thomas & Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Feld, Jan & Rohrer, Julia, 2022. "No Evidence That Siblings' Gender Affects Personality across Nine Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 15137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.