IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0286403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hedges, mottes, and baileys: Causally ambiguous statistical language can increase perceived study quality and policy relevance

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Alvarez-Vargas
  • David Braithwaite
  • Hugues Lortie-Forgues
  • Melody Moore
  • Sirui Wan
  • Elizabeth Martin
  • Drew Hal Bailey

Abstract

There is a norm in psychology to use causally ambiguous statistical language, rather than straightforward causal language, when describing methods and results of nonexperimental studies. However, causally ambiguous language may inhibit a critical examination of the study’s causal assumptions and lead to a greater acceptance of policy recommendations that rely on causal interpretations of nonexperimental findings. In a preregistered experiment, 142 psychology faculty, postdocs, and doctoral students (54% female), ages 22–67 (M = 33.20, SD = 8.96), rated the design and analysis from hypothetical studies with causally ambiguous statistical language as of higher quality (by .34-.80 SD) and as similarly or more supportive (by .16-.27 SD) of policy recommendations than studies described in straightforward causal language. Thus, using statistical rather than causal language to describe nonexperimental findings did not decrease, and may have increased, perceived support for implicitly causal conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Alvarez-Vargas & David Braithwaite & Hugues Lortie-Forgues & Melody Moore & Sirui Wan & Elizabeth Martin & Drew Hal Bailey, 2023. "Hedges, mottes, and baileys: Causally ambiguous statistical language can increase perceived study quality and policy relevance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-21, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286403
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286403
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286403&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0286403?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0286403. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.