IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v44y2020i4p325-353.html

Speaking on Data’s Behalf: What Researchers Say and How Audiences Choose

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse J. Chandler
  • Ignacio Martinez
  • Mariel M. Finucane
  • Jeffrey G. Terziev
  • Alexandra M. Resch

Abstract

Background: Bayesian statistics have become popular in the social sciences, in part because they are thought to present more useful information than traditional frequentist statistics. Unfortunately, little is known about whether or how interpretations of frequentist and Bayesian results differ. Objectives: We test whether presenting Bayesian or frequentist results based on the same underlying data influences the decisions people made. Research design: Participants were randomly assigned to read Bayesian and frequentist interpretations of hypothetical evaluations of new education technologies of various degrees of uncertainty, ranging from posterior probabilities of 99.8% to 52.9%, which have equivalent frequentist p values of .001 and .65, respectively. Subjects: Across three studies, 933 U.S. adults were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who recommended adopting the new technology. We also measured respondents’ certainty in their choice and (in Study 3) how easy it was to understand the results. Results: When presented with Bayesian results, participants were more likely to recommend switching to the new technology. This finding held across all degrees of uncertainty, but especially when the frequentist results reported a p value >.05. Those who recommended change based on Bayesian results were more certain about their choice. All respondents reported that the Bayesian display was easier to understand. Conclusions: Presenting the same data in either frequentist or Bayesian terms can influence the decisions that people make. This finding highlights the importance of understanding the impact of the statistical results on how audiences interpret evaluation results.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse J. Chandler & Ignacio Martinez & Mariel M. Finucane & Jeffrey G. Terziev & Alexandra M. Resch, 2020. "Speaking on Data’s Behalf: What Researchers Say and How Audiences Choose," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 325-353, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:325-353
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X19834968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X19834968
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X19834968?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. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Ottar Hellevik, 2009. "Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 59-74, January.
    3. Raphael Silberzahn & Eric L. Uhlmann, 2015. "Crowdsourced research: Many hands make tight work," Nature, Nature, vol. 526(7572), pages 189-191, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jana Kim Gutt & Karin Knorr, 2025. "Factors Influencing Organizations’ Responses on Employer Review Platforms," Working Papers Dissertations 133, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    2. Stefano Cabras & J. D. Tena, 2023. "Implicit institutional incentives and individual decisions: Causal inference with deep learning models," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(6), pages 3739-3754, September.
    3. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    4. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    5. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    7. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & Ričardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions : "Create your own bundle -- choose 1, 2, or all 3 !"," Post-Print halshs-00747008, HAL.
    8. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    9. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    10. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    11. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    12. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    13. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    14. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    15. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    16. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    17. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    18. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    19. Kai Barron & Luis F. Gamboa & Paul Rodríguez-Lesmes, 2019. "Behavioural Response to a Sudden Health Risk: Dengue and Educational Outcomes in Colombia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 620-644, April.
    20. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:325-353. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.