IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v50y2021i4p1801-1841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Employers “Walk the Talk†After All? An Illustration of Methods for Assessing Signals in Underpowered Designs

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan R. Brauer
  • Jacob C. Day
  • Brittany M. Hammond

Abstract

This article presents two alternative methods to null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) for improving inferences from underpowered research designs. Post hoc design analysis (PHDA) assesses whether an NHST analysis generating null findings might otherwise have had sufficient power to detect effects of plausible magnitudes. Bayesian analysis with default priors offers advantages over NHST for assessing null findings and detecting signals in underpowered data. Both methods are illustrated by application to Pager and Quillian’s influential study on attitude-behavior correspondence. PHDA results suggest the original study lacked sufficient power to detect strong associations between employers’ attitudes and behaviors. Bayesian analysis confirms strong attitude–behavior associations cannot be ruled out given the data. Together, these results question a frequently cited conclusion about attitude–behavior incongruence in survey vignettes. Overall, the examples illustrate how these analytical tools can be useful for describing uncertainty surrounding estimates and for improving substantive and theoretical debates across sociology.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan R. Brauer & Jacob C. Day & Brittany M. Hammond, 2021. "Do Employers “Walk the Talk†After All? An Illustration of Methods for Assessing Signals in Underpowered Designs," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(4), pages 1801-1841, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:50:y:2021:i:4:p:1801-1841
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119826158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119826158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119826158?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
    ---><---

    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:somere:v:50:y:2021:i:4:p:1801-1841. 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: 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.