Blinded by the Light: How a Focus on Statistical “Significance” May Cause p-Value Misreporting and an Excess of p-Values Just Below .05 in Communication Science

Publication bias promotes papers providing “significant” findings, thus incentivizing researchers to produce such findings. Prior studies suggested that researchers’ focus on “p < .05” yields—intentional or unintentional—p-value misreporting, and excess p-values just below .05. To assess whether similar distortions occur in communication science, we extracted 5,834 test statistics from 693 recent communication science ISI papers, and assessed prevalence of p-values (1) misreported, and (2) just below .05. Results show 8.8% of p-values were misreported (74.5% too low). 1.3% of p-values were critically misreported, stating p < .05 while in fact p > .05 (88.3%) or vice versa (11.7%). Analyzing p-value frequencies just below .05 using a novel method did not unequivocally demonstrate “p-hacking”—excess p-values could be alternatively explained by (severe) publication bias. Results for 19,830 p-values from social psychology were strikingly similar. We conclude that publication bias, publication pressure, and verification bias distort the communication science knowledge base, and suggest solutions to this problem.

[1]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated , 2008, Epidemiology.

[2]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Statistical Procedures and the Justification of Knowledge in Psychological Science , 1989 .

[3]  Michael E R Nicholls,et al.  The Life of p: “Just Significant” Results are on the Rise , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Nina Mazar,et al.  The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance , 2008 .

[5]  J. Wicherts,et al.  Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  Jelte M. Wicherts,et al.  Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research , 2014, PloS one.

[7]  M. Strathern ‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system , 1997, European Review.

[8]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Scientific Utopia , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[9]  Franz J. Neyer,et al.  A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Applications to Developmental Research , 2013, Child development.

[10]  Daniël Lakens,et al.  What p-hacking really looks like , 2014 .

[11]  D. Fanelli “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[12]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Replications in Psychology Research , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[13]  R. Lanfear,et al.  The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science , 2015, PLoS biology.

[14]  D. Lakens,et al.  Rewarding Replications , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[15]  L. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 2002 .

[16]  Anton Kühberger,et al.  Publication Bias in Psychology: A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample Size , 2014, PloS one.

[17]  Daniël Lakens,et al.  Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[18]  K. Dickersin The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. , 1990, JAMA.

[19]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[20]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Life after P-Hacking , 2013 .

[21]  T. Gilovich,et al.  Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the was on Selection Task , 2002 .

[22]  E. Masicampo,et al.  A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05 , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  P-Curve: A Key to the File Drawer , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology † , 2013 .

[25]  John R. Clark The Social Science Research Network , 2002 .

[26]  W. Levelt,et al.  Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel , 2012 .

[27]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[28]  M. J. Bayarri,et al.  Calibration of ρ Values for Testing Precise Null Hypotheses , 2001 .

[29]  H. Pashler,et al.  Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[30]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Registered Reports A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results , 2014 .

[31]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  Jeffrey R. Spies,et al.  The Replication Recipe: What Makes for a Convincing Replication? , 2014 .

[33]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication , 2012, ArXiv.

[34]  M. Biernat,et al.  Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[35]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[36]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer , 2014, Science.

[37]  E. García‐Berthou,et al.  Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers , 2004 .

[38]  R. Rosenthal The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[39]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  R. Nickerson,et al.  Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. , 2000, Psychological methods.

[41]  J. Wicherts,et al.  The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[42]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[43]  J. Mervis Research Transparency. Why null results rarely see the light of day. , 2014, Science.

[44]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[45]  G. Cumming Replication and p Intervals: p Values Predict the Future Only Vaguely, but Confidence Intervals Do Much Better , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.