Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:50:38.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Testing Theories with Bayes Factors

from Part IV - Statistical Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

By
Zoltan Dienes
Edited by
Austin Lee Nichols  and
John Edlund
Austin Lee Nichols
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
John Edlund
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
Get access

Summary

Bayes factors – evidence for one model versus another – are a useful tool in the social and behavioral sciences, partly because they can provide evidence for no effect relative to the sort of effect expected. By contrast, a non-significant result does not provide evidence for the null hypothesis tested. If non-significance does not in itself count against any theory predicting an effect, how could a theory fail a test? Bayes factors provide a measure of evidence from first principles. A severe test is one that is likely to obtain evidence against a theory if it were false – to obtain an extreme Bayes factor against the theory. Bayes factors show why cherry picking degrades evidence, how to deal with multiple testing, and how optional stopping is consistent with severe testing. Further, informed Bayes factors can be used to link theory tightly to how that theory is tested, so that the measured evidence does relate to the theory.

Keywords

Bayes FactorSevere TestEvidenceMultiple TestingOptional StoppingCherry PickingPriors
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
 , pp. 494 - 512
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baguley, T. S. (2012). Serious Stats: A Guide to Advanced Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., et al. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-zGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. D. (2019). What’s next for registered reports? Nature, 573(7773), 187–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortex (2021). Guidelines for users. Available at: http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%20Guidelines_RR_29_04_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Cowles, M. & Davis, C. (1982). On the origins of the .05 level of statistical significance. American Psychologist, 37, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuddy, A. C., Wilmuth, C. A., Yap, A. J., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1286–1295.Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H. (1986). Probability and Statistics, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Buzbas, E. O. (2020). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.048306Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2019). How do I know what my theory predicts? Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 364–377.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2021a). How to use and report Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 9–26Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2021b). The inner workings of registered reports [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhp2aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z. & McLatchie, N. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edlund, J., Cuccolo, K., Irgens, M. S., Wagge, J. R., & Zlokovich, M. S. (2021). Saving science through replication studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, March 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Greenland, S. (2017). The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 639–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriksen, A., de Heide, R., & Grünwald., P. (2020). Optional stopping with Bayes factors. Available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.09077.pdf.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, H. (1939). The Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klaschinski, L., Schnabel, K., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2017) Benefits of power posing: Effects on dominance and social sensitivity, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 2, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Bayesian assessment of null values via parameter estimation and model comparison. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (2013a). Posterior predictive checks can and should be Bayesian. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (2013b). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 573–603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindley, D. V. (1957). A statistical paradox. Biometrika, 44, 187–192.Google Scholar
Lindley, D. V. (2014). Understanding Uncertainty, revised edition. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. & Perlmutter, S. (2015). Hide results to seek the truth. Nature, 526, 187–189.Google Scholar
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, R. D. (2017). Exploratory reports: A new article type for Cortex. Cortetx, 96, A1–A4.Google Scholar
McPhetres, J., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., Barbosa Mendes, A., et al. (2021). A decade of theory as reflected in psychological science (2009–2019). PLOS One, March 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (1999). Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Open Court.Google Scholar
Morey, R. (2018). Redefining statistical significance: The statistical arguments. Available at: https://medium.com/@richarddmorey/redefining-statistical-significance-the-statistical-arguments-ae9007bc1f91.Google Scholar
Morey, R. D., Romeijn, J. W., & Rouder, J. N. (2013). The humble Bayesian: Model checking from a fully Bayesian perspective. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 66, 68–75Google Scholar
Morey, R. D., Romeijn, J.-W., & Rouder, J. N. (2016). The philosophy of Bayes factors and the quantification of statistical evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 6–18.Google Scholar
Notturno, M. A. (1999). Science and the Open Society. Central European University Press.Google Scholar
Palfi, B. & Dienes, Z. (2019). When and how to calculate the Bayes factor with an interval null hypothesis. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9chmwGoogle Scholar
Palfi, B., Moga, G., Lush, P., Scott, R. B., & Dienes, Z. (2020). Can hypnotic suggestibility be measured online? Psychological Research, 84, 1460–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01162-wGoogle Scholar
Pericchia, L. & Pereira, C. (2016). Adaptative significance levels using optimal decision rules. Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 30, 70–90.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rouder, J. & Haaf, J. M. (2020). Optional stopping and the interpretation of the Bayes factor. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m6dhwRCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.Google Scholar
Skora, L., Livermore, J. J. A., Dienes, Z., Seth, A., & Scott, R. B. (2020). Feasibility of unconscious instrumental conditioning: A registered replication. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p9dgnCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, S. M. (1999). Statistics on the Table: The History of Statistical Concepts and Methods. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szollosi, A., Kellen, D., Navarro, D. J., et al. (2020). Is preregistration worthwhile? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 94–95.Google Scholar
Tendeiro, J. N. & Kiers, H. A. L. (2019). A review of issues about null hypothesis Bayesian testing. Psychological Methods, 24(6), 774–795.Google Scholar
van Dongen, N. N. N., Wagenmakers, E., & Sprenger, J. (2020). A Bayesian perspective on severity: Risky predictions and specific hypotheses. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4et65Google Scholar
Vanpaemel, W. (2020). Strong theory testing using the prior predictive and the data prior. Psychological Review, 127, 136–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenmakers, E. (2017). How to test interval-null hypotheses in JASP. Available at: https://jasp-stats.org/2017/10/25/test-interval-null-hypotheses-jasp/.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. (2019). A breakdown of “preregistration is redundant, at best”. Available at: www.bayesianspectacles.org/a-breakdown-of-preregistration-is-redundant-at-best.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E., Gronau, Q. F., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2019). Five Bayesian intuitions for the stopping rule principle. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5ntkdGoogle Scholar
Westfall, P. H., Johnson, W. O., & Utts, J. M. (1997). A Bayesian perspective on the Bonferroni adjustment. Biometrika, 84, 419–427.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. & Greening, E. (2002) The mind machine: A mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extrasensory perception. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 487–99.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×