The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology

Abstract

Efforts to increase replication rates in psychology generally consist of recommended improvements to methodology, such as increasing sample sizes to increase power or using a lower alpha level. However, little attention has been paid to how the prior odds ( R) that a tested effect is true can affect the probability that a significant result will be replicable. The lower R is, the less likely a published result will be replicable even if power is high. It follows that if R is lower in one set of studies than in another, then all else being equal, published results will be less replicable in the set with lower R. We illustrate this point by presenting an analysis of data from the social-psychology and cognitive-psychology studies that were included in the Open Science Collaboration’s (2015) replication project. We found that R was lower for the social-psychology studies than for the cognitive-psychology studies, which might explain why the rate of successful replications differed between these two sets of studies. This difference in replication rates may reflect the degree to which scientists in the two fields value risky but potentially groundbreaking (i.e., low- R) research. Critically, high- R research is not inherently better or worse than low- R research for advancing knowledge. However, if they wish to achieve replication rates comparable to those of high- R fields (a judgment call), researchers in low- R fields would need to use an especially low alpha level, conduct experiments that have especially high power, or both.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 44 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.