Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21280965›Full record

ArticleJournal of personality and social psychology2011

Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011).

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, Han L J van der Maas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personality and social psychology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 260 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
260citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

260 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Empirical Investigation of the Verbal Cues Involved in Delivering Experiential Metaphors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

200 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eric-Jan WagenmakersDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam. ej.wagenmakers@gmail.com
Ruud Wetzels
Denny Borsboom
Han L J van der Maas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Does psi exist? D. J. Bem (2011) conducted 9 studies with over 1,000 participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people's responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem's experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory and that one-sided p values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem's data with a default Bayesian t test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem's p values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalBayes TheoremBehavioral ResearchCognitionGuidelines as TopicHumansParapsychologyPsychology

Identifiers

PMID21280965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.