ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2014
The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does Resilience Help in Reducing Burnout Symptoms Among Chinese Students? A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Are Effect Sizes in Emotional Intelligence Field Declining? A Meta-Meta Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2018Pooled it
- Applying Artificial Intelligence to Expand the Measurement Tool Kit in Clinical-Psychological Science: Moving Beyond Self-Reports.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- Face value: The effect of facial aesthetic treatment on first impressions and partner preferences.Perception · 2025Article
- Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Reply to Francis: Replicability, false alarms, and walking through doorways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Some misunderstandings in psychology about confidence intervals.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- When History Seems to Repeat Itself: Exposure to Perceived Lessons of the Past Influences Predictions About Current Political Events.Psychologica Belgica · 2022Article
- Reversing Bonferroni.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
- Objectivity for the research worker.European journal for philosophy of science · 2021Article
- Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2020Article
- Article
- Examining the Role of Familiarity in the Perception of Depth.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Measuring instrument: knowledge, attitudes and practices of people with pulmonary tuberculosis.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019Article
- The quest for an optimal alpha.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Open Science Is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2018Article
- Does social distance modulate adults' egocentric biases when reasoning about false beliefs?PloS one · 2018Article
- Too True to be Bad: When Sets of Studies With Significant and Nonsignificant Findings Are Probably True.Social psychological and personality science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent controversies have questioned the quality of scientific practice in the field of psychology, but these concerns are often based on anecdotes and seemingly isolated cases. To gain a broader perspective, this article applies an objective test for excess success to a large set of articles published in the journal Psychological Science between 2009 and 2012. When empirical studies succeed at a rate much higher than is appropriate for the estimated effects and sample sizes, readers should suspect that unsuccessful findings have been suppressed, the experiments or analyses were improper, or the theory does not properly account for the data. In total, problems appeared for 82 % (36 out of 44) of the articles in Psychological Science that had four or more experiments and could be analyzed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24638826What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.