Putting the P-Value in its Place

References

• Abelson, R. P. (1995), Statistics as Principled Argument, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Antonakis, J. (2017), “On Doing Better Science: From Thrill of Discovery to Policy Implications,” The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 5–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2017), “A Tutorial on Multi-Level Survival Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications,” International Statistical Review, 85, 185–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayarri, M. J., Benjamin, J., Berger, J. O., and Sellke, T. M. (2016), “Rejection Odds and Rejection Ratios: A Proposal for Statistical Practice in Testing Hypotheses,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 90–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., … Johnson, V. (2017), “Redefine Statistical Significance”, available at osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mky9j
   Google Scholar
• Bredenkamp, J. (1980), Theone und Planung psychologischer Experimente [ Theory and Design of Psychological Experiments], Darmstadt, Germany: Stemkopff.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., and Austin, G. A. (1956), A Study of Thinking, New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. (1984), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1990), “Things I Have Learned (So Far),” American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (1992), “A Power Primer,” Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (1994), “The Earth is Round (p < .05),” American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquhoun, D. (2015), “An Investigation of the False Discovery Rate and the Misinterpretation of p-Values,” Royal Society Open Science, 1, 140216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M. (1988), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., and Smith, T. L. (1985), “Attitude and Opinion Measurement,” in Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed.), eds. G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, New York: Random House, pp. 509–566.
   Google Scholar
• Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., and Buchner, A. (1996), “GPOWER: A General Power Analysis Program,” Behavior Researrch Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Feyerabend, P. K. (1976), Against Method, New York: Humanities Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. A. (1956), Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, Oxford, UK: Hafner Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., and Krueger, J. I. (2012), “The Long Way from Error Control to Validity Proper: Problems With a Short-Sighted False-Positive Debate,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 661–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. (1935), Entstehung Und Entwicklung Einer Wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung In Die Lehre Vom Denkstil Und Denkkollektiv, eds. L. Schäfer and T. Schnelle, Frankfurt, Germany: Benno Schwabe & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Foot, P. (1978/1967), Virtues and Vices, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Originally published in the Oxford Review, 5, 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., and Carlin, J. (2017), “Some Natural Solutions to the p-Value Communication Problem—and Why They Won't Work,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112, 899–901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., and Stern, H. (2006), “The Difference Between ‘Significant’ and ‘Not Significant’ is Not Itself Statistically Significant,” The American Statistician, 60, 328–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2004), “Mindless Statistics,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., and Marewski, J. (2015), “Surrogate Science: The Idol of A Universal Method for Scientific Inference,” Journal of Management, 41, 421–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilhooly, K. J., Georgiou, G., and Devery, U. (2012), “Incubation and Creativity: Do Something Different,” Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 137–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, S. (2008), “A Dirty Dozen: Twelve p-Value Misconceptions,” Seminars in Hematology, 45, 135–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland, S. (2017), “The Need for Cognitive Science in Methodology,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 639–645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., and Altman, D. G. (2016), “Statistical Tests, p-values, Confidence Intervals, and Power: A Guide to Misinterpretations,” European Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 337–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005), “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., and Mandal, S. (2017), “On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112, 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. (1998), “HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killeen, P. R. (2005), “An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests,” Psychological Science, 16, 345–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, J. I. (2001), “Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: On the Survival of a Flawed Method,” American Psychologist, 56, 16–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2017), “Reverse Inference,” in Psychological Science Under Scrutiny: Recent Challenges And Proposed Solutions, eds. S. O. Lilienfeld & I. D. Waldman, New York: Wiley, pp. 110–124.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, J., and Clement, R. W. (1994), “Memory-Based Judgments About Multiple Categories: A Revision and Extension of Tajfel's Accentuation Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 35–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, J. I., and Heck, P. R. (2017), “The Heuristic Value of p in Inductive Statistical Inference,” Frontiers in Psychology, available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00908/full.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2018), “Testing Significance Testing,”
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, J. I., Heck, P. R., and Asendorpf, J. B. (2017), “Self-enhancement: Conceptualization and Assessment,” Collabra: Psychology, 3, 28.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, J. I., Vogrincic-Haselbacher, C., and Evans, A. M. (in preparation), “We Need a Credible Theory of Gullibility. To Appear in Forgas, J. P. and Baumeister, R. F. (2019),” in Homo Credulus: The Social Psychology of Gullibility [The 20th Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology], New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. A. J., Argamon, S. E., … Zwaan, R. A. (2018), “Justify Your Alpha,” Nature Human Behavior, 2, 168–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. (1978), “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, And The Slow Progress of Soft Psychology,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mischel, W. (1968), Personality and Assessment, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Neyman, J., and Pearon, E. S. (1933a), “On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 231, 694–706.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1933b), “The Testing of Statistical Hypotheses in Relation to Probabilities a Priori,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 29, 492–510.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (2000), “Null hypothesis Significance Testing: A Review of an Old and Continuing Controversy,” Psychological Methods, 5, 241–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, A., and Navarrete, G. (2017), “Bayesian Hypothesis Testing: An Alternative to Null Hypothesis Signficance Testing (NHST) in Psychology,” in Bayesian Inference, ed. J. P. Tejedor, Open access, doi:10.5772/intechopen.70230.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrowski, B. (2017), “Vujà Dé: The Effects of Incubation On Creativity,” unpublished honors thesis in psychology, Providence, RI: Brown University.
   Google Scholar
• Revlin, R., Leirer, V., Yopp, H., and Yopp, R. (1980), “The Belief-Bias Effect in Formal Reasoning: The Influence of Knowledge On Logic,” Memory & Cognition, 8, 584–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigler, S. M. (1999), Statistics on the Table: The History Of Statistical Concepts and Methods, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stroebe, W. (2016), “Are most Published Social Psychological Findings False?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., and Monahan, J. (2000), “Psychological Science can Improve Diagnostic Decisions,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1959), “Quantitative Judgement in Social Perception,” British Journal of Psychology, 50, 16–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (1969), “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice,” Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D. (2003), “Hypothesis Testing and Theory Evaluation at the Boundaries: Surprising Insights from Bayes's Theorem,” Psychological Review, 110, 526–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D., and Marks, M. (2015), “Editorial,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007), “A Practical Solution to the Pervasive Problems of p-values,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserstein, R. L., and Lazar, N. A. (2016) “The ASA's Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,” The American Statistician, 70, 129–133; 21 online expert commentaries available at http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108?scroll=top.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999), “Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations,” American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar