-
Nearly 100 scientists spent 2 months on Google Docs to redefine the p-value. Here’s what they came up with
Psychologist Daniël Lakens of Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands is known for speaking his mind, and after he read an article titled “Redefine Statistical Significance” on 22 July 2017, Lakens didn’t pull any punches: “Very disappointed such a large group of smart people would give such horribly bad advice,” he tweeted. In the paper, posted on the preprint server PsyArXiv, 70 prominent scientists argued in favor of lowering a widely used threshold for statistical significance in experimental studies: The so-called p-value should be below 0.005 instead of the accepted 0.05, as a way to reduce the rate of false positive findings and improve the reproducibility of science.
-
Intuition May Overpower Probability in Decision Making
From football to blackjack, simply detecting an error in judgement may not be enough to alter behavior.
-
NSF Releases 2018 Science & Engineering Indicators Report
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has released its most recent Science and Engineering Indicators Report, one of two congressionally mandated biennial reports, on the state of science and engineering investments and the workforce in the US and abroad.
-
“Common Rule” Changes Delayed Until July 19, 2018
A new federal announcement has delayed the implementation of changes to the “Common Rule” to July 19, 2018.
-
Taming Traffic Tension with Behavioral Science
Stress, heat, expensive cars, and even larger-size driving seats are associated with aggression or rudeness on the road.
-
Op-Ed Calls for Civility in Psychological Science, Draws Mixed Reactions
A world-renowned geneticist’s newspaper opinion article about the discourse surrounding rigor in social psychology research is sparking a mix of kudos and criticism among scientists and journalists. In a January 21 article in The Boston Globe titled “For better science, call off the revolutionaries," Harvard University professor Pardis Sabeti points to "a current group of scientists and internet bloggers," spurred by new methods and statistical techniques to attempt to weed out faulty psychological science. She argues that some of these efforts have mushroomed beyond criticisms of past research into personal attacks against the scientists behind those studies.
