↓ Skip to main content

Replication Unreliability in Psychology: Elusive Phenomena or “Elusive” Statistical Power?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Replication Unreliability in Psychology: Elusive Phenomena or “Elusive” Statistical Power?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00218
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrizio E. Tressoldi

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to analyze whether the unreliability of results related to certain controversial psychological phenomena may be a consequence of their low statistical power. Applying the Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing (NHST), still the widest used statistical approach, unreliability derives from the failure to refute the null hypothesis, in particular when exact or quasi-exact replications of experiments are carried out. Taking as example the results of meta-analyses related to four different controversial phenomena, subliminal semantic priming, incubation effect for problem solving, unconscious thought theory, and non-local perception, it was found that, except for semantic priming on categorization, the statistical power to detect the expected effect size (ES) of the typical study, is low or very low. The low power in most studies undermines the use of NHST to study phenomena with moderate or low ESs. We conclude by providing some suggestions on how to increase the statistical power or use different statistical approaches to help discriminate whether the results obtained may or may not be used to support or to refute the reality of a phenomenon with small ES.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 4%
Italy 2 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 63 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 59%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,324,820
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,506
of 34,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,512
of 252,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#111
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.