Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research

Author:

Farrar Benjamin G.12,Vernouillet Alizée3,Garcia-Pelegrin Elias14,Legg Edward W.567,Brecht Katharina F.8,Lambert Poppy J.9,Elsherif Mahmoud1011,Francis Shannon12,O’Neill Laurie12,Clayton Nicola S.1,Ostojić Ljerka567

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

2. Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), Cambridge, United Kingdom

3. Department of Experimental Psychology, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium

4. Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

5. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

6. Division of Cognitive Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

7. Centre for Mind and Behaviour, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

8. Institute for Neurobiology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

9. Messerli Research Insititute, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

10. Department of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

11. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom

12. Comparative Cognition Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany

Abstract

How statistically non-significant results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticized. This issue is important for animal cognition research because studies in the field are often underpowered to detect theoretically meaningful effect sizes, i.e., often produce non-significant p-values even when the null hypothesis is incorrect. Thus, we manually extracted and classified how researchers report and interpret non-significant p-values and examined the p-value distribution of these non-significant results across published articles in animal cognition and related fields. We found a large amount of heterogeneity in how researchers report statistically non-significant p-values in the result sections of articles, and how they interpret them in the titles and abstracts. Reporting of the non-significant results as “No Effect” was common in the titles (84%), abstracts (64%), and results sections (41%) of papers, whereas reporting of the results as “Non-Significant” was less common in the titles (0%) and abstracts (26%), but was present in the results (52%). Discussions of effect sizes were rare (<5% of articles). A p-value distribution analysis was consistent with research being performed with low power of statistical tests to detect effect sizes of interest. These findings suggest that researchers in animal cognition should pay close attention to the evidence used to support claims of absence of effects in the literature, and—in their own work—report statistically non-significant results clearly and formally correct, as well as use more formal methods of assessing evidence against theoretical predictions.

Funder

University of Cambridge BBSRC Doctoral Training Programme

BOF fellowship

DFG Grant

University of Tübingen Athene Fellowship

The Baily Thomas Charitable Fund

MSCA Fellowship

Publisher

PeerJ

Subject

General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience

Reference51 articles.

1. Quantifying support for the null hypothesis in Psychology: An empirical investigation;Aczel;Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,2018

2. Evidence for motivational enhancement of sign-tracking behavior under reward uncertainty;Anselme;Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition,2019

3. Strategic use of straw as environmental enrichment for prepartum sows in farrowing crates;Aparecida Martins;Applied Animal Behaviour Science,2021

4. Limited evidence of number–space mapping in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella);Beran;Journal of Comparative Psychology,2019

5. Carrion crows (Corvus corone corone) fail the mirror mark test yet again;Brecht;Journal of Comparative Psychology,2020

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3