Can Researchers’ Personal Characteristics Shape Their Statistical Inferences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers’ subjective judgements may affect the statistical results they obtain. This possibility is particularly stark in Bayesian hypothesis testing: To use this increasingly popular approach, researchers specify the effect size they are expecting (the “prior mean”), which is then incorporated into the final statistical results. Because the prior mean represents an expression of confidence that one is studying a large effect, we reasoned that scientists who are more confident in their research skills may be inclined to select larger prior means. Across two pre-registered studies with over 900 active researchers in psychology, we showed that more self-confident researchers selected larger prior means. We also found suggestive but somewhat inconsistent evidence that men may choose larger prior means than women, due in part to gender differences in researcher self-confidence. Our findings provide the first evidence that researchers’ personal characteristics might shape the statistical results they obtain with Bayesian hypothesis testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.288 | 0.696 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".