Studies suggest a bias against the publication of null (p >.05) results. Instead of significance, we advocate reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, and using replication studies. If statistical tests are used, power tests should accompany them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakanD. (1966) The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 1–29.
2.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
CohenJ. (1994) The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
4.
GreenwaldA. G. (1975) Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20.
5.
HubbardR.ArmstrongJ. S. (1992) Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?Marketing Letters, 3, 127–136.
6.
HubbardR.ArmstrongJ. S. (1994) Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248.
7.
HubbardR.VetterD. E. (1996) An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 35, 153–164.
8.
LindsayR. M. (1994) Publication system biases associated with the statistical testing paradigm. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 33–57.
9.
SheaC. (1996) Psychologists debate accuracy of ‘significance test.’The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(August 16), A12 & A17.
10.
SterlingT. D.RosenbaumW. L.WeinkamJ. J. (1995) Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
11.
WilsonF. D.SmokeG. L.MartinJ. D. (1973) The replication problem in sociology: a report and a suggestion. Sociological Inquiry, 43, 141–149.
