2018
The preregistration revolution
Abstract: Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research ques…
View preprint versions
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
1,724
181
145
45
Citation Types
11
1,555
2
28
Year Published
2000
2026
Publication Types
Select...
1,292
463
156
123
Relationship
27
2,007
Authors
Journals
Cited by 1,963 publications
(1,604 citation statements)
References 71 publications
11
1,555
2
28
“…This distinction is made especially relevant by the fact that the mean effect size revealed by the meta-analysis for both implicit ( β = 0.14) and explicit predictors ( β = 0.11) was small. In addition, also in line with recommendations by Kurdi et al ( 2019b ) and more general recommendations by Nosek et al, ( 2018 , 2019 ), we confirmed the exploratory results emerging from Studies 1–3 in a preregistered and highly powered final study (Study 4). Finally, and crucially, we made sure that the to-be-predicted behavioral measure had excellent validity and internal consistency.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…This distinction is made especially relevant by the fact that the mean effect size revealed by the meta-analysis for both implicit ( β = 0.14) and explicit predictors ( β = 0.11) was small. In addition, also in line with recommendations by Kurdi et al ( 2019b ) and more general recommendations by Nosek et al, ( 2018 , 2019 ), we confirmed the exploratory results emerging from Studies 1–3 in a preregistered and highly powered final study (Study 4). Finally, and crucially, we made sure that the to-be-predicted behavioral measure had excellent validity and internal consistency.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Contrary to the present view, Nosek et al (2018) argued that nontransparent selective reporting inflates the Type I error rate. Consequently, as they explained, "transparent reporting that 1 in 20 experiments or 1 in 20 analyses yielded a positive result will help researchers identify the one as a likely false positive" (p. 2603).…”
Section: P-hacking During Single Tests Of Multiple Individual Null Hy...contrasting
confidence: 94%
“…The benefits of preregistration indicated by our sample were associated with improved planning and documentation, transparency, higher quality, and replicability of research, which is consistent with the arguments for preregistration found in the literature (e.g., see [15,16,29]). The overall positive outlook found in our survey aligns with recent studies by Logg et al [27] and Sarafoglou et al [76] which also showed mostly positive attitudes of researchers regarding preregistration when inspecting generational differences and the perceived impact of preregistration on the research workflow.…”
Section: Positive Perception Of Preregistrationsupporting
confidence: 87%
