Types of statistical arguments in empirical research in psychology
- 1Psychometrics & Statistics, University of Groningen 1 , Groningen, The Netherlands
- 2Educational Sciences, University of Groningen 2 , Groningen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Numerous solutions have been proposed to address the problem of statistical misuse and misunderstanding in research in psychology. This might have diverted attention from how or whether scientists are actually engaging in statistical reasoning by arguing about and with statistics within the context of the reasoning involved in empirical research in their written papers. In this paper, we studied statistical reasonings in psychological research papers. Specifically, we inductively coded arguments of 42 papers from seven highly cited psychology journals. With these data, we formed a partial, empirical typology with which we described different types of statistical arguments used in the literature. Papers, and their statistical arguments, in empirical psychology can be interpreted as possessing a ‘legal’ nature. Common arguments, such as statistical significance, are often used as a tacit and concise way of certifying that a claim, including conclusions, is empirically and statistically substantiated under the social standards of good research in our field. However, approval of research based on certifications may hinder the exposition and clarity of statistical arguments.
Related
- The Unified Model Graph: Drawing the Statistical Models of Psychology
- Explanations, Prompts, and Formalizations: Arguments for New Norms in LLM-Enabled Mathematical Research
- On the Computational and Statistical Efficiency of the Empirical Maximum Entropy on the Mean Method
- Sparse empirical measures for non-statistical interval maps with two neutral fixed points
- Uniform Statistical Convergence of Empirical Sinkhorn Potentials with Exponential and Polynomial Dependence on the Regularization Parameter
BibTeX
@article{flores2026types,
title = {{Types of statistical arguments in empirical research in psychology}},
author = {Gustavo Andres Marquez Flores and Rink Hoekstra and Henk A. L. Kiers and Don van Ravenzwaaij},
journal = {Royal Society Open Science},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1098/rsos.260798},
url = {https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/10/260798/483929/Types-of-statistical-arguments-in-empirical},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Types of statistical arguments in empirical research in psychology
AU - Gustavo Andres Marquez Flores
AU - Rink Hoekstra
AU - Henk A. L. Kiers
AU - Don van Ravenzwaaij
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - Royal Society Open Science
DO - 10.1098/rsos.260798
UR - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/10/260798/483929/Types-of-statistical-arguments-in-empirical
AB - Numerous solutions have been proposed to address the problem of statistical misuse and misunderstanding in research in psychology. This might have diverted attention from how or whether scientists are actually engaging in statistical reasoning by arguing about and with statistics within the context of the reasoning involved in empirical research in their written papers. In this paper, we studied statistical reasonings in psychological research papers. Specifically, we inductively coded arguments of 42 papers from seven highly cited psychology journals. With these data, we formed a partial, empirical typology with which we described different types of statistical arguments used in the literature. Papers, and their statistical arguments, in empirical psychology can be interpreted as possessing a ‘legal’ nature. Common arguments, such as statistical significance, are often used as a tacit and concise way of certifying that a claim, including conclusions, is empirically and statistically substantiated under the social standards of good research in our field. However, approval of research based on certifications may hinder the exposition and clarity of statistical arguments.
SN - 2054-5703
ER -