Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking

The veracity of substantive research claims hinges on the way experimental data are collected and analyzed. In this article, we discuss an uncomfortable fact that threatens the core of psychology's academic enterprise: almost without exception, psychologists do not commit themselves to a method of data analysis before they see the actual data. It then becomes tempting to fine tune the analysis to the data in order to obtain a desired result-a procedure that invalidates the interpretation of the common statistical tests. The extent of the fine tuning varies widely across experiments and experimenters but is almost impossible for reviewers and readers to gauge. To remedy the situation, we propose that researchers preregister their studies and indicate in advance the analyses they intend to conduct. Only these analyses deserve the label "confirmatory," and only for these analyses are the common statistical tests valid. Other analyses can be carried out but these should be labeled "exploratory." We illustrate our proposal with a confirmatory replication attempt of a study on extrasensory perception.

If science were a game, a dominant rule would probably be to collect results that are statistically significant. Several reviews of the psychological literature have shown that around 96% of papers involving the use of null hypothesis significance testing report significant outcomes for their main results but that the typical studies are insufficiently powerful for such a track record. We explain this paradox by showing that the use of several small underpowered samples often represents a more efficient research strategy (in terms of finding p < .05) than does the use of one larger (more powerful) sample. Publication bias and the most efficient strategy lead to inflated effects and high rates of false positives, especially when researchers also resorted to questionable research practices, such as adding participants after intermediate testing. We provide simulations that highlight the severity of such biases in meta-analyses. We consider 13 meta-analyses covering 281 primary studies in various fields of psychology and find indications of biases and/or an excess of significant results in seven. These results highlight the need for sufficiently powerful replications and changes in journal policies.