Short Answer

Suppose a psychology journal implements a new policy that allows researchers to publish studies with pp-values between .05.05 and .08.08 as 'potentially significant' instead of dismissing them. Apply the critics' arguments about the arbitrariness of the p<.05p < .05 threshold to explain how this policy change could help mitigate the file drawer problem.

Question: Suppose a psychology journal implements a new policy that allows researchers to publish studies with pp-values between .05.05 and .08.08 as 'potentially significant' instead of dismissing them. Apply the critics' arguments about the arbitrariness of the p<.05p < .05 threshold to explain how this policy change could help mitigate the file drawer problem.

Sample answer: By allowing the publication of results with pp-values between .05.05 and .08.08, the journal reduces the artificial divide that dismisses nearly identical findings (like p=.06p = .06 vs. p=.04p = .04). This applies the critique by allowing valuable, non-significant, or marginally significant research to be published rather than being suppressed, thereby directly reducing the file drawer problem.

Key points:

  • Applies the concept that the rigid boundary between significant and non-significant results is artificial.
  • Shows that publishing results with pp-values close to .05.05 prevents them from being dismissed.
  • Connects this policy change directly to reducing the suppression of research (mitigating the file drawer problem).

Rubric: A correct response must apply the critique of the rigid threshold to show that the new policy values findings that are nearly identical to p<.05p < .05 (e.g., p=.06p = .06), thereby encouraging researchers to submit these papers and reducing the suppression of non-significant findings (the file drawer problem).

0

1

Updated 2026-05-26

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

KPU

Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU

Related