Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy

Matteo Colombo, Georgi Duev, M.B. Nuijten, Jan Sprenger*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)
138 Downloads (Pure)


Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on one aspect of this question, namely the rate of inconsistencies in statistical reporting. Previous research has examined the extent to which published articles in psychology and other behavioral sciences present statistical inconsistencies in reporting the results of NHST. In this study, we used the R package statcheck to detect statistical inconsistencies in x-phi, and compared rates of inconsistencies in psychology and philosophy. We found that rates of inconsistencies in x-phi are lower than in the psychological and behavioral sciences. From the point of view of statistical reporting consistency, x-phi seems to do no worse, and perhaps even better, than psychological science.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0194360
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2018


  • Behavioral Sciences
  • Humans
  • Models, Statistical
  • Motivation
  • Philosophy
  • Psychology/methods
  • Reference Standards
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Research Design
  • Social Sciences
  • Software
  • Statistics as Topic


Dive into the research topics of 'Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this