An ethical argument against leaving psychologists to their statistical devices

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    6 Scopus citations


    The frequent critiques of the statistical tools used by experimental psychologists, especially the null-hypothesis test, cast substantial doubt on the scientific integrity of experiments associated with them. This doubt leaves psychologists with weak grounds for promising results or benefits from their experiments. In addition to the methodological problems raised, the shortcomings of null-hypothesis testing and associated experiments suggest an ethical problem in which deception of the participants is involved. Psychologists who use deception claim that the scientific and educational gains from their experiments balance the ethical costs. But given a dubious prospect of scientifically respectable results, there are good reasons to wonder whether there can be anything to offset the deception. Null-hypothesis testing therefore undermines not only experimental rigor but a significant part of the ethical justification for deceptive methods as well.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)125-130
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied
    Issue number2
    StatePublished - Mar 1996


    Dive into the research topics of 'An ethical argument against leaving psychologists to their statistical devices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this