“This behavior strikes us as ideal”

Assessment and anticipations of Huisman (2022)

Bibliographic Data

ID21640933
AuthorsAlexandra Sarafoglou (0000-0003-0031-685X, University of Amsterdam, corresponding author), František Bartoš (0000-0002-0018-5573, University of Amsterdam), Angelika Marlene Stefan (0000-0003-3382-4746, Universität der Bundeswehr München), Julia M Haaf (0000-0001-5122-706X, University of Amsterdam), Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (0000-0003-1596-1034, University of Amsterdam)
Year2024
Volume31
Issue1
Pages242-248
Publication date2024-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x
PMID37542014
OpenAlexW4385576223
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited15

Huisman ( Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 1–10. 2022) argued that a valid measure of evidence should indicate more support in favor of a true alternative hypothesis when sample size is large than when it is small. Bayes factors may violate this pattern and hence Huisman concluded that Bayes factors are invalid as a measure of evidence. In this brief comment we call attention to the following: (1) Huisman’s purported anomaly is in fact dictated by probability theory; (2) Huisman’s anomaly has been discussed and explained in the statistical literature since 1939; the anomaly was also highlighted in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review article by Rouder et al. (2009), who interpreted the anomaly as “ideal”: an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of Huisman. We conclude that when intuition clashes with probability theory, chances are that it is intuition that needs schooling

Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Epistemology · Humanities · Philosophy · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access