Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019)

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research. / McLatchie, Neil; Warmelink, Lara; Tkacheva, Daria.
In: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.09.2020, p. 72-79.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

McLatchie N, Warmelink L, Tkacheva D. Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2020 Sept 1;25(2):72-79. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12177

Author

McLatchie, Neil ; Warmelink, Lara ; Tkacheva, Daria. / Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019) : On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research. In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2020 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 72-79.

Bibtex

@article{1d65bc8affe54e94952f9f4934f67ae9,
title = "Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research",
abstract = "Bayes factors help researchers by providing a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink, Subramanian, Tkacheva and McLatchie (2019) reported Bayes factors alongside p-values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses, and used Warmelink et al (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over-rely on cut-offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to “nominal support”; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions. Second, we encourage deception researchers to estimate a priori the sample size likely to be required to produce conclusive results. ",
keywords = "Deception, Bayes factors",
author = "Neil McLatchie and Lara Warmelink and Daria Tkacheva",
year = "2020",
month = sep,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/lcrp.12177",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "72--79",
journal = "Legal and Criminological Psychology",
issn = "1355-3259",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019)

T2 - On the reporting of Bayes Factors in Deception Research

AU - McLatchie, Neil

AU - Warmelink, Lara

AU - Tkacheva, Daria

PY - 2020/9/1

Y1 - 2020/9/1

N2 - Bayes factors help researchers by providing a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink, Subramanian, Tkacheva and McLatchie (2019) reported Bayes factors alongside p-values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses, and used Warmelink et al (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over-rely on cut-offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to “nominal support”; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions. Second, we encourage deception researchers to estimate a priori the sample size likely to be required to produce conclusive results.

AB - Bayes factors help researchers by providing a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink, Subramanian, Tkacheva and McLatchie (2019) reported Bayes factors alongside p-values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses, and used Warmelink et al (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over-rely on cut-offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to “nominal support”; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions. Second, we encourage deception researchers to estimate a priori the sample size likely to be required to produce conclusive results.

KW - Deception

KW - Bayes factors

U2 - 10.1111/lcrp.12177

DO - 10.1111/lcrp.12177

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 72

EP - 79

JO - Legal and Criminological Psychology

JF - Legal and Criminological Psychology

SN - 1355-3259

IS - 2

ER -