1
|
Farrar BG, Vernouillet A, Garcia-Pelegrin E, Legg EW, Brecht KF, Lambert PJ, Elsherif M, Francis S, O'Neill L, Clayton NS, Ostojić L. Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research. PeerJ 2023; 11:e14963. [PMID: 36919170 PMCID: PMC10008313 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14963] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Abstract
How statistically non-significant results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticized. This issue is important for animal cognition research because studies in the field are often underpowered to detect theoretically meaningful effect sizes, i.e., often produce non-significant p-values even when the null hypothesis is incorrect. Thus, we manually extracted and classified how researchers report and interpret non-significant p-values and examined the p-value distribution of these non-significant results across published articles in animal cognition and related fields. We found a large amount of heterogeneity in how researchers report statistically non-significant p-values in the result sections of articles, and how they interpret them in the titles and abstracts. Reporting of the non-significant results as "No Effect" was common in the titles (84%), abstracts (64%), and results sections (41%) of papers, whereas reporting of the results as "Non-Significant" was less common in the titles (0%) and abstracts (26%), but was present in the results (52%). Discussions of effect sizes were rare (<5% of articles). A p-value distribution analysis was consistent with research being performed with low power of statistical tests to detect effect sizes of interest. These findings suggest that researchers in animal cognition should pay close attention to the evidence used to support claims of absence of effects in the literature, and-in their own work-report statistically non-significant results clearly and formally correct, as well as use more formal methods of assessing evidence against theoretical predictions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin G Farrar
- Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Elias Garcia-Pelegrin
- Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Edward W Legg
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.,Division of Cognitive Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.,Centre for Mind and Behaviour, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | | | - Poppy J Lambert
- Messerli Research Insititute, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mahmoud Elsherif
- Department of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.,University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Shannon Francis
- Comparative Cognition Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany
| | - Laurie O'Neill
- Comparative Cognition Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany
| | - Nicola S Clayton
- Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Ljerka Ostojić
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.,Division of Cognitive Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.,Centre for Mind and Behaviour, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Classen-Rodríguez L, Tinghitella R, Fowler-Finn K. Anthropogenic noise affects insect and arachnid behavior, thus changing interactions within and between species. CURRENT OPINION IN INSECT SCIENCE 2021; 47:142-153. [PMID: 34252592 DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2021.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2021] [Revised: 06/23/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Urbanization and the by-product pollutants of anthropogenic activity pose unique threats to arthropods by altering their sensory environments. Sounds generated by human activities, like construction and road traffic, can oversaturate or interfere with biotic acoustic cues that regulate important ecological processes, such as trophic interactions and the coordination of mating. Here, we review recent work exploring how anthropogenic noise impacts inter-intra-specific interactions in insects and arachnids. We outline empirical frameworks for future research that integrate three mechanisms by which anthropogenic noise alters behavior through interference with acoustic cues: masking, distraction, and misleading. Additionally, we emphasize the need for experimental designs that more accurately replicate natural soundscapes. We encourage future investigations on the effects of developmental exposure to noise pollution and the impacts of multiple interacting sensory pollutants on insect and arachnid behavior.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leticia Classen-Rodríguez
- Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, Macelwane Hall, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA.
| | - Robin Tinghitella
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, CO 80210, USA
| | - Kasey Fowler-Finn
- Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, Macelwane Hall, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; Living Earth Collaborative, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|