Null Regions: A Unified Conceptual Framework For Statistical Inference

Ruling out the possibility that there is absolutely no effect or association between variables may be a good first step, but it is rarely the ultimate goal of science. Yet that is the only inference provided by traditional null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), which has been a mainstay of many scientific fields. Reliance on NHST also makes it difficult to define what it means to replicate a finding, and leads to an uncomfortable quandary in which increasing precision in data reduces researchers\u27 ability to perform theory falsification. To solve these problems, in recent years several alternatives to traditional NHST have been proposed. However, each new test is described using its own terminology and practiced in different fields. We describe a simple, unified framework for conceptualizing all these tests so that it is not necessary to learn them separately. Moreover, the framework allows researchers to conduct any of these tests by asking just one question: is the confidence interval entirely outside the null region(s)? This framework may also help researchers choose the test(s) that best answers their research question when simply ruling out ‘no effect at all’ is not enough

Predicting Adolescent Cognitive and Self-Regulatory Competencies From Preschool Delay of Gratification: Identifying Diagnostic Conditions

Variations of the self-imposed delay-of-gratification situation in preschool were compared to determine when individual differences in this situation may predict aspects of cognitive and self-regulatory competence and coping in adolescence. Preschool children from a university community participated in experiments that varied features of the self-imposed delay situation. Experimental analyses of the cognitive-attentional processes that affect waiting in this situation helped identify conditions in which delay behavior would be most likely to reflect relevant cognitive and attentional competencies. As hypothesized, in those conditions, coherent patterns of statistically significant correlations were found between seconds of delay time in such conditions in preschool and cognitive and academic competence and ability to cope with frustration and stress in adolescence

Predicting Mid-Life Capital Formation with Pre-School Delay of Gratification and Life-Course Measures of Self-Regulation

How well do pre-school delay of gratification and life-course measures of self-regulation predict mid-life capital formation? We surveyed 113 participants of the 1967–1973 Bing pre-school studies on delay of gratification when they were in their late 40’s. They reported 11 mid-life capital formation outcomes, including net worth, permanent income, absence of high-interest debt, forward-looking behaviors, and educational attainment. To address multiple hypothesis testing and our small sample, we pre-registered an analysis plan of well–powered tests. As predicted, a newly constructed and pre-registered measure derived from preschool delay of gratification does not predict the 11 capital formation variables (i.e., the sign-adjusted average correlation was 0.02). A pre-registered composite self-regulation index, combining preschool delay of gratification with survey measures of self-regulation collected at ages 17, 27, and 37, does predict 10 of the 11 capital formation variables in the expected direction, with an average correlation of 0.19. The inclusion of the preschool delay of gratification measure in this composite index does not affect the index\u27s predictive power. We tested several hypothesized reasons that preschool delay of gratification does not have predictive power for our mid-life capital formation variables

A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science

The field of psychology has rapidly transformed its open science practices in recent years. Yet there has been limited progress in integrating principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. In this Perspective, we raise the spectre of Questionable Generalisability Practices and the issue of MASKing (Making Assumptions based on Skewed Knowledge), calling for more responsible practices in generalising study findings and co-authorship to promote global equity in knowledge production. To drive change, researchers must target all four key components of the research process: design, reporting, generalisation, and evaluation. Additionally, macro-level geopolitical factors must be considered to move towards a robust behavioural science that is truly inclusive, representing the voices and experiences of the majority world (i.e., low-and-middle-income countries)

Challenges and Opportunities for Psychological Research in the Majority World

How can psychology transform itself into an inclusive science that engages with the rich cultural diversity of humanity? How can we strive towards a broader and deeper understanding of human behavior that is both generalizable across populations and attentive to its diversity? To address these major questions of our field, relying on scholars from different world regions, we outline first the opportunities associated with conducting psychological research in these and other majority world regions, highlighting international collaborations. Cross-cutting research themes in psychological research in the majority world are presented along with the urgent need to adopt a more critical lens to research and knowledge production within psychology. Indigenization, critical, transformative and liberatory approaches to understanding psychological phenomena framed within the decolonial imperative are presented as future options for a more diverse and equitable psychological science. Next, we address challenges, including limited institutional research infrastructure, limited national investment in research, political and social challenges these regions face, and the impact of imported (rather than locally produced) psychological knowledge. We conclude by offering recommendations to enable psychological science to be more representative of the world’s population. Our aim is to facilitate a broader, better-informed, and more empathic conversation among psychological scientists worldwide about ways to make psychological science more representative, culturally informed and inclusive

Challenges and opportunities for psychological research in the majority world

How can psychology transform itself into an inclusive science that engages with the rich cultural diversity of humanity? How can we strive towards a broader and deeper understanding of human behavior that is both generalizable across populations and attentive to its diversity? To address these major questions of our field, relying on scholars from different world regions, we outline first the opportunities associated with conducting psychological research in these and other majority world regions, highlighting international collaborations. Cross-cutting research themes in psychological research in the majority world are presented along with the urgent need to adopt a more critical lens to research and knowledge production within psychology. Indigenization, critical, transformative and liberatory approaches to understanding psychological phenomena framed within the decolonial imperative are presented as future options for a more diverse and equitable psychological science. Next, we address challenges, including limited institutional research infrastructure, limited national investment in research, political and social challenges these regions face, and the impact of imported (rather than locally produced) psychological knowledge. We conclude by offering recommendations to enable psychological science to be more representative of the world’s population. Our aim is to facilitate a broader, better-informed, and more empathic conversation among psychological scientists worldwide about ways to make psychological science more representative, culturally informed and inclusive

The daily association between affect and alcohol use: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (N = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.The present study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MOP-115104 (Roisin M. O’Connor), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MSH-122803 (Roisin M. O’Connor), John A. Hartford Foundation Grant (Paul Sacco), Loyola University Chicago Research Support Grant (Tracy De Hart), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Grant T03OH008435 (Cynthia Mohr), National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant F31AA023447 (Ryan W. Carpenter), NIH Grant R01AA025936 (Kasey G. Creswell), NIH Grant R01AA025969 (Catharine E. Fairbairn), NIH Grant R21AA024156 (Anne M. Fairlie), NIH Grant F31AA024372 (Fallon Goodman), NIH Grant R01DA047247 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant K01AA026854 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01AA022938 (Jennifer E. Merrill), NIH Grant K23AA024808 (Hayley Treloar Padovano), NIH Grant P60AA11998 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant MH69472 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant K01DA035153 (Nisha Gottfredson), NIH Grant P50DA039838 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01DA047417 (David M. Lydon-Staley), NIH Grant T32DA037183 (M. Kushner), NIH Grant R21DA038163 (A. Moore), NIH Grant K12DA000167 (M. Potenza, Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant R01AA025451 (Bruce Bartholow, Thomas M. Piasecki), NIH Grant P50AA03510 (V. Hesselbrock), NIH Grant K01AA13938 (Kristina M. Jackson), NIH Grant K02AA028832 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant T32AA007455 (M. Larimer), NIH Grant R01AA025037 (Christine M. Lee, M. Patrick), NIH Grant R01AA025611 (Melissa Lewis), NIH Grant R01AA007850 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R21AA017273 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R03AA014598 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant R29AA09917 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant T32AA07290 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant P01AA019072 (P. Monti), NIH Grant R01AA015553 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA020077 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R21AA017135 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA016621 (Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant K99AA029459 (Marilyn Piccirillo), NIH Grant F31AA022227 (Nichole Scaglione), NIH Grant R21AA018336 (Katie Witkiewitz), Portuguese State Budget Foundation for Science and Technology Grant UIDB/PSI/01662/2020 (Teresa Freire), University of Washington Population Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant (J. Kanter, Adam M. Kuczynski), U.S. Department of Defense Grant W81XWH-13-2-0020 (Cynthia Mohr), SANPSY Laboratory Core Support Grant CNRS USR 3413 (Marc Auriacombe), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (N. Galambos), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (Andrea L. Howard)