Yashvin Seetahul

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

haha, well, at least 4% of people say shape-shifting lizards control the govt.

Also, some great work by Seetahul and Greitemeyer suggests that participants are more likely to react when they think studies will counteract their interests (journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....)

Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.

Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...

If you’ve ever attempted a meta-analysis, you’ll know that authors generally do a poor job reporting statistics. If you do this well, you’ll improve your chances of your work being included in a future meta-analysis.

My Shiny app containing 3530 Open Science blog posts discussing the replication crisis is updated - you can now use the SEARCH box. I fixed it as my new PhD Julia wanted to know who had called open scientists 'Methodological Terrorists' :) shiny.ieis.tue.nl/open_science...

Check out this really cool multilab project about the difference in short-term memory between musicians and non-musicians! By @masssimo006.bsky.social, @francescatalamini.bsky.social, and researchers from 33 institutions around the world.

🚨Just published in PSPB:

When heavy violent video game players read research that say “these games increase aggression”, they often shift their beliefs in the *opposite* direction.

Open Access link: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

#AcademicSky #PsychSciSky

I'm always keen to read research where an intervention's success depends on individual differences.

Here, science-relevant info on videogame (VG) use & aggression:

✳️ WORKS among low VG users
✳️ FAILS among high users (i.e, no change)
✳️ BACKFIRES among very high users!

Need faire une vidéo sur cet article.

And... This was the third and final part of my dissertation, which allowed me to successfully defend my PhD last week! 🎉

The raw data, formatted data, codebook, formatting code, analysis code, materials, and documentations are openly accessible on OSF. There’s also a very thorough set of extra analyses that are reported as “supplementary materials” that address matters of validity, robustness, and generalizability.

We found the same pattern in both studies (with real articles in study 1, with standardized articles in study 2).

The more participants were habitual VVG players, the more they “distanced” their belief from the claim “VVGs increase aggression”, when exposed to the claim.

And with heavy players (on the right side of the x-axis on the previous post), the finding was quite interesting. Before reading, they believed in a null effect of VVGs.
Then after reading “VVGs increase aggression”, they started believing in a negative effect, i.e., that “VVGs decrease aggression”.

However, the effect diminished the more participants were VVG players. For moderately habitual players: before reading, they believed in a null effect, and after reading “VVGs increased aggression”, they did not update their beliefs and continued to believe in a null effect.

(middle of the x-axis)

After reading, they updated their belief toward what they read in both conditions:
Those who read that “VVGs increase aggression”, believed in a stronger effect.
Those who read that “VVGs have no effect”, believed in a null effect.

(still all the way to the left of the x-axis)

Main result:
Before reading, non-gamers and non-habitual VVG players believed in a small positive effect of VVGs on aggressiveness.

(all the way to the left of the x-axis)

For each person, a slope would link VVG exposure to Δaggressiveness.
The slope is the belief.
Each participant gets a slope.

Positive slopes = belief that VVGs increase aggression.
Flat slopes = belief that VVGs have no effect on aggression.
Negative slopes = belief that VVGs decrease aggression.

Belief measure:
we used 6 vignette scenarios that involve “a typical video game player” (with randomized levels of pre-play aggressiveness, duration of play, violence level during gaming sessions).

Participants had to estimate the post-play aggressiveness.

In Study 1, we used real study abstracts (published meta-analyses and published experiments).
In Study 2, we used standardized fictional abstracts (same fictional authors, same methods, varying conclusions), and we also used a press-style lay article without technical jargon.

We conducted two online experiments (each N = 788). We measured participant belief before and after reading research summaries that say either “VVGs increase aggression” or “no effect”. And we measure long-term VVG exposure.

We asked: “Do people update their beliefs towards psychological evidence—or sometimes away from it—when the evidence threatens them?” We focused on the case of VVG players (the threatening claim for them would be “VVGs increase aggression”).

🚨Just published in PSPB:

When heavy violent video game players read research that say “these games increase aggression”, they often shift their beliefs in the *opposite* direction.

Open Access link: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

New blog post: Why we should stop using statistical techniques that have not been adequately vetted by experts in psychology daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/10/why-... where I reflect on how we should check the quality of novel statistical techniques.

Does anyone I know have access to this paper? 🥺 I can't access it from my university.

doi.org/10.1016/B978...

🟢 OSF is back online with a refreshed design.

We’ve rolled out the updated OSF design, making it faster, easier to navigate, and ready for future improvements. Log in, explore the new experience, and see what’s changed: osf.io.

I unfortunately think demand characteristics are an underappreciated cause of a lot of effects in the lit

New code review response just dropped:

Anyone familiar with robust regression for heavy-tailed residuals? Seems there are many alternatives. The only method I've learned is Bayesian regression with regularizing priors (from @rmcelreath.bsky.social book) and for the moment I want a frequentist alternative (sorry Bayesians) #stats #rstats

Was it worth it? #massshootings #schoolshootings #charliekirk #guncontrol Please share #laloalcaraz cartoons

Yes! There are some YT channels where they show the timeseries of blood sugar after eating specific food combinations. It's really interesting to see. I'd be obsessed with checking all the time if I had this. But 150/200 euros a month would feel like an expensive obsession to me 😅