Comment: Wood et al.’s (2014) Speculations of Inappropriate Research Practices in Ovulatory Cycle Studies

Emotion Review 8 (1):87-90 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) meta-analyzed studies examining changes in women’s mate preferences as a function of cycle phase, and claimed to find little evidence for shifts, contrary to Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales’s (2014a) meta-analysis. This commentary concerns specific speculations Wood et al. made about particular researchers analyzing data multiple ways, capitalizing on chance and thereby inflating the Type I error rate. In so doing, Wood et al. misconstrued a key article explaining the high fertility period, misrepresented studies, and presented no supportive evidence. The corrosive effects of inappropriate research practices on scientific literatures are concerning. So too are unsubstantiated speculations of them.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,449

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-03

Downloads
24 (#951,749)

6 months
5 (#702,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?