After 4 decades of severe criticism, the ritual of null hypothesis significance testing—mechanical dichotomous decisions around a sacred.05 criterion—still persists. This article reviews the problems with this practice, including its near-universal misinterpretation ofp as the probability that Ho is false, the misinterpretation that its complement is the probability of successful replication, and the mistaken assumption that if one rejects Ho one thereby affirms the theory that led to the test. Exploratory data analysis and the use of graphic methods, a steady improvement in and a movement toward standardization in measurement, an emphasis on estimating effect sizes using confidence intervals, and the informed use of available statistical methods is suggested. For generalization, psychologists must finally rely, as has been done in all the older sciences,

Statistical significance tests (SSTs) have been the object of much controversy among social scientists. Proponents have hailed SSTs as an objective means for minimizing the likelihood that chance factors have contributed to research results; critics have both questioned the logic underlying SSTs and bemoaned the widespread misapplication and misinterpretation of the results of these tests. The present paper offers a framework for remedying some of the common problems associated with SSTs via modification of journal editorial policies. The controversy surrounding SSTs is overviewed, with attention given to both historical and more contemporary criticisms of bad practices associated with misuse of SSTs. Examples from the editorial policies of Educational and Psychological Measurement and several other journals that have established guidelines for reporting results of SSTs are overviewed, and suggestions are provided regarding additional ways that educational journals may address the problem. Statistical significance testing has existed in some form for approximately 300 years (Huberty, 1993) and has served an important purpose in the advancement of inquiry in the social sciences. However, there has been much controversy over the misuse and misinterpretation of statistical significance testing (Daniel, 1992b).

University’s College of Business Administration. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments on an earlier version of this paper. This study investigates groups ’ ability to manage resources under high and low scarcity. We offer a contingency model to reconcile competing predictions in the literature: cooperative group behavior is moderated by group communication and the distribution of resources. Two-hundred and eight undergraduate students role played one of four “division managers ” in a fictional organization. They made independent organizational resource withdrawal decisions. Three independent variables were manipulated: (1) level of resource replenishment, (2) group membership communication prior to decision making, and (3) access to the resource. Our findings indicated strong support for the hypothesized effect of communication and moderate support for the effect of resource distribution. Results suggests that a decline in scarcity increases cooperation only when groups are allowed to communicate and when there is equal access to resources. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for group behavior in organizations are discussed and future directions for research are offered. 2 A defining feature of modern organizations is that their members are mutually dependent on

Abstract not found