In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists’ nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (≤ .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.

中文翻译：

---

假阳性心理学

在本文中，我们完成了两件事。首先，我们表明，尽管经验心理学家名义上认可低假阳性发现率 (≤ .05)，但数据收集、分析和报告的灵活性大大增加了实际假阳性率。在许多情况下，研究人员更有可能错误地找到效应存在的证据，而不是正确地找到不存在的证据。我们提供了计算机模拟和一对实际实验，证明了为错误假设积累（和报告）具有统计意义的证据是多么容易令人无法接受。其次，我们针对这个问题提出了一种简单、低成本且直接有效的基于披露的解决方案。该解决方案涉及作者的六项具体要求和审稿人的四项准则，