Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Behav Res Ther. 2024 Oct;181:104598. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2024.104598. Epub 2024 Jun 19.
Meta-analyses indicate differences in Pavlovian fear responses between anxious and non-anxious individuals using electrodermal activity (EDA). Recent research, however, has cast doubt on whether these effects are robust to different analytic choices. Using the multiverse approach conceived by Steegen et al. (2016), we surveyed analytic choices typically implemented in clinical fear conditioning research by conducting 1240 analyses reflecting different choice permutations. Only 1.45% of our analyses produced theoretically congruent statistically significant effects, and the strength and direction of the estimated effects varied substantially across EDA processing methods. We conclude that EDA-estimated fear learning differences are vulnerable to researcher degrees of freedom and make recommendations regarding which analytical choices should be approached with a high degree of caution.
元分析表明,使用皮肤电活动(EDA)时,焦虑和非焦虑个体的巴甫洛夫恐惧反应存在差异。然而,最近的研究对这些效应是否能抵抗不同的分析选择提出了质疑。我们使用 Steegen 等人(2016 年)提出的多元宇宙方法,通过进行 1240 项反映不同选择排列的分析,调查了临床恐惧条件反射研究中通常采用的分析选择。只有 1.45%的分析产生了理论上一致的具有统计学意义的效应,而估计效应的强度和方向在不同的 EDA 处理方法之间有很大差异。我们得出结论,EDA 估计的恐惧学习差异容易受到研究人员自由度的影响,并就应该谨慎处理哪些分析选择提出了建议。