Fair coins tend to land on the same side they started: Evidence from 350,757 flips
Authors:
František Bartoš,
Alexandra Sarafoglou,
Henrik R. Godmann,
Amir Sahrani,
David Klein Leunk,
Pierre Y. Gui,
David Voss,
Kaleem Ullah,
Malte J. Zoubek,
Franziska Nippold,
Frederik Aust,
Felipe F. Vieira,
Chris-Gabriel Islam,
Anton J. Zoubek,
Sara Shabani,
Jonas Petter,
Ingeborg B. Roos,
Adam Finnemann,
Aaron B. Lob,
Madlen F. Hoffstadt,
Jason Nak,
Jill de Ron,
Koen Derks,
Karoline Huth,
Sjoerd Terpstra
, et al. (25 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. In a preregistered study we collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on…
▽ More
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. In a preregistered study we collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started -- DHM estimated the probability of a same-side outcome to be about 51%. Our data lend strong support to this precise prediction: the coins landed on the same side more often than not, $\text{Pr}(\text{same side}) = 0.508$, 95% credible interval (CI) [$0.506$, $0.509$], $\text{BF}_{\text{same-side bias}} = 2359$. Furthermore, the data revealed considerable between-people variation in the degree of this same-side bias. Our data also confirmed the generic prediction that when people flip an ordinary coin -- with the initial side-up randomly determined -- it is equally likely to land heads or tails: $\text{Pr}(\text{heads}) = 0.500$, 95% CI [$0.498$, $0.502$], $\text{BF}_{\text{heads-tails bias}} = 0.182$. Furthermore, this lack of heads-tails bias does not appear to vary across coins. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that the within-people same-side bias decreased as more coins were flipped, an effect that is consistent with the possibility that practice makes people flip coins in a less wobbly fashion. Our data therefore provide strong evidence that when some (but not all) people flip a fair coin, it tends to land on the same side it started. Our data provide compelling statistical support for the DHM physics model of coin tossing.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2024; v1 submitted 6 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
A Puzzle of Proportions: Two Popular Bayesian Tests Can Yield Dramatically Different Conclusions
Authors:
Fabian Dablander,
Karoline Huth,
Quentin F. Gronau,
Alexander Etz,
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Abstract:
Testing the equality of two proportions is a common procedure in science, especially in medicine and public health. In these domains it is crucial to be able to quantify evidence for the absence of a treatment effect. Bayesian hypothesis testing by means of the Bayes factor provides one avenue to do so, requiring the specification of prior distributions for parameters. The most popular analysis ap…
▽ More
Testing the equality of two proportions is a common procedure in science, especially in medicine and public health. In these domains it is crucial to be able to quantify evidence for the absence of a treatment effect. Bayesian hypothesis testing by means of the Bayes factor provides one avenue to do so, requiring the specification of prior distributions for parameters. The most popular analysis approach views the comparison of proportions from a contingency table perspective, assigning prior distributions directly to the two proportions. Another, less popular approach views the problem from a logistic regression perspective, assigning prior distributions to logit-transformed parameters. Reanalyzing 39 null results from the New England Journal of Medicine with both approaches, we find that they can lead to markedly different conclusions, especially when the observed proportions are at the extremes (i.e., very low or very high). We explain these stark differences and provide recommendations for researchers interested in testing the equality of two proportions and users of Bayes factors more generally. The test that assigns prior distributions to logit-transformed parameters creates prior dependence between the two proportions and yields weaker evidence when the observations are at the extremes. When comparing two proportions, we argue that this test should become the new default.
△ Less
Submitted 30 November, 2021; v1 submitted 10 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
