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.
Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics
Authors:
František Bartoš,
Maximilian Maier,
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers,
Franziska Nippold,
Hristos Doucouliagos,
John P. A. Ioannidis,
Willem M. Otte,
Martina Sladekova,
Teshome K. Deresssa,
Stephan B. Bruns,
Daniele Fanelli,
T. D. Stanley
Abstract:
Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely cont…
▽ More
Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine.
△ Less
Submitted 26 September, 2023; v1 submitted 25 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
