Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Supported by

Reviewer wants justification for the default prior

I Have conducted a repeated measures Bayesian ANOVA and stated the default prior: r scale fixed effects =0.5; r scale random effects = 1). I have also cited and read the appropriate articles (e.g., Rouder et al., 2012). But the reviewer wants a specific justification. I do not expect a big effects from the experimental condition when I compare the models.
Any idea how to formulate the justification this without going to the math? The point is that it is a default prior that should fit most cases in experimental psychology. But the reviewer wants more than that.

Best regards,


  • Dear Ester,

    Perhaps you only have fixed effects, in which case I'd just report those. The ANOVA priors were proposed by analogy to the t-test; if you conduct a between-subjects t-test with the default r=.707 setting you ought to get the same result as for a one-way ANOVA with two levels. You could conduct a robustness analysis and examine the extent to which you get qualitatively similar results if you change the settings somewhat. I think this is more compelling than philosophical argument.


  • We have the same problem.
    This is not a very satisfying answer :-(

Sign In or Register to comment.