Skip to main content

A power fallacy


The power fallacy refers to the misconception that what holds on average –across an ensemble of hypothetical experiments– also holds for each case individually. According to the fallacy, high-power experiments always yield more informative data than do low-power experiments. Here we expose the fallacy with concrete examples, demonstrating that a particular outcome from a high-power experiment can be completely uninformative, whereas a particular outcome from a low-power experiment can be highly informative. Although power is useful in planning an experiment, it is less useful—and sometimes even misleading—for making inferences from observed data. To make inferences from data, we recommend the use of likelihood ratios or Bayes factors, which are the extension of likelihood ratios beyond point hypotheses. These methods of inference do not average over hypothetical replications of an experiment, but instead condition on the data that have actually been observed. In this way, likelihood ratios and Bayes factors rationally quantify the evidence that a particular data set provides for or against the null or any other hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    While odds lie on a naturally meaningful scale calibrated by betting, characterizing evidence through verbal labels such as “moderate” and “strong” is necessarily subjective (Kass & Raftery, 1995). We believe the labels are useful because they facilitate scientific communication, but they should only be considered an approximate descriptive articulation of different standards of evidence.

  2. 2.

    In order to obtain a t value of 5 with a sample size of only 10 participants, the precognition score needs to have a large mean or a small variance.

  3. 3.

    In order to obtain a t value of 1.7 with a sample size of 100, the the precognition score needs to have a small mean or a high variance.


  1. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger, J. O., & Wolpert, R. L. (1988). The likelihood principle Vol. 2. Hayward (CA): Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

  4. Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (thus far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., Buchner, A. (2007). G ∗Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: failures to replicate Psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 933–948.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gönen, M., Johnson, W. O., Lu, Y., Westfall, P. H. (2005). The Bayesian two–sample t test. The American Statistician, 59, 252– 257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3 ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, V. E. (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. In Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 11, pp. 19313–19317).

  13. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J (2013). Bayesian modeling for cognitive science: a practical course. Cambridge University Press.

  15. Morey, R. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Simple relation between Bayesian order-restricted and point-null hypothesis tests. Statistics and Probability Letters, 92, 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pratt, J. W. (1965). Bayesian interpretation of standard inference statements. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 27, 169– 203.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., French, C. C. (2012). Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLoS ONE, 7, e33423.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sellke, T., Bayarri, M. J., Berger, J. O. (2001). Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses. The American Statistician, 55, 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sham, P. C., & Purcell, S. M. (2014). Statistical power and significance testing in large-scale genetic studies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 15, 335–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric-Jan Wagenmakers.

Additional information

Author Note

This work was supported by an ERC grant from the European Research Council. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email address:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagenmakers, EJ., Verhagen, J., Ly, A. et al. A power fallacy. Behav Res 47, 913–917 (2015).

Download citation


  • Hypothesis test
  • Likelihood ratio
  • Statistical evidence
  • Bayes factor