Two Lines: A Valid Alternative to the Invalid Testing of U-Shaped Relationships With Quadratic Regressions

309Citations
Citations of this article
187Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Many psychological theories predict U-shaped relationships: The effect of x is positive for low values of x, but negative for high values, or vice versa. Despite implying merely a change of sign, hypotheses about U-shaped functions are tested almost exclusively via quadratic regressions, an approach that imposes an arbitrary functional-form assumption that in some scenarios can lead to a 100% rate of false positives (e.g., the incorrect conclusion that y = log(x) is U shaped). Estimating two regression lines, one for low and one for high values of x, allows testing for a sign change without a functional-form assumption. I introduce the Robin Hood algorithm as a way to set the break point between the lines. This algorithm delivers higher power to detect U shapes than all the other break-point-setting alternatives I compared with it. The article includes simulations demonstrating the performance of the two-lines test and reanalyses of published results using this test. An app for running the two-lines test is available at http://webstimate.org/twolines.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Simonsohn, U. (2018). Two Lines: A Valid Alternative to the Invalid Testing of U-Shaped Relationships With Quadratic Regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free