Why bayesian “evidence for H1” in one condition and bayesian “evidence for H0” in another condition does not mean good-enough bayesian evidence for a difference between the conditions

Psychologists are often interested in whether an independent variable has a different effect in condition A than in condition B. To test such a question, one needs to directly compare the effect of that variable in the two conditions (i.e., test the interaction). Yet many researchers tend to stop when they find a significant test in one condition and a nonsignificant test in the other condition, deeming this as sufficient evidence for a difference between the two conditions. In this Tutorial, we aim to raise awareness of this inferential mistake when Bayes factors are used with conventional cutoffs to draw conclusions. For instance, some researchers might falsely conclude that there must be good-enough evidence for the interaction if they find good-enough Bayesian evidence for the alternative hypothesis, H1, in condition A and good-enough Bayesian evidence for the null hypothesis, H0, in condition B. The case study we introduce highlights that ignoring the test of the interaction can lead to unjustified conclusions and demonstrates that the principle that any assertion about the existence of an interaction necessitates the direct comparison of the conditions is as true for Bayesian as it is for frequentist statistics. We provide an R script of the analyses of the case study and a Shiny app that can be used with a 2 × 2 design to develop intuitions on this issue, and we introduce a rule of thumb with which one can estimate the sample size one might need to have a well-powered design.