{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0136986301369863, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.402061855670103, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Moving Beyond Simply Labeling Psychological Studies as Exploratory or Confirmatory

Psychological science has seen a rise in the application of complex statistical models to ever larger datasets, while at the same time, had a renewed focus on applying research in a confirmatory manner. This presents a fundamental conflict for psychological researchers as more complex forms of modeling necessarily eschew as stringent of theoretical constraints. In this paper, I argue that this is less of a conflict, and more a result of a continued adherence to applying the overly simplistic labels of exploratory and confirmatory. I make the case that psychological science would be better off replacing these terms with reporting higher levels of detail regarding the ever-increasing number of data and model decisions that are made, such as discussing whether the study is primarily concerned with theory generation, development, or appraisal, the study has the goal of explanation or prediction, the study involves non-traditional hypotheses, among others. This is demonstrated through the examination of two previously published studies that are both characteristic of the challenges faced by new forms of data and models in psychological science.