Compelling criticisms of statistical significance testing (or Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, NHST) can be found in virtually all areas of the social and life sciences—including economics, sociology, ecology, biology, education and psychology. Because it is the overwhelmingly dominant statistical method in these sciences, criticisms need to be taken seriously. Yet, after half a century of cogent arguments against NHST and calls to adopt alternative practices some disciplines show little sign of change. One obvious question is ‘why?’ Why are researchers so unwilling to abandon this flawed practice? In this thesis I attempt to answer this question, and compare practice across scientific disciplines.