We discuss problems the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) paradigm poses for replication and more broadly in the biomedical and social sciences as well as how these problems remain unresolved by proposals involving modified p-value thresholds, confidence intervals, and Bayes factors. We then discuss our own proposal, which is to abandon statistical significance. We recommend dropping the NHST paradigm-and the p-value thresholds intrinsic to it-as the default statistical paradigm for research, publication, and discovery in the biomedical and social sciences. Specifically, we propose that the p-value be demoted from its threshold screening role and instead, treated continuously, be considered along with currently subordinate factors (e.g., related prior evidence, plausibility of mechanism, study design and data quality, real world costs and benefits, novelty of finding, and other factors that vary by research domain) as just one among many pieces of evidence. We have no desire to "ban" p-values or other purely statistical measures. Rather, we believe that such measures should not be thresholded and that, thresholded or not, they should not take priority over the currently subordinate factors. We also argue that it seldom makes sense to calibrate evidence as a function of p-values or other purely statistical measures. We offer recommendations for how our proposal can be implemented in the scientific publication process as well as in statistical decision making more broadly.

Why are men less likely than women to embrace environmentally friendly products and behaviors? Whereas prior research attributes this gender gap in sustainable consumption to personality differences between the sexes, we propose that it may also partially stem from a prevalent association between green behavior and femininity, and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green consumers are more feminine. Building on prior findings that men tend to be more concerned than women with gender-identity maintenance, we argue that this greenfeminine stereotype may motivate men to avoid green behaviors in order to preserve a macho image. A series of seven studies provides evidence that the concepts of greenness and femininity are cognitively linked and shows that, accordingly, consumers who engage in green behaviors are stereotyped by others as more feminine and even perceive themselves as more feminine. Further, men's willingness to engage in green behaviors can be influenced by threatening or affirming their masculinity, as well as by using masculine rather than conventional green branding. Together, these findings bridge literatures on identity and environmental sustainability and introduce the notion that due to the green-feminine stereotype, genderidentity maintenance can influence men's likelihood of adopting green behaviors.

How do consumers evaluate combinations of items representing conflicting goals? In this research, the authors examine how consumers form value judgments of combinations of options representing health and indulgence goals, focusing on how people estimate the calorie content of such options. The authors show that when evaluating combinations of healthy (virtue) and indulgent (vice) options, consumers tend to systematically underestimate the combined calorie content, such that they end up averaging rather than adding the calories contained in the vice and the virtue. The authors attribute this bias to the qualitative nature of people's information processing, which stems from their tendency to categorize food items according to a good/bad dichotomy into virtues and vices. The authors document this averaging bias in a series of four empirical studies that investigate the underlying mechanism and identify boundary conditions.

The idea that consumers use brands to express their identities has led many companies to reposition their products from focusing on functional attributes to focusing on how they fit into a consumer's lifestyle. This repositioning is welcomed by managers who believe that by positioning their brands as means for self-expression, they are less likely to go head-to-head with their direct competitors. However, the authors argue that by doing so, these companies expose themselves to much broader, cross-category competition for a share of a consumer's identity. Thus, they propose that consumers' need for self-expression through brands is finite and can be satiated when consumers are exposed to self-expressive brands. Moreover, they argue that consumers' need for self-expression can be satiated not only by a brand's direct competitors but also by brands from unrelated product categories, nonbrand means of self-expression, and self-expressive behavioral acts. The authors examine these propositions in a series of five empirical studies that provide converging evidence in support of the notion that the need for selfexpression can be satiated, thus weakening preferences for lifestyle brands.

Loss aversion, the principle that losses loom larger than gains, is among the most widely accepted ideas in the social sciences. The first part of this article introduces and discusses the construct of loss aversion. The second part of this article reviews evidence in support of loss aversion. The upshot of this review is that current evidence does not support that losses, on balance, tend to be any more impactful than gains. The third part of this article aims to address the question of why acceptance of loss aversion as a general principle remains pervasive and persistent among social scientists, including consumer psychologists, despite evidence to the contrary. This analysis aims to connect the persistence of a belief in loss aversion to more general ideas about belief acceptance and persistence in science. The final part of the article discusses how a more contextualized perspective of the relative impact of losses versus gains can open new areas of inquiry that are squarely in the domain of consumer psychology.