2019
DOI: 10.1177/2515245919847202
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense

Abstract: Effect sizes are underappreciated and often misinterpreted—the most common mistakes being to describe them in ways that are uninformative (e.g., using arbitrary standards) or misleading (e.g., squaring effect-size rs). We propose that effect sizes can be usefully evaluated by comparing them with well-understood benchmarks or by considering them in terms of concrete consequences. In that light, we conclude that when reliably estimated (a critical consideration), an effect-size r of .05 indicates an effect that … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

82
1,781
12
18

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,268 publications
(1,893 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
82
1,781
12
18
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the largest effect size observed herein was medium in magnitude (and most were null‐to‐very‐small), we agree with a recent argument made by Funder and Ozer (2019) regarding the importance of considering the cumulative impact of small effects over time. Using a baseball metaphor, Funder and Ozer (2019) propose that any given interpersonal interaction represents a single psychological “at‐bat,” so to speak, and the effect size magnitude of any given relation (e.g., low Agreeableness—aggressive behavior) can be understood as the likelihood of a particular outcome over very many potential occurrences. In the case of aggression, even the most aggressive individuals do not aggress or behave violently in the majority of their interactions with others.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the largest effect size observed herein was medium in magnitude (and most were null‐to‐very‐small), we agree with a recent argument made by Funder and Ozer (2019) regarding the importance of considering the cumulative impact of small effects over time. Using a baseball metaphor, Funder and Ozer (2019) propose that any given interpersonal interaction represents a single psychological “at‐bat,” so to speak, and the effect size magnitude of any given relation (e.g., low Agreeableness—aggressive behavior) can be understood as the likelihood of a particular outcome over very many potential occurrences. In the case of aggression, even the most aggressive individuals do not aggress or behave violently in the majority of their interactions with others.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Of the five FFM domains, facets of Agreeableness tended to evince the largest bivariate relations with CRTT aggression, as 3/6 facets ( Sympathy, Cooperation , and Altruism ) met the threshold of small effect size (i.e., r ≥ |.10|) as identified by recent standards (Funder & Ozer, 2019). This is consistent with meta‐analyses that link Agreeableness to self‐report and laboratory aggression (Hyatt et al, 2019; Jones et al, 2011), and provides further support for the centrality of this personality domain in the prediction of aggressive behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Cohen underlined that his arbitrary conventions were relative to his area of interest and recommended to use them "only when no better basis [for interpreting effect size] is available" (p. 25). Thus, we propose new conventions specific to the action constraint field (see also Funder & Ozer, 2019). Cohen (1988) based his conventions on "a subjective average of effect sizes such as are encountered in behavioral science" (p. 13).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, if taken at face value, these modest observed correlations are consistent with the hypothesized mechanism of reward processing aberrations causing anhedonia and depression. In daily life we are constantly receiving rewards, a small difference in the processing of those rewards may accumulate over time to have a significant impact on clinical symptoms (78).…”
Section: Effect Of Measurement Error On Observed Correlationsmentioning
confidence: 99%