In:
Perspectives on Psychological Science, SAGE Publications, Vol. 18, No. 2 ( 2023-03), p. 508-512
Abstract:
In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are “the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science.” They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all “small” effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1745-6916
,
1745-6924
DOI:
10.1177/17456916221100420
Language:
English
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
Publication Date:
2023
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2224911-4
SSG:
5,2
Bookmarklink