Abstract
Over the past decade, behavioral scientists have learned that many findings in the field may not replicate, leading to calls for change in how behavioral research is conducted. Krefeld-Schwalb and Scheibehenne (2023) examine changes in the methodological practices in consumer research between 2008 and 2020. They find that sample sizes have increased and that effect sizes have decreased. In this article, we take these findings as a starting point and reflect on how we can further improve methodological practices in the field. We argue that in order to build a more replicable, rigorous field, we must place effect sizes at the center of scientific reasoning. Specifically, we make four claims about effect sizes that we hope will help consumer researchers plan, conduct, and interpret their research: (1) effect sizes in consumer psychology are small, and that is a natural consequence of the field’s maturity; (2) effect sizes need to be contextualized; (3) our samples are still too small to detect the small effects of modern empirical consumer research; and (4) larger samples do not inherently generate smaller effects. It is our hope that the current article increases the field’s understanding about effect sizes and motivates researchers to place effect sizes at the center of their scientific reasoning. By thinking carefully about effect sizes, we believe we can collectively improve methodological practices and confidence in the findings of consumer psychology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 4716.
Altman, D. (1980). Statistics and ethics in medical research. British Medical Journal, 281(6268), 1336–1338.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 112(1), 98–101.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.
Krefeld-Schwalb, A., & Scheibehenne, B. (2023). Tighter nets for smaller fishes? Mapping the development of statistical practices in consumer research between 2008 and 2020. Marketing Letters.
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534.
Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research : differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(April), 1–13.
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108–112.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dias, R.S., Spiller, S.A. & Fitzsimons, G.J. Understanding effect sizes in consumer psychology. Mark Lett 34, 367–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-023-09680-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-023-09680-9