Journal editors and academy presidents are increasingly calling on researchers to evaluate the substantive, as opposed to the statistical, significance of their results. To measure the extent to which these calls have been heeded, I aggregated the meta-analytically derived effect size estimates obtained from 965 individual samples. I then surveyed 204 studies published in the Journal of International Business Studies. I found that the average effect size in international business research is small, and that most published studies lack the statistical power to detect such effects reliably. I also found that many authors confuse statistical with substantive significance when interpreting their research results. These practices have likely led to unacceptably high Type II error rates and invalid inferences regarding real-world effects. By emphasizing p values over their effect size estimates, researchers are under-selling their results and settling for contributions that are less than what they really have to offer. In view of this, I offer four recommendations for improving research and reporting practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abraham, W. T., & Russell, D. W. 2008. Statistical power analysis in psychological research. Social and Personality Compass, 2 (1): 283–301.
AERA. 2006. Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. http://www.aera.net/opportunities/?id=1850. Accessed 11 September 2008.
APA. 2001. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
APA. 2010. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Baggs, J., & Brander, J. A. 2006. Trade liberalization, profitability, and financial leverage. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (2): 196–211.
Barden, J. Q., Steensma, H. K., & Lyles, M. A. 2005. The influence of parent control structure on parent conflict in Vietnamese international joint ventures: An organizational justice-based contingency approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (2): 156–174.
Brock, J. 2003. The “power” of international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1): 90–99.
Campbell, J. P. 1982. Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (6): 691–700.
Campion, M. A. 1993. Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46 (3): 705–718.
Cano, C. R., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. 2004. A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (2): 179–200.
Carver, R. P. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48 (3): 378–399.
Cashen, L. H., & Geiger, S. W. 2004. Statistical power and the testing of null hypotheses: A review of contemporary management research and recommendations for future studies. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (2): 151–167.
Child, J., Chung, L., & Davies, H. 2003. The performance of cross-border units in China: A test of natural selection, strategic choice and contingency theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (3): 242–254.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power for the behavioral analysis, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Combs, J. G. 2010. Big samples and small effects: Let's not trade relevance and rigor for power. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1): 9–13.
Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. 1997. On the logic and purpose of significance testing. Psychological Methods, 2 (2): 161–172.
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. 2005. Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60 (2): 170–180.
Cummings, T. G. 2007. 2006 presidential address: Quest for an engaged academy. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2): 355–360.
Ellis, P. D. 2007. Distance, dependence and diversity of markets: Effects on market orientation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (3): 374–386.
Ellis, P. D. 2008. Does psychic distance moderate the market size–entry sequence relationship? Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (3): 351–369.
Ellis, P. D. 2010a. Effect size FAQs. http://www.effectsizefaq.com. Accessed 2 June 2010.
Ellis, P. D. 2010b. The essential guide to effect sizes: An introduction to statistical power, meta-analysis and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hambrick, D. C. 1994. 1993 Presidential Address: What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19 (1): 11–16.
Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55 (1): 19–24.
Iacobucci, D. 2005. From the editor. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1): 1–6.
JARS. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology. American Psychologist, 63 (9): 839–851.
JEP. 2003. Instructions to authors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1): 201.
Luk, C. L., Yau, O., Sin, L., Tse, A., Chow, R., & Lee, J. 2008. The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 589–612.
Mazen, A. M., Graf, L. A., Kellogg, L. A., & Hemmasi, M. 1987. Statistical power in contemporary management research. Academy of Management Journal, 30 (2): 369–380.
Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. 2008. Managers’ gender role attitudes: A country institutional profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 795–813.
Qian, G. M., Li, L., Li, J., & Qian, Z. M. 2008. Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 197–214.
Rynes, S. L. 2007. Editors afterword: Let's create a tipping point – What academics and practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1046–1054.
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. 2009. Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (2): 347–367.
Shaver, J. M. 2006. Interpreting empirical findings. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (4): 451–452.
Shaver, J. M. 2008. Organizational significance. Strategic Organization, 6 (2): 185–193.
Van de Vliert, E. V. 2003. Thermoclimate, culture, and poverty as country-level roots of workers’ wages. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1): 40–52.
Zedeck, S. 2003. Editorial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1): 3–5.
I am grateful to Juergen Brock, Sylvie Chetty, Flora Gu, Evert Van de Vliert, Robert Wright, Consulting Editor Myles Shaver, and three anonymous JIBS referees for providing feedback and constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this paper. The research reported in this paper was supported by a Internal Research Grant provided by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project 4-ZZ9V).
Accepted by Myles Shaver, Consulting Editor, 25 July 2010. This paper has been with the author for three revisions.
About this article
Cite this article
Ellis, P. Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business. J Int Bus Stud 41, 1581–1588 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.39
- evaluation of current empirical approaches
- theory–method intersection
- statistical power
- effect size