The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology
Abstract
This study estimates empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation for research in social psychology overall and sub‐disciplines within social psychology, based on analysis of the true distributions of the two types of effect size measures widely used in social psychology (correlation coefficient and standardized mean differences). Analysis of empirically derived distributions of 12,170 correlation coefficients and 6,447 Cohen's d statistics extracted from studies included in 134 published meta‐analyses revealed that the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles corresponded to correlation coefficient values of 0.12, 0.24, and 0.41 and to Cohen's d values of 0.15, 0.36, and 0.65 respectively. The analysis suggests that the widely used Cohen's guidelines tend to overestimate medium and large effect sizes. Empirically derived effect size distributions in social psychology overall and its sub‐disciplines can be used both for effect size interpretation and for sample size planning when other information about effect size is not available.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Bootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350
psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research
Revelle, W. (2017) · Cited by 3,321
Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 · Cited by 2,860
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239
One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
Cited by
Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects.
Orth, U., Meier, L. L., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., Messerli, D., & Robins, R. W. (2024) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000499 · Cited by 720
Wunsch, K., Fiedler, J., Bachert, P., & Woll, A. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18020739 · Cited by 120
Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy
Rathje, S., He, J. K., Roozenbeek, J., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac207 · Cited by 100
A brief note on the standard error of the Pearson correlation
Gnambs, T. (2023) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.87615 · Cited by 48
Wu, J., Long, D., Hafez, N., Maloney, J., Lim, Y., & Samji, H. (2023) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.13201 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. R.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 485-504
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W3128899026
- Cited by
- 632
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 46.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejsp.2752
- The paper
- Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
