The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Death to Dichotomizing: Figure 1
Abstract
Why call for a death to dichotomizing? The Journal of Consumer Research receives manuscripts on an almost daily basis in which researchers have dichotomized (often referred to as median splitting) a continuous independent variable. There are two principal problems with this approach to data analysis, each of which is very well documented in the literature. The first is that by dichotomizing continuous independent variables researchers are quite likely reducing the statistical power available to test their hypotheses (Irwin and McClelland 2003). The second, potentially more troubling, problem is that inappropriate dichotomizing of continuous data can at times create spurious significant results if the independent variables are correlated (Maxwell and Delaney 1993). And yet, despite these well-known problems, dichotomizing is an extremely frequent activity for experimental consumer researchers. The goal of this editorial is not to write an in-depth methodological piece on this subject but rather to briefly outline why all consumer researchers should be concerned about this topic. I also hope to illustrate how we can easily write up appropriately conducted analyses when our research designs include continuous independent variables. (For more thorough, methodological pieces on this topic I suggest an excellent and concise article in the Journal of Marketing Research [Irwin and McClelland 2001] or a truly comprehensive guide to performing analysis including continuous independent variables and interactions [Aiken and West 1991].) Likely the most common research design utilized by experimental consumer researchers is a very straightforward manipulation of one or more independent variables that the researcher believes will affect a dependent variable. Virtually all consumer researchers learn at one point how to describe and analyze such designs and are typically quite adept at it. For example, a researcher manipulates two independent variables between subjects and performs a two-by-two ANOVA examining their impact on a dependent variable …
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
Cited by
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310 · Cited by 2,254
Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005 · Cited by 382
The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity
Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/674870 · Cited by 346
Opportunity Cost Consideration
Spiller, S. A. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/660045 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Fitzsimons, G. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-8
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2233482070
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.45
- 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: Death to Dichotomizing: Figure 1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/589561
- The paper
- Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to Dichotomizing: Figure 1. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/589561
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.