We all care about effect sizes. Yet, traditional ways of evaluating them (P < 0.05 and generic benchmarks) are failing us. We propose two paths forward: setting better, contextualized benchmarks or — more radically — letting go of benchmarks altogether. Both paths point to adjusted expectations, more detailed reporting and slow science.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Yarkoni, T. & Westfall, J. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1100–1122 (2017).
Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D. & Rentfrow, P. J. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 205–215 (2022).
Paluck, E. L. & Cialdini, R. B. in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (eds Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M.) 81–97 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Jolly, E. & Chang, L. J. Top. Cogn. Sci. 11, 433–454 (2019).
Bakker, A. et al. Educ. Stud. Math. 102, 1–8 (2019).
Stokes, D. E. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Brookings Institution Press, 1997).
Cohen, J. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98–101 (1992).
Funder, D. C. & Ozer, D. J. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 156–168 (2019).
Grice, J. W. et al. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3, 443–455 (2020).
Anvari, F. et al. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 503–507 (2023).
Bartoš, F. et al. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10, 230224 (2023).
Fechner, G. T. Elemente der Psychophysik [Elements of Psychophysics] (Breitkopf und Härtel, 1860).
Simonsohn, U. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1208–1214 (2020).
Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 175 (2021).
Frith, U. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 1–2 (2020).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer reviewer information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks David Funder and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Götz, F.M., Gosling, S.D. & Rentfrow, P.J. Effect sizes and what to make of them. Nat Hum Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01858-z
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01858-z
