Lay people are unimpressed by the effect sizes typically reported in psychological science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is recommended that researchers report effect sizes along with statistical results to aid in interpreting the magnitude of results. According to recent surveys of published research, psychologists typically find effect sizes ranging from r = .11 to r = .30. While these numbers may be informative for scientists, no research has examined how lay people perceive the range of effect sizes typically reported in psychological research. In two studies, we showed online participants (N = 1,204) graphs depicting a range of effect sizes in different formats. We demonstrate that lay people perceive psychological effects to be small, rather meaningless, and unconvincing. Even the largest effects we examined (corresponding to a Cohen’s d = .90), which are exceedingly uncommon in reality, were considered small-to-moderate in size by lay people. Science communicators and policymakers should consider this obstacle when attempting to communicate the effectiveness of research results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.108 | 0.453 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".