Read on Twitter
New Preprint!
Ever wonder what non-scientists think about the effect sizes that psychologists report?
@GordPennycook and I wondered just that…
Turns out lay people think that even the largest effects (d = .90) are unimpressive.
https://psyarxiv.com/qu9hn/ ">https://psyarxiv.com/qu9hn/&qu...
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👈" title="Left pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Left pointing backhand index"> Preprint here!
Ever wonder what non-scientists think about the effect sizes that psychologists report?
@GordPennycook and I wondered just that…
Turns out lay people think that even the largest effects (d = .90) are unimpressive.
https://psyarxiv.com/qu9hn/ ">https://psyarxiv.com/qu9hn/&qu...
In two studies, we showed people are variety of graphs depicting small (d=.2) and huge (d=.9) effect sizes. Turns out people aren& #39;t terribly convinced by any of them! Even the largest ones are perceived as "small" and only "somewhat meaningful"
This poses an issue when we want to communicate the effectiveness of our interventions, policies, treatments, etc.
Sorry we don& #39;t have better news.
Sorry we don& #39;t have better news.
