Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers

By Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai. 2016

2,503 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/466843de8ffb803b8f9e3f82b1acdfc77bb84fb2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Good Character Is What We Look for in a Friend: Character Strengths Are Positively Related to Peer Acceptance and Friendship Quality in Early Adolescents (2018, methodology): “To interpret the size of these correlations, the effect size guidelines for research in individual differences by Gignac and Szodorai (2016) were used, suggesting small, medium, and large effects to correspond to correlations of .10, .20, and .30, respectively, in this context.”
The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis (2020, background): “These magnitudes also substantially exceed the large benchmark for individual difference research (d = 0.60; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016) and the typical effects from teachers in longitudinal studies (d = 0.15–0.40; Hattie, 2009).”
Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM) (2016, background): “The meta-analytic results are particularly revealing, with the standardized relations of SDO with ethnic prejudice and speciesism higher than .40 (moderate-to-large effects following Cohen, 1988; large effects following Gignac & Szodorai, 2016), of comparable magnitude.”
Loneliness and the Big Five Personality Traits: A Meta–Analysis (2020, methodology): “As preregistered, we therefore interpreted the magnitude of the effect sizes based on the guidelines by Gignac and Szodorai (2016), with r = .10, r = .20, and r = .30 corresponding to small, medium, and large effects, respectively.”
Research self-efficacy: A meta-analysis (2021, methodology): “According to the thresholds recommended by Gignac and Szodorai (2016), we obtained large and medium effect sizes for a number of antecedents and outcomes of RSE.”
The Role of Personality in COVID-19-Related Perceptions, Evaluations, and Behaviors: Findings Across Five Samples, Nine Traits, and 17 Criteria (2021, result): “…(of the consistent patterns) are much in line with effect sizes typically found in personality and social psychology research (Funder & Ozer, 2019; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016), further supporting the interpretation that personality traits do not only generally matter for a broad array of criteria…”
Activity Achievement Emotions and Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis (2021, methodology): “We used the benchmarks recommended by Gignac and Szodorai (2016) of .15, .25, and .35 to indicate small, moderate, and large effect size magnitudes, which are based on 708 meta-analytically derived correlations and thus have more empirical support than Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks.”
The psychological roots of intellectual humility: The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility (2019, background): “Given Gignac and Szodorai's (2016) effect size guidelines for individual”
Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense (2019, background): “Notice that these benchmarks (except for .05) are the same as those suggested by Gignac and Szodorai (2016), but with more generous labeling.”
Are Social Media Ruining Our Lives? A Review of Meta-Analytic Evidence (2019, background): “Moreover, meta-analyses can alleviate the problem of insufficient power in many individual studies (Szucs & Ioannidis, 2017) to identify small effects that are typically encountered in psychological research (Bosco, Aguinis, Singh, Field, & Pierce, 2015; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016).”