The null hypothesis significance-testing debate and its implications for personality research.

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Wise Reasoning in the Face of Everyday Life Challenges (2016, methodology): “Assuming a typical correlation of .21 for personality psychology (Fraley & Marks, 2007), we targeted 176 participants for a ¼ .05 and b ¼ .20 for the initial session.”
Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes (2009, background): “Moreover, the association between exposure to nonfiction and loneliness should not be considered trivial, as it is equivalent to the median effectsize for studies in personality (Fraley and Marks, 2007).”
Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology † (2013, background): “For example, Fraley and Marks (2007) did a meta-analysis of correlational personality studies and found the median effect size to be r =.”
Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense (2019, background): “A parallel but less extensive project surveyed the personality literature and came up with precisely the same average effect size: r = .21 (Fraley & Marks, 2007).”
Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life (2015, background): “Indeed, applying to both contact and construal, the average effect size to expect may hover around r .20 (see Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003; Fraley & Marks, 2007), which we also expected to find in this research.”