Thread by @BrianNosek

Sharpen your intuitions about plausibility of observed effect sizes.

r > .60?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between gender and height (.67) or nearness to the equator and temperature (.60)?

r > .50?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between gender and arm strength (.55) or increasing age and declining speed of information processing in adults (.52)?

r > .40?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between weight and height (.44), gender and self-reported nuturance (.42), or loss in habitat size and population decline (.40)?

r > .30?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between elevation and daily temperature (.34), viagra and sexual functioning (.38), past behavior predicting future behavior (.39), or sleeping pills and insomnia reduction (.30)?

r > .20?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between marital relationship quality and parent-child relationship quality (.22), alcohol and aggressive behavior (.23), or gender and weight (.26)?

r > .10?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between antihistamine and runny nose (.11), childhood lead exposure and IQ (.12), anti-inflammatories and pain reduction (.14), self-disclosure and likability (.14), or nicotine patch and smoking abstinence (.18)?

r > .00?

Is that effect plausibly as large as the relationship between aspirin use and death by heart attack (.02), calcium and bone mass premenopausal (.08), gender and observed risk taking (.09), or parental divorce and child well-being problems (.09)?

Source: Meyer et al (2001) [doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi…]

h/t to @williamspsych and @suzannecarrie for recalling and finding it.