Abstract
AbstractIn the present study, we used a new approach to establish the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for false memory research by asking memory researchers what they considered to be the SESOI in false memory research. They were presented with three hypothetical and three influential paper scenarios. These scenarios depicted studies examining the effects of certain manipulations (e.g., therapy) on false memory formation using well‐known false memory paradigms: Deese/Roediger‐McDermott, misinformation, and forced fabrication. Subsequently, they were asked for each scenario what they would consider to be the SESOI for practical and theoretical purposes and justify their decisions. We found that there was no clear consensus for the SESOI. However, memory researchers tended to accept smaller SESOIs or “any difference that leads to a p < .05,” especially for theoretical ends. We argue that the lack of a general consensus is acceptable as long as proper justification is used. We discuss such rationales and provide recommendations for setting the SESOI.
Highlights
Using an effect size (ES; magnitude of a phenomenon) has become increasingly important in psychological science as an informative statistic to plan and interpret studies, conduct meta-analyses, corroborate theories, and gauge the real-world implications of an effect (Cohen, 1988; Lakens, 2013)
Across and within various false memory paradigms, and for practical and theoretical purposes, we found no clear consensus for such smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) among memory experts
Across all scenarios, memory experts leaned towards smaller effects as the SESOI (1 raw mean difference) or “any difference that leads to a p < .05” as the SESOI, especially for theoretical purposes
Summary
Using an effect size (ES; magnitude of a phenomenon) has become increasingly important in psychological science as an informative statistic to plan and interpret studies (e.g., power analysis), conduct meta-analyses, corroborate theories, and gauge the real-world implications of an effect (Cohen, 1988; Lakens, 2013). The latter aspect is especially important in areas where the stakes are high. Is a statistically significant result sufficient to make practical implications such as advocating against suggestive interviewing tactics or is a certain minimum effect size of increased false memories necessary? When can the researchers conclude that suggestive interviewing tactics should not be used during interrogations because they increase the susceptibility to false memories? Is a statistically significant result sufficient to make practical implications such as advocating against suggestive interviewing tactics or is a certain minimum effect size of increased false memories necessary? In addition, does this minimum effect size of false memories differ when results are aimed at theoretical
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
