Traditional indices of effect size are designed to answer questions about average group differences, associations between variables, and relative risk. For many researchers, an additional, important question is, “How many people in my study behaved or responded in a manner consistent with theoretical expectation?” We show how the answer to this question can be computed and reported as a straightforward percentage for a wide variety of study designs. This percentage essentially treats persons as an effect size, and it can easily be understood by scientists, professionals, and laypersons alike. For instance, imagine that in addition to d or η2, a researcher reports that 80% of participants matched theoretical expectation. No statistical training is required to understand the basic meaning of this percentage. By analyzing recently published studies, we show how computing this percentage can reveal novel patterns within data that provide insights for extending and developing the theory under investigation.

No abstract

No abstract

Vladimir A. Lefebvre [1, 2] proposed an algebraic model of self-reflection that predicts individuals will judge ambiguous stimuli positively with a proportional frequency of .618. While a number of studies have empirically supported this prediction [3, 4], Anderson and colleagues [5] found only partial support for Lefebvre’s model. They moreover suggested that Schwartz and Garmoni’s States of Mind (SOM; [7]) model could potentially explain the disparate findings as well as the variability of positive judgements seen across individuals. Consequently, this study explored whether ratios of psychological functioning posited by the SOM model correspond with proportions of positive judgements of ambiguous stimuli (viz., pairs of pinto beans). Results revealed that, while Lefebvre’s predicted proportion of positive judgments was again replicated, individuals with relatively high positive affect were not more likely to rate greater proportions of the ambiguous stimuli positively.

Using experience sampling methodology, this study investigated the scaling format and validity of an alternative affect measure, the Emotional Balance Inventory (EBI). Signaling occurred twice per day for a week, directing undergraduate students (n = 79) to report the frequencies of their emotions using either a dichotomized or Likert scaled format of the EBI. At the conclusion of the daily ratings, participants completed two measures of psychological well-being. Results revealed little evidence in the distinction of the response formats, and there was marginal evidence supporting the monotonic relationship between the affect measure and psychological well-being measures. External validity and generalizability are discussed, along with implications for future research utilizing clinical populations.