Marketing scholars often compare groups that occur naturally (e.g., socioeconomic status) or due to random assignment of participants to study conditions. These scholars often report group means, standard deviations, and effect sizes. Although such summary information can be helpful, it can misinform marketing practitioners’ decisions. To avoid this problem, scholars should also report the probability that one group’s member will score higher than another group’s member, and by various amounts. In this vein, newly conceived gain-probability diagrams can depict relevant, concise, and easy-to-comprehend probabilistic information. These diagrams’ nuanced perspective can contradict traditional significance test and effect size implications.
AndersonB. S. (2021). What executives get wrong about statistics: Moving from statistical significance to effect sizes and practical impact. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.05.001
2.
AntonettiP.,BaghiI. (2021). How the sender’s positioning and the target’s CSR record influence the effectiveness of scapegoating crisis communications. Marketing Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09577-5
3.
AzzaliniA. (2014). The Skew-normal and related families. Cambridge University Press.
4.
AzzaliniA.,CapitanioA. (1999). Statistical applications of the multivariate skew normal distribution. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 61(3), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00194
5.
BaguleyT. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?British Journal of Psychology, 100(Pt 3), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X377117
6.
BlancaM. J.ArnauJ.López-MontielD.BonoR.,BendayanR. (2013). Skewness and kurtosis in real data samples. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000057
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
10.
GuinT. D.BakerR.MechlingJ.,RuyleE. (2012). Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 54(5), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-54-5-613-633
11.
HanssensD. M. (2015). Empirical generalizations about marketing impact. Marketing Science Institute.
12.
HoA. D.,YuC. C. (2015). Descriptive statistics for modern test score distributions: Skewness, kurtosis, discreteness, and ceiling effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(3), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414548576
13.
HubbardR. (2016). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Sage Publications.
14.
HymanM. R.GaneshG.,McQuittyS. (2002). Augmenting the household affluence construct. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 10(3), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501917
15.
KelemenM.,BansalP. (2002). The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management, 13(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00225
16.
KennedyR.ScrivenJ.,Nenycz-ThielM. (2014). When ‘significant’ is not significant. International Journal of Market Research, 56(5), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2014-041
17.
KirkR. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056005002
18.
LeeS. H.,JungS. (2020). Fashion consumers’ channel-hopping profiles by psychographics and demographics. International Journal of Market Research, 62(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318821854
19.
LewinK. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In CartwrightD (Ed), Field theory in social science (pp. 155–169). Harper & Row.
20.
LiC.,AliK. (2020). Measuring attitude toward the ad: A test of using arbitrary scales and “p. 05” criterion. International Journal of Market Research, 63(5), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320949844
21.
MartinK. D.,ScottM. L. (2021). A strategic vision for rigor, relevance, and inclusivity. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 40(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620928090
MounceyP. (2014). When detecting significant differences may not be enough. International Journal of Market Research, 56(5), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2014-038
24.
NunanD. (2020). Research priorities for data, market research, and insights. International Journal of Market Research, 62(2), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785321998463
25.
OlejnikS.,AlginaJ. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 241–286. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1040
26.
OlejnikS.,AlginaJ. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
SchmidtF. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.115
29.
SchmidtF. L.,HunterJ. E. (1997). Eight objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In HarlowLMulaikSASteigerJH (Eds), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37–64). Erlbaum.
30.
TarkaP. (2018). The views and perceptions of managers on the role of marketing research in decision making. International Journal of Market Research, 60(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785317744854
31.
TrafimowD. (2003). Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes’s theorem. Psychological Review, 110(3), 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.526
32.
TrafimowD. (2019a). A frequentist alternative to significance testing, p-values, and confidence intervals. Econometrics, MDPI, 7(2), 1–14. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/7/2/26
33.
TrafimowD. (2019b). A taxonomy of model assumptions on which P is based and implications for added benefit in the sciences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(6), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1610592
34.
TrafimowD.WangT.,WangC. (2019). From a sampling precision perspective, skewness is a friend and not an enemy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418764801
ValentineJ. C.AloeA. M.,LauT. S. (2015). Life after NHST: How to describe your data without “p-ing” everywhere. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1060240
37.
VaradarajanP. R. (2003). Musings on relevance and rigor of scholarly research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 368–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303258240
38.
WoodsideA. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021
39.
WoodsideA. G. (2016). The good practices manifesto: Overcoming bad practices pervasive in current research in business. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.008
40.
WoodsideA. G. (2019). Accurate case-outcome modeling in economics, psychology, and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 36(11), 1046–1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21255
41.
YeR.WangT. (2015). Inferences in linear mixed models with skew-normal random effects. Acta Mathematica Sinica, 31(4), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10114-015-3326-5
42.
ZiliakS. T.,McCloskeyD. N. (2016). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press.
