Academic AbstractIn the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.Public AbstractRecently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably “detect” a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

中文翻译：

---

检测什么的能力？规划和评估样本量的注意事项

学术摘要在重复危机之后，社会和人格心理学家越来越关注功效分析和样本量的充足性。在本文中，我们分析了该领域当前的争议，包括选择效应大小、为什么以及是否应对已收集的数据进行功效分析、如何减轻样本量标准对特定类型研究的负面影响以及哪种功效使用标准。对于新颖的研究问题，考虑到基于兴趣的最小值的局限性，我们主张研究人员将样本量基于对其他人实施（在应用环境中）或研究（在基础研究环境中）可能具有成本效益的影响或全场效应大小。我们讨论了功效分析的两种替代方法，即精确分析和序贯分析，最后提出了改善社会人格心理学研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑实践的建议。 公共摘要最近，社会人格心理学因基于某些它对参与者人数较少的研究得出的结论。因此，功效分析（一种确保研究有足够的参与者来可靠地“检测”给定大小的心理效应的数学方法）变得流行起来。本文介绍了功效分析并讨论了一些有关它的争议，包括研究人员应如何得出有关效应大小的假设，以及如何在不损害对难以接触和边缘化社区的研究的情况下应用功效分析的要求。对于新颖的研究问题，我们主张研究人员根据对其他人实施（在应用环境中）或研究（在基础研究环境中）可能具有成本效益的影响来确定样本量。我们讨论了功效分析的两种替代方法：精确分析和序贯分析，最后提出了改进社会人格心理学研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑实践的建议。