To add some specifics to my earlier comment, if we look at the confidence intervals for the effect sizes in terms of cohen’s d (visualizer), we see that:
The effect size for conscientiousness for men age 21-30, was 0.182 (0.0979 to 0.266). So between an almost 0 effect size and a smallish one.
The confidence intervals for effect size for neuroticism for men aged 21-30 was 0.388 (0.255 to 0.421). So a small to medium effect size.
The confidence intervals for effect size for neuroticism for men aged 31-40 was 0.366 (0.231 to 0.500). So between a small and medium effect size.
Interpreting effect sizes is, of course, not straightforward. The conventional standards are somewhat arbitrary, and it’s quite widely agreed that the classic cohen’s d benchmarks for small/medium/large effect sizes are quite conservative (the average effect size in psychology is no more than d=0.3). This empirically generated set of benchmarks (if you convert r into d), would suggest that around 0.2 is small and 0.4 is medium. But whether a particular effect size is practically meaningful varies depending on the context. For example, a small effect may make very little difference at the individual level, but make large differences at the aggregate level / in the long-run.
To add some specifics to my earlier comment, if we look at the confidence intervals for the effect sizes in terms of cohen’s d (visualizer), we see that:
The effect size for conscientiousness for men age 21-30, was 0.182 (0.0979 to 0.266). So between an almost 0 effect size and a smallish one.
The confidence intervals for effect size for neuroticism for men aged 21-30 was 0.388 (0.255 to 0.421). So a small to medium effect size.
The confidence intervals for effect size for neuroticism for men aged 31-40 was 0.366 (0.231 to 0.500). So between a small and medium effect size.
Interpreting effect sizes is, of course, not straightforward. The conventional standards are somewhat arbitrary, and it’s quite widely agreed that the classic cohen’s d benchmarks for small/medium/large effect sizes are quite conservative (the average effect size in psychology is no more than d=0.3). This empirically generated set of benchmarks (if you convert r into d), would suggest that around 0.2 is small and 0.4 is medium. But whether a particular effect size is practically meaningful varies depending on the context. For example, a small effect may make very little difference at the individual level, but make large differences at the aggregate level / in the long-run.