The median split: Robust, refined, and revived

Dawn Iacobucci, Steven S. Posavac, Frank R. Kardes, Matthew J. Schneider, Deidre L. Popovich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

136 Scopus citations


In this rebuttal, we discuss the comments of Rucker, McShane, and Preacher (2015) and McClelland, Lynch, Irwin, Spiller, and Fitzsimons (2015). Both commentaries raise interesting points, and although both teams clearly put a lot of work into their papers, the bottom line is this: our research sets the record straight that median splits are perfectly acceptable to use when independent variables are uncorrelated. The commentaries do a good job of furthering the discussion to help readers better develop their own preferences, which was the purpose of our paper. In the final analysis, neither of the commentaries pose any threat to our findings of the statistical robustness and valid use of median splits, and accordingly we can reassure researchers (and reviewers and journal editors) that they can be confident that when independent variables are uncorrelated, it is totally acceptable to conduct median split analyses.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)690-704
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Consumer Psychology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015


  • Categorization
  • Dichotomization
  • Median split
  • Median-split


Dive into the research topics of 'The median split: Robust, refined, and revived'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this