Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Business and Management Studies, Faculty of Management, Gulf College, Muscat, Oman
2
Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
3
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
10.22067/ijaaf.2026.48223.1647
Abstract
This study applied the Magnitude Mind Model (MMM) to evaluate the quality of cross-sectional financial stress literature beyond traditional methodological checklists. The MMM integrates magnitude thinking (SICHA: Scale, Impact, Complexity, Holism, Accuracy) with measures of intellectual humility (acknowledging uncertainty, context, and specific limitations) and hubris (simple causal claims, overgeneralization, false certainty). Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we consecutively selected the first 20 open-access English-language, Scopus Q1/Q2-indexed cross-sectional studies on financial stress published between 2015 and 2025 from a pool of 670 records. Two independent raters scored each paper on the 11 MMM sub-items, achieving excellent inter-rater reliability. Results suggested that, within this exploratory sample, only 10% of papers attained a high Magnitude Mind score, whereas 45% scored low. Hubris was the strongest correlate of MM scores in exploratory analyses. Low-MM papers frequently used causal language such as "causes" and "impacts" from cross-sectional data, overgeneralized findings from convenience samples, and presented generic limitation statements. Holism was the weakest SICHA sub-item, with 50% of papers scoring low. Analytical methods did not guarantee epistemic quality; two methodologically complex papers scored low due to extreme hubris. Temporal analysis revealed no significant improvement from 2015 to 2025. Within this sample, 45% of papers were classified as Low MM. The MMM may offer a potentially useful diagnostic and prescriptive tool for researchers, reviewers, and editors to promote more rigorous, humble, and credible science.
Keywords
Subjects