Title |
Meta-analyses are no substitute for registered replications: a skeptical perspective on religious priming
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01365 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Michiel van Elk, Dora Matzke, Quentin F. Gronau, Maime Guan, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers |
Abstract |
According to a recent meta-analysis, religious priming has a positive effect on prosocial behavior (Shariff et al., 2015). We first argue that this meta-analysis suffers from a number of methodological shortcomings that limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the potential benefits of religious priming. Next we present a re-analysis of the religious priming data using two different meta-analytic techniques. A Precision-Effect Testing-Precision-Effect-Estimate with Standard Error (PET-PEESE) meta-analysis suggests that the effect of religious priming is driven solely by publication bias. In contrast, an analysis using Bayesian bias correction suggests the presence of a religious priming effect, even after controlling for publication bias. These contradictory statistical results demonstrate that meta-analytic techniques alone may not be sufficiently robust to firmly establish the presence or absence of an effect. We argue that a conclusive resolution of the debate about the effect of religious priming on prosocial behavior - and about theoretically disputed effects more generally - requires a large-scale, preregistered replication project, which we consider to be the sole remedy for the adverse effects of experimenter bias and publication bias. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 11 | 13% |
United States | 9 | 11% |
Germany | 5 | 6% |
Japan | 5 | 6% |
Netherlands | 3 | 4% |
Canada | 3 | 4% |
Spain | 2 | 2% |
Australia | 2 | 2% |
Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
Other | 6 | 7% |
Unknown | 35 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 48 | 58% |
Scientists | 24 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 10% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Singapore | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 167 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 23% |
Student > Master | 29 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
Researcher | 17 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
Other | 38 | 22% |
Unknown | 18 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 107 | 61% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 3% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
Other | 20 | 11% |
Unknown | 30 | 17% |