Group esteem threat effects may reflect publication bias

Evidence

Fail-safe analyses for each threat type were run using Orwin’s (1983) approach to determine the number offindings with effect sizes ofzero that wouldbe necessary to reduce each threat-attitude relationship to a negligible effect size (r = .05). Four of these relationships met the criteria setby Hedges and 01kin (1985), with the fail-safeNbeing larger than 5 times the number of studies in each meta-analysis plus 10. Group esteem threat did not meet this criterion and although this is likely due to the relatively small number of samples available (k = 1 1) this suggests a potential publication bias. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 94

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Mixed-effects meta-analytic models trade precision for fewer false positives — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 79; Experimentally manipulated realistic threat shows far weaker attitude effects than measured threat — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 119; Publication bias inflates the apparent effectiveness of prejudice-reduction programs — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2670

Related

• Experimentally manipulated realistic threat shows far weaker attitude effects than measured threat (similarity 0.85)
• Mixed-effects meta-analytic models trade precision for fewer false positives (similarity 0.85)
• Publication bias inflates the apparent effectiveness of prejudice-reduction programs (similarity 0.84)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.83)
• Anxiety–prejudice links vanish when measured as intergroup bias difference scores. (similarity 0.82)
• Equal-status group threat effects remain unexplored (similarity 0.82)
• Group esteem threats may combine multiplicatively with realistic threats. (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.81)
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. (similarity 0.81)
• Comparing published and unpublished studies tests whether reporting bias inflates effects. (similarity 0.80)
• Publication bias inflates apparent effectiveness of intergroup programs (similarity 0.80)
• Positive stereotypes may also induce perceived threat (similarity 0.80)
• Group status moderates threat-attitude relationships (similarity 0.80)
• Threat effects on attitudes are stronger for low-status than high-status outgroups (similarity 0.79)
• Group esteem threat research omits stereotype and identification measures (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Publication bias inflates the apparent effectiveness of prejudice-reduction programs #expands (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2670