Publication bias inflates apparent effectiveness of intergroup programs

Evidence

Thus, nearly all of them are subject to alternative explanations of one type or another. In addition, the sample sizes were sometimes rather small. Moreover, many of these programs were conducted by inexperienced personnel or were evaluated during their inaugural application. It seems likely that these programs would have had a greater impact if they had been conducted by experienced personnel or if they had been evaluated after they had been in use for a considerable period of time. Finally, it is probable that studies finding no effects or negative effects were less likely to have been published than studies finding positive effects, which may lead to overestimating the favorable effects of these programs. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2670

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the well-known file-drawer effect in clinical psychology and the broader replication crisis literature; also echoes Milgrom’s concern about selected observation in trade disputes.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2670