Publication bias is unlikely to fully explain the religious priming effect.

Evidence

First, the results of a p-curve analysis suggest that the set of studies in the meta-analysis have evidential value. This addresses the concern that the effect emerged because of data mining (Simonsohn et al., 2014). Second, we found there must be an additional 558 unpublished studies with null results that, if added to the sample of studies we analyzed, will produce an overall nonsignificant priming effect. We believe it is not likely that so many studies exist. — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 88

Categorization

• QUESTION: The 558-study threshold for overturning the effect is a striking number — worth holding onto as a concrete figure for how much hidden null data would be needed to erase a priming effect.
• XREF: connects to: Religious priming’s apparent prejudice effect exists only in published studies. — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 41; Religious priming produces real but small and sometimes unreliable effects — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 95; Nonconscious religious primes reliably affect believers but only inconsistently affect atheists. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 179 (+3 more)

Related

• Religious priming effects appear only in published, not unpublished, studies (similarity 0.92)
• Religious priming’s apparent prejudice effect exists only in published studies. (similarity 0.90)
• Religious priming produces real but small and sometimes unreliable effects (similarity 0.89)
• The publication effect on priming prejudice results vanishes once confounding moderators are controlled (similarity 0.85)
• Publication-status differences in priming effects disappear once correlated design variables are controlled. (similarity 0.85)
• Type of religious prime may not moderate prejudice outcomes (similarity 0.85)
• Religious priming method does not meaningfully alter prejudice outcomes (similarity 0.83)
• A small religious-priming prejudice effect can still matter cumulatively when widespread. (similarity 0.83)
• The file drawer would need 558 null studies to overturn the priming effect. (similarity 0.82)
• Correlational meta-analyses cannot establish causal links between religion and prejudice. (similarity 0.82)
• Religious priming causally increases prejudice toward LGBT people and atheists (similarity 0.81)
• Meta-analyses overestimate effect sizes because null results go unpublished. (similarity 0.81)
• Religious priming boosts prosocial behavior only for believers, not non-believers. (similarity 0.81)
• A small priming effect can still matter if widely applied over time (similarity 0.81)
• Trim-and-fill and funnel graph methods tend to overestimate publication bias. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Religious priming produces real but small and sometimes unreliable effects #qualifies (0.85) — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 95
• Trim-and-fill and funnel graph methods tend to overestimate publication bias. #corroborates (0.85) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 48
• Nonconscious religious primes reliably affect believers but only inconsistently affect atheists. #corroborates (0.80) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 179
• Implicit religious priming only affects believers, not committed atheists #corroborates (0.80)