Religious priming’s apparent prejudice effect exists only in published studies.

Evidence

It was important to test whether the classification of studies as published (k = 26) or unpublished (k = 18) influenced the overall priming effect. This moderation was significant, b = .07, [.04, .11], p < .001, and power to detect this moderating effect was >.95. A simple effects analysis shows that the religious priming effect was significant for published studies, b = . (.06, .12), p < .001, but not for unpublished studies, b = .02, (−.01, .04), p = .208. This raises a question about whether religious priming produces an actual effect. One concern is that evidence of publication bias might indicate the occurrence of data mining in the literature. — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 41

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s meta-analysis question on divergence between behavioral and self-report prejudice measures — publication bias here is a candidate mechanism for why priming effects appear strong in journals but disappear in file-drawer studies. — connects to: Publication bias is unlikely to fully explain the religious priming effect. — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 88; Religious priming effects appear only in published, not unpublished, studies — Alexandra Snell, Miron Zuckerman, and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 41
• QUESTION: Whose 26/18 split and are all the unpublished studies registered preprints, or file-drawer rejections? The direction (published-only) is the classic thin-file-drawer signature.
• SEED: The ‘published-only effect’ framing could anchor an article on how peer review itself manufactures consensus in social priming research.

Related

• Religious priming effects appear only in published, not unpublished, studies (similarity 0.94)
• The publication effect on priming prejudice results vanishes once confounding moderators are controlled (similarity 0.90)
• Publication bias is unlikely to fully explain the religious priming effect. (similarity 0.90)
• Publication-status differences in priming effects disappear once correlated design variables are controlled. (similarity 0.87)
• Religious priming produces real but small and sometimes unreliable effects (similarity 0.84)
• Religious priming method does not meaningfully alter prejudice outcomes (similarity 0.83)
• Comparing published and unpublished studies tests whether reporting bias inflates effects. (similarity 0.81)
• Type of religious prime may not moderate prejudice outcomes (similarity 0.81)
• A small religious-priming prejudice effect can still matter cumulatively when widespread. (similarity 0.80)
• The file drawer would need 558 null studies to overturn the priming effect. (similarity 0.79)
• Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le — Does Religious Priming Induce Greater Prejudice? A Meta-Analytic Review (similarity 0.78)
• Religious priming increases prejudice more outside the United States than within it. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Publication bias is unlikely to fully explain the religious priming effect. #contradicts (0.90) — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 88