The fail-safe index underestimates publication bias by assuming missing studies have no effect.

Evidence

It reveals how many missing studies that average no relationship between contact and prejudice (Z .00) would be required to raise the significance levels above the . or . level of confidence. But this focus is the index’s basic weakness. It assumes that the missing studies will average to no effect. Thus, the fail-safe index underestimates publication bias to the extent that the average of the missing studies runs counter to the hypothesis being tested. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 46

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains what fail-safe N measures and its core assumption.
• XREF: Relates to open-science and replication discussions in modern psychology methodology debates. — connects to: The intergroup contact-prejudice link survives file-drawer checks, indicating limited publication bias. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 104

Related

• The intergroup contact-prejudice link survives file-drawer checks, indicating limited publication bias. (similarity 0.89)
• Comparing published and unpublished studies tests whether reporting bias inflates effects. (similarity 0.81)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.81)
• The contact-prejudice effect may be partly an artifact of publication bias. (similarity 0.80)
• Meta-analyses overestimate effect sizes because null results go unpublished. (similarity 0.78)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.78)