The publication effect on priming prejudice results vanishes once confounding moderators are controlled

Evidence

Since moderators of meta-analyses are not independent, we examined their interrelations. Inspection of the correlation matrix of study variables (see Table 4) showed that published studies were more likely to use self-reports, r =.49, (.20, .69), p = .002, less likely to use atheist or LGBT groups as targets, r = −.33, (−.57, −.04), p = .028, and more likely to be conducted outside the United States, r = .56, (.30, .74), p < .001. Therefore, we retested the effect of publication status, controlling for the three variables with which it was related. In this analysis, the difference between published and unpublished studies was no longer significant, b = . [−.03, .12], p = .28. — Alexandra Snell, Miron Zuckerman, and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 84

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s 44-study target: confirms that an apparent publication-status difference is better explained by correlated design features (self-reports, target type, location) than by genuine file-drawer bias — a key quality check for cross-category conclusions. — connects to: Publication-status differences in priming effects disappear once correlated design variables are controlled. — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 84; Group esteem threat effects may reflect publication bias — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 94

Broader Connections

• Publication-status differences in priming effects disappear once correlated design variables are controlled. #corroborates (0.97) — Annetta Snell and Miron Zuckerman and Bonnie M. Le, Does Religious Priming Induce Greater…, 84
• Group esteem threat effects may reflect publication bias #expands (0.78) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 94