Publication detail

According to a recent meta-analysis, religious priming has a positive effect on prosocial behavior (Shariff et al., 2015). We first argue that this meta-analysis suffers from a number of methodological shortcomings that limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the potential benefits of religious priming. Next we present a re-analysis of the religious priming data using two different meta-analytic techniques. A Precision-Effect Testing - Precision-Effect-Estimate with Standard Error (PET-PEESE) meta-analysis suggests that the effect of religious priming is driven solely by publication bias. In contrast, an analysis using Bayesian bias correction suggests the presence of a religious priming effect, even after controlling for publication bias. These contradictory statistical results demonstrate that meta-analytic techniques alone may not be sufficiently robust to firmly establish the presence or absence of an effect. We argue that a conclusive resolution of the debate about the effect of religious priming on prosocial behavior - and about theoretically disputed effects more generally - requires a large-scale, preregistered replication project, which we consider to be the sole remedy for the adverse effects of experimenter bias and publication bias.

@article{van_elk_etal:2015:replications,
    title   = {{M}eta-analyses are no substitute for registered replications: a skeptical perspective on religious priming},
    author  = {Van Elk, Michiel and Matzke, Dora and Gronau, Quentin and Guan, Maime and Vandekerckhove, Joachim and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan},
    year    = {2015},
    journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
    volume  = {6},
    pages   = {1365}
}