Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects

Kvarven, Amanda; Strømland, Eirik; Johannesson, Magnus

doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z

Cited by 248 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

298

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(4) There was little indication of publication bias across meta-analyses. Nonetheless, effect sizes need to be interpreted in light of evidence that meta-analyses produce almost three-times larger effects than preregistered replication studies (Kvarven, Strømland, & Johannesson, 2019).…”

Section: Evidence On the Association Between Cmc And Mhmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review

Meier¹,

Reinecke²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), and specifically social media, may affect the mental health (MH) and well-being of its users, for good or bad. Research on this topic has accumulated rapidly, accompanied by controversial public debate and numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Yet, a higher-level integration of the various disparate conceptual and operational approaches to CMC and MH and individual review findings is desperately needed. To this end, we first develop two organizing frameworks that systematize conceptual and operational approaches to CMC and MH. Based on these frameworks, we integrate the literature through a meta-review of 34 reviews and a content analysis of 594 publications. Meta-analytic evidence, overall, suggests a small negative association between social media use and MH. However, effects are complex and depend on the CMC and MH indicators investigated. Based on our conceptual review and the evidence synthesis, we devise an agenda for future research in this interdisciplinary field.

show abstract

Section: Evidence On the Association Between Cmc And Mhmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review

Meier¹,

Reinecke²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that in the presence of selective publication and reporting biases, meta-analytic averages can overestimate, sometimes grossly, the true mean effect (Kvarven, Strømland, & Johannesson, 2019;Vosgerau, Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2019). Thus the average effect of d = 0.19 should probably be seen as an optimistic estimate.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Incidental Environmental Anchors Bias Consumers’ Price Estimations?

Shanks

Barbieri-Hermitte

Vadillo

2020

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-established that decision makers bias their estimates of unknown quantities in the direction of a salient numerical anchor. Some standard anchoring paradigms have been shown to yield pervasive biases, such as Tversky and Kahneman's (1974) classic 2-step task which includes a comparative question followed by an estimation question. In contrast there is much less evidence for the claim that incidental environmental anchors can produce assimilative effects on judgments, such as the amount people are willing to pay for a meal being greater at a restaurant called Studio 97 compared to one called Studio 17. Three studies are reported in which the basic incidental environmental anchoring method of Critcher and Gilovich (2008) is employed to measure consumer price estimations. No statistically significant evidence of incidental anchoring was obtained. In contrast, robust standard anchoring effects were found. The results suggest that anchoring is limited to situations which require explicit thinking about the anchor.

show abstract

“…However, as discussed earlier, this is bad for the field as a whole as it results in a multitude of underpowered and therefore non-replicable studies in the literature. This is not conducive to progress in the field, and it is a mistake to think that the limitations of small-sample individual studies and publication bias can be corrected post-hoc via meta-analysis (see Kvarven et al, 2019). The focus on quantity over quality is also a false economy for researchers interested in career-boosting metrics.…”

Section: Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Rigorous Methods in a Growing Research Field: Five Practices for ASMR Researchers

Hostler¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rigorous field of research is constructed on reproducible findings that allow researchers to confidently construct hypotheses and build theories from accessible literature. As a nascent area of research, the study of Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) has the opportunity to become such a field through the adoption of transparent and open research practices. In this paper I outline five such practices that can help achieve this aim: Preregistration, sharing data and code, sharing materials, posting preprints, and collaboration. Failing to adopt such principles could allow the proliferation of findings that are irreproducible and delay the progress of the field.

show abstract

Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects

Cited by 248 publications

References 87 publications

Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review

Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review

Do Incidental Environmental Anchors Bias Consumers’ Price Estimations?

The Importance of Rigorous Methods in a Growing Research Field: Five Practices for ASMR Researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About