Has the evidence for moral licensing been inflated by publication bias?
[ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at the journal's own open-access record; full text not read] Kuper, N., & Bott, A. (2019). 'Has the evidence for moral licensing been inflated by publication bias?' Meta-Psychology, 3. doi:10.15626/MP.2018.878. The sceptical pole, peer-reviewed and open. In their words: previous meta-analyses indicate overall effects of d greater than .30, 'However, several large replication studies have either not found the effect or reported a substantially smaller effect size.' Using PET-PEESE and a three-parameter selection model on the larger of two existing meta-analytic datasets they found some evidence for publication bias and 'The adjusted effect sizes were reduced to d = -0.05, p = .64 and d = 0.18, p = .002, respectively.' Their own hedge, which travels with the figures: 'While the first estimate could be an underestimation, we also found indications that the second estimate might exaggerate the true effect size.' Conclusion: 'both the evidence for and the size of moral licensing effects has likely been inflated by publication bias.' They also report that culture moderates the effect and recommend that subsequent studies be adequately powered and ideally pre-registered. Carry both adjusted figures or neither.
[ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at the journal's own open-access record; full text not read] Kuper, N., & Bott, A. (2019). 'Has the evidence for moral licensing been inflated by publication bias?' Meta-Psychology, 3. doi:10.15626/MP.2018.878. The sceptical pole, peer-reviewed and open. In their words: previous meta-analyses indicate overall effects of d greater than .30, 'However, several large replication studies have either not found the effect or reported a substantially smaller effect size.' Using PET-PEESE and a three-parameter selection model on the larger of two existing meta-analytic datasets they found some evidence for publication bias and 'The adjusted effect sizes were reduced to d = -0.05, p = .64 and d = 0.18, p = .002, respectively.' Their own hedge, which travels with the figures: 'While the first estimate could be an underestimation, we also found indications that the second estimate might exaggerate the true effect size.' Conclusion: 'both the evidence for and the size of moral licensing effects has likely been inflated by publication bias.' They also report that culture moderates the effect and recommend that subsequent studies be adequately powered and ideally pre-registered. Carry both adjusted figures or neither.
Written from the aBSTRACT READ IN FULL at the journal's own open-access record; full text not read.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Kuper, N., & Bott, A. (2019). Has the evidence for moral licensing been inflated by publication bias? Meta-Psychology, 3. doi:10.15626/MP.2018.878