Category Archives: Publication Bias

The Replicability Index Is the Most Powerful Tool to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-Analyses


Methods for the detection of publication bias in meta-analyses were first introduced in the 1980s (Light & Pillemer, 1984). However, existing methods tend to have low statistical power to detect bias, especially when population effect sizes are heterogeneous (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). Here I show that the Replicability Index (RI) is a powerful method to detect selection for significance while controlling the type-I error risk better than the Test of Excessive Significance (TES). Unlike funnel plots and other regression methods, RI can be used without variation in sampling error across studies. Thus, it should be a default method to examine whether effect size estimates in a meta-analysis are inflated by selection for significance. However, the RI should not be used to correct effect size estimates. A significant results merely indicates that traditional effect size estimates are inflated by selection for significance or other questionable research practices that inflate the percentage of significant results.

Evaluating the Power and Type-I Error Rate of Bias Detection Methods

Just before the end of the year, and decade, Frank Renkewitz and Melanie Keiner published an important article that evaluated the performance of six bias detection methods in meta-analyses (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019).

The article makes several important points.

1. Bias can distort effect size estimates in meta-analyses, but the amount of bias is sometimes trivial. Thus, bias detection is most important in conditions where effect sizes are inflated to a notable degree (say more than one-tenth of a standard deviation, e.g., from d = .2 to d = .3).

2. Several bias detection tools work well when studies are homogeneous (i.e. ,the population effect sizes are very similar). However, bias detection is more difficult when effect sizes are heterogeneous.

3. The most promising tool for heterogeneous data was the Test of Excessive Significance (Francis, 2013; Ioannidis, & Trikalinos, 2013). However, simulations without bias showed that the higher power of TES was achieved by a higher false-positive rate that exceeded the nominal level. The reason is that TES relies on the assumption that all studies have the same population effect size and this assumption is violated when population effect sizes are heterogeneous.

This blog post examines two new methods to detect publication bias and compares them to the TES and the Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA) that performed well when effect sizes were homogeneous (Renkewitz & Keiner , 2019). These methods are not entirely new. One method is the Incredibility Index, which is similar to TES (Schimmack, 2012). The second method is the Replicability Index, which corrects estimates of observed power for inflation when bias is present.

The Basic Logic of Power-Based Bias Tests

The mathematical foundations for bias tests based on statistical power were introduced by Sterling et al. (1995). Statistical power is defined as the conditional probability of obtaining a significant result when the null-hypothesis is false. When the null-hypothesis is true, the probability of obtaining a significant result is set by the criterion for a type-I error, alpha. To simplify, we can treat cases where the null-hypothesis is true as the boundary value for power (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019). I call this unconditional power. Sterling et al. (1995) pointed out that for studies with heterogeneity in sample sizes, effect sizes or both, the discoery rate; that is the percentage of significant results, is predicted by the mean unconditional power of studies. This insight makes it possible to detect bias by comparing the observed discovery rate (the percentage of significant results) to the expected discovery rate based on the unconditional power of studies. The empirical challenge is to obtain useful estimates of unconditional mean power, which depends on the unknown population effect sizes.

Ioannidis and Trialinos (2007) were the first to propose a bias test that relied on a comparison of expected and observed discovery rates. The method is called Test of Excessive Significance (TES). They proposed a conventional meta-analysis of effect sizes to obtain an estimate of the population effect size, and then to use this effect size and information about sample sizes to compute power of individual studies. The final step was to compare the expected discovery rate (e.g., 5 out of 10 studies) with the observed discovery rate (8 out of 10 studies) with a chi-square test and to test the null-hypothesis of no bias with alpha = .10. They did point out that TES is biased when effect sizes are heterogeneous (see Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019, for a detailed discussion).

Schimmack (2012) proposed an alternative approach that does not assume a fixed effect sizes across studies, called the incredibility index. The first step is to compute observed-power for each study. The second step is to compute the average of these observed power estimates. This average effect size is then used as an estimate of the mean unconditional power. The final step is to compute the binomial probability of obtaining as many or more significant results that were observed for the estimated unconditional power. Schimmack (2012) showed that this approach avoids some of the problems of TES when effect sizes are heterogeneous. Thus, it is likely that the Incredibility Index produces fewer false positives than TES.

Like TES, the incredibility index has low power to detect bias because bias inflates observed power. Thus, the expected discovery rate is inflated, which makes it a conservative test of bias. Schimmack (2016) proposed a solution to this problem. As the inflation in the expected discovery rate is correlated with the amount of bias, the discrepancy between the observed and expected discovery rate indexes inflation. Thus, it is possible to correct the estimated discovery rate by the amount of observed inflation. For example, if the expected discovery rate is 70% and the observed discovery rate is 90%, the inflation is 20 percentage points. This inflation can be deducted from the expected discovery rate to get a less biased estimate of the unconditional mean power. In this example, this would be 70% – 20% = 50%. This inflation-adjusted estimate is called the Replicability Index. Although the Replicability Index risks a higher type-I error rate than the Incredibility Index, it may be more powerful and have a better type-I error control than TES.

To test these hypotheses, I conducted some simulation studies that compared the performance of four bias detection methods. The Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA; Schimmack, 2015) was included because it has good power with homogeneous data (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). The other three tests were TES, ICI, and RI.

Selection bias was simulated with probabilities of 0, .1, .2, and 1. A selection probability of 0 implies that non-significant results are never published. A selection probability of .1 implies that there is a 10% chance that a non-significant result is published when it is observed. Finally, a selection probability of 1 implies that there is no bias and all non-significant results are published.

Effect sizes varied from 0 to .6. Heterogeneity was simulated with a normal distribution with SDs ranging from 0 to .6. Sample sizes were simulated by drawing from a uniform distribution with values between 20 and 40, 100, and 200 as maximum. The number of studies in a meta-analysis were 5, 10, 20, and 30. The focus was on small sets of studies because power to detect bias increases with the number of studies and power was often close to 100% with k = 30.

Each condition was simulated 100 times and the percentage of significant results with alpha = .10 (one-tailed) was used to compute power and type-I error rates.



Figure 1 shows a plot of the mean observed d-scores as a function of the mean population d-scores. In situations without heterogeneity, mean population d-scores corresponded to the simulated values of d = 0 to d = .6. However, with heterogeneity, mean population d-scores varied due to sampling from the normal distribution of population effect sizes.

The figure shows that bias could be negative or positive, but that overestimation is much more common than underestimation.  Underestimation was most likely when the population effect size was 0, there was no variability (SD = 0), and there was no selection for significance.  With complete selection for significance, bias always overestimated population effect sizes, because selection was simulated to be one-sided. The reason is that meta-analysis rarely show many significant results in both directions.  

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with number of studies (k), mean population effect size (mpd), heterogeneity of population effect sizes (SD), range of sample sizes (Nmax) and selection bias (sel.bias) showed a four-way interaction, t = 3.70.   This four-way interaction qualified main effects that showed bias decreases with effect sizes (d), heterogeneity (SD), range of sample sizes (N), and increased with severity of selection bias (sel.bias).  

The effect of selection bias is obvious in that effect size estimates are unbiased when there is no selection bias and increases with severity of selection bias.  Figure 2 illustrates the three way interaction for the remaining factors with the most extreme selection bias; that is, all non-significant results are suppressed. 

The most dramatic inflation of effect sizes occurs when sample sizes are small (N = 20-40), the mean population effect size is zero, and there is no heterogeneity (light blue bars). This condition simulates a meta-analysis where the null-hypothesis is true. Inflation is reduced, but still considerable (d = .42), when the population effect is large (d = .6). Heterogeneity reduces bias because it increases the mean population effect size. However, even with d = .6 and heterogeneity, small samples continue to produce inflated estimates by d = .25 (dark red). Increasing sample sizes (N = 20 to 200) reduces inflation considerably. With d = 0 and SD = 0, inflation is still considerable, d = .52, but all other conditions have negligible amounts of inflation, d < .10.

As sample sizes are known, they provide some valuable information about the presence of bias in a meta-analysis. If studies with large samples are available, it is reasonable to limit a meta-analysis to the larger and more trustworthy studies (Stanley, Jarrell, & Doucouliagos, 2010).

Discovery Rates

If all results are published, there is no selection bias and effect size estimates are unbiased. When studies are selected for significance, the amount of bias is a function of the amount of studies with non-significant results that are suppressed. When all non-significant results are suppressed, the amount of selection bias depends on the mean power of the studies before selection for significance which is reflected in the discovery rate (i.e., the percentage of studies with significant results). Figure 3 shows the discovery rates for the same conditions that were used in Figure 2. The lowest discovery rate exists when the null-hypothesis is true. In this case, only 2.5% of studies produce significant results that are published. The percentage is 2.5% and not 5% because selection also takes the direction of the effect into account. Smaller sample sizes (left side) have lower discovery rates than larger sample sizes (right side) because larger samples have more power to produce significant results. In addition, studies with larger effect sizes have higher discovery rates than studies with small effect sizes because larger effect sizes increase power. In addition, more variability in effect sizes increases power because variability increases the mean population effect sizes, which also increases power.

In conclusion, the amount of selection bias and the amount of inflation of effect sizes varies across conditions as a function of effect sizes, sample sizes, heterogeneity, and the severity of selection bias. The factorial design covers a wide range of conditions. A good bias detection method should have high power to detect bias across all conditions with selection bias and low type-I error rates across conditions without selection bias.

Overall Performance of Bias Detection Methods

Figure 4 shows the overall results for 235,200 simulations across a wide range of conditions. The results replicate Renkewitz and Keiner’s finding that TES produces more type-I errors than the other methods, although the average rate of type-I errors is below the nominal level of alpha = .10. The error rate of the incredibility index is practically zero, indicating that it is much more conservative than TES. The improvement for type-I errors does not come at the cost of lower power. TES and ICI have the same level of power. This finding shows that computing observed power for each individual study is superior than assuming a fixed effect size across studies. More important, the best performing method is the Replicability Index (RI), which has considerably more power because it corrects for inflation in observed power that is introduced by selection for significance. This is a promising results because one of the limitation of the bias tests examined by Renkewitz and Keiner was the low power to detect selection bias across a wide range of realistic scenarios.

Logistic regression analyses for power showed significant five-way interactions for TES, IC, and RI. For TIVA, two four-way interactions were significant. For type-I error rates no four-way interactions were significant, but at least one three-way interaction was significant. These results show that results systematic vary in a rather complex manner across the simulated conditions. The following results show the performance of the four methods in specific conditions.

Number of Studies (k)

Detection of bias is a function of the amount of bias and the number of studies. With small sets of studies (k = 5), it is difficult to detect power. In addition, low power can suppress false-positive rates because significant results without selection bias are even less likely than significant results with selection bias. Thus, it is important to examine the influence of the number of studies on power and false positive rates.

Figure 5 shows the results for power. TIVA does not gain much power with increasing sample sizes. The other three methods clearly become more powerful as sample sizes increase. However, only the R-Index shows good power with twenty studies and still acceptable studies with just 10 studies. The R-Index with 10 studies is as powerful as TES and ICI with 10 studies.

Figure 6 shows the results for the type-I error rates. Most important, the high power of the R-Index is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates, which are still well-below the nominal level of .10. A comparison of TES and ICI shows that ICI controls type-I error much better than TES. TES even exceeds the nominal level of .10 with 30 studies and this problem is going to increase as the number of studies gets larger.

Selection Rate

Renkewitz and Keiner noticed that power decreases when there is a small probability that non-significant results are published. To simplify the results for the amount of selection bias, I focused on the condition with n = 30 studies, which gives all methods the maximum power to detect selection bias. Figure 7 confirms that power to detect bias deteriorates when non-significant results are published. However, the influence of selection rate varies across methods. TIVA is only useful when only significant results are selected, but even TES and ICI have only modest power even if the probability of a non-significant result to be published is only 10%. Only the R-Index still has good power, and power is still higher with a 20% chance to select a non-significant result than with a 10% selection rate for TES and ICI.

Population Mean Effect Size

With complete selection bias (no significant results), power had ceiling effects. Thus, I used k = 10 to illustrate the effect of population effect sizes on power and type-I error rates. (Figure 8)

In general, power decreased as the population mean effect sizes increased. The reason is that there is less selection because the discovery rates are higher. Power decreased quickly to unacceptable levels (< 50%) for all methods except the R-Index. The R-Index maintained good power even with the maximum effect size of d = .6.

Figure 9 shows that the good power of the R-Index is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates. The type-I error rate is well below the nominal level of .10. In contrast, TES exceeds the nominal level with d = .6.

Variability in Population Effect Sizes

I next examined the influence of heterogeneity in population effect sizes on power and type-I error rates. The results in Figure 10 show that hetergeneity decreases power for all methods. However, the effect is much less sever for the RI than for the other methods. Even with maximum heterogeneity, it has good power to detect publication bias.

Figure 11 shows that the high power of RI is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates. The only method with a high error-rate is TES with high heterogeneity.

Variability in Sample Sizes

With a wider range of sample sizes, average power increases. And with higher power, the discovery rate increases and there is less selection for significance. This reduces power to detect selection for significance. This trend is visible in Figure 12. Even with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 100, TIVA, TES, and IC have modest power to detect bias. However, RI maintains good levels of power even when sample sizes range from 20 to 200.

Once more, only TES shows problems with the type-I error rate when heterogeneity is high (Figure 13). Thus, the high power of RI is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates.

Stress Test

The following analyses examined RI’s performance more closely. The effect of selection bias is self-evident. As more non-significant results are available, power to detect bias decreases. However, bias also decreases. Thus, I focus on the unfortunately still realistic scenario that only significant results are published. I focus on the scenario with the most heterogeneity in sample sizes (N = 20 to 200) because it has the lowest power to detect bias. I picked the lowest and highest levels of population effect sizes and variability to illustrate the effect of these factors on power and type-I error rates. I present results for all four set sizes.

The results for power show that with only 5 studies, bias can only be detected with good power if the null-hypothesis is true. Heterogeneity or large effect sizes produce unacceptably low power. This means that the use of bias tests for small sets of studies is lopsided. Positive results strongly indicate severe bias, but negative results are inconclusive. With 10 studies, power is acceptable for homogeneous and high effect sizes as well as for heterogeneous and low effect sizes, but not for high effect sizes and high heterogeneity. With 20 or more studies, power is good for all scenarios.

The results for the type-I error rates reveal one scenario with dramatically inflated type-I error rates, namely meta-analysis with a large population effect size and no heterogeneity in population effect sizes.


The high type-I error rate is limited to cases with high power. In this case, the inflation correction over-corrects. A solution to this problem is found by considering the fact that inflation is a non-linear function of power. With unconditional power of .05, selection for significance inflates observed power to .50, a 10 fold increase. However, power of .50 is inflated to .75, which is only a 50% increase. Thus, I modified the R-Index formula and made inflation contingent on the observed discovery rate.

RI2 = Mean.Observed.Power – (Observed Discovery Rate – Mean.Observed.Power)*(1-Observed.Discovery.Rate). This version of the R-Index reduces power, although power is still superior to the IC.

It also fixed the type-I error problem at least with sample sizes up to N = 30.

Example 1: Bem (2011)

Bem’s (2011) sensational and deeply flawed article triggered the replication crisis and the search for bias-detection tools (Francis, 2012; Schimmack, 2012). Table 1 shows that all tests indicate that Bem used questionable research practices to produce significant results in 9 out of 10 tests. This is confirmed by examination of his original data (Schimmack, 2018). For example, for one study, Bem combined results from four smaller samples with non-significant results into one sample with a significant result. The results also show that both versions of the Replicability Index are more powerful than the other tests.


Example 2: Francis (2014) Audit of Psychological Science

Francis audited multiple-study articles in the journal Psychological Science from 2009-2012. The main problem with the focus on single articles is that they often contain relatively few studies and the simulation studies showed that bias tests tend to have low power if 5 or fewer studies are available (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). Nevertheless, Francis found that 82% of the investigated articles showed signs of bias, p < .10. This finding seems very high given the low power of TES in the simulation studies. It would mean that selection bias in these articles was very high and power of the studies was extremely low and homogeneous, which provides the ideal conditions to detect bias. However, the high type-I error rates of TES under some conditions may have produced more false positive results than the nominal level of .10 suggests. Moreover, Francis (2014) modified TES in ways that may have further increased the risk of false positives. Thus, it is interesting to reexamine the 44 studies with other bias tests. Unlike Francis, I coded one focal hypothesis test per study.

I then applied the bias detection methods. Table 2 shows the p-values.

2012Anderson, Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner0.1670.3880.1220.3870.1110.307
2012Bauer, Wilkie, Kim, & Bodenhausen0.0620.0040.0220.0880.0000.013
2012Birtel & Crisp0.1330.0700.0760.1930.0040.064
2012Converse & Fishbach0.1100.1300.1610.3190.0490.199
2012Converse, Risen, & Carter Karmic0.0430.0000.0220.0650.0000.010
2012Keysar, Hayakawa, &0.0910.1150.0670.1190.0030.043
2012Leung et al.0.0760.0470.0630.1190.0030.043
2012Rounding, Lee, Jacobson, & Ji0.0360.1580.0750.1520.0040.054
2012Savani & Rattan0.0640.0030.0280.0670.0000.017
2012van Boxtel & Koch0.0710.4960.7180.4980.2000.421
2011Evans, Horowitz, & Wolfe0.4260.9380.9860.6280.3790.606
2011Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky0.0260.0430.0610.1220.0030.045
2011Nordgren, Morris McDonnell, & Loewenstein0.0900.0260.1140.1960.0120.094
2011Savani, Stephens, & Markus0.0630.0270.0300.0800.0000.018
2011Todd, Hanko, Galinsky, & Mussweiler0.0430.0000.0240.0510.0000.005
2011Tuk, Trampe, & Warlop0.0920.0000.0280.0970.0000.017
2010Balcetis & Dunning0.0760.1130.0920.1260.0030.048
2010Bowles & Gelfand0.0570.5940.2080.2810.0430.183
2010Damisch, Stoberock, & Mussweiler0.0570.0000.0170.0730.0000.007
2010de Hevia & Spelke0.0700.3510.2100.3410.0620.224
2010Ersner-Hershfield, Galinsky, Kray, & King0.0730.0040.0050.0890.0000.013
2010Gao, McCarthy, & Scholl0.1150.1410.1890.3610.0410.195
2010Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky0.0240.0220.1130.0610.0010.021
2010Li, Wei, & Soman0.0790.0300.1370.2310.0220.129
2010Maddux et al.0.0140.3440.1000.1890.0100.087
2010McGraw & Warren0.0810.9930.3020.1480.0060.066
2010Sackett, Meyvis, Nelson, Converse, & Sackett0.0330.0020.0250.0480.0000.011
2010Savani, Markus, Naidu, Kumar, & Berlia0.0580.0110.0090.0620.0000.014
2010Senay, Albarracín, & Noguchi0.0900.0000.0170.0810.0000.010
2010West, Anderson, Bedwell, & Pratt0.1570.2230.2260.2870.0320.160
2009Alter & Oppenheimer0.0710.0000.0410.0530.0000.006
2009Ashton-James, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chartrand0.0350.1750.1330.2700.0250.142
2009Fast & Chen0.0720.0060.0360.0730.0000.014
2009Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky0.0690.0080.0420.1180.0010.030
2009Garcia & Tor0.0891.0000.4220.1900.0190.117
2009González & McLennan0.1390.0800.1940.3030.0550.208
2009Hahn, Close, & Graf0.3480.0680.2860.4740.1750.390
2009Hart & Albarracín0.0350.0010.0480.0930.0000.015
2009Janssen & Caramazza0.0830.0510.3100.3920.1150.313
2009Jostmann, Lakens, & Schubert0.0900.0000.0260.0980.0000.018
2009Labroo, Lambotte, & Zhang0.0080.0540.0710.1480.0030.051
2009Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt0.1000.0140.0510.1350.0020.041
2009Wakslak & Trope0.0610.0080.0290.0650.0000.010
2009Zhou, Vohs, & Baumeister0.0410.0090.0430.0970.0020.036

The Figure shows the percentage of significant results for the various methods. The results confirm that despite the small number of studies, the majority of multiple-study articles show significant evidence of bias. Although statistical significance does not speak directly to effect sizes, the fact that these tests were significant with a small set of studies implies that the amount of bias is large. This is also confirmed by a z-curve analysis that provides an estimate of the average bias across all studies (Schimmack, 2019).

A comparison of the methods shows with real data that the R-Index (RI1) is the most powerful method and even more powerful than Francis’s method that used multiple studies from a single study. The good performance of TIVA shows that population effect sizes are rather homogeneous as TIVA has low power with heterogeneous data. The Incredibility Index has the worst performance because it has an ultra-conservative type-I error rate. The most important finding is that the R-Index can be used with small sets of studies to demonstrate moderate to large bias.


In 2012, I introduced the Incredibility Index as a statistical tool to reveal selection bias; that is, the published results were selected for significance from a larger number of results. I compared the IC with TES and pointed out some advantages of averaging power rather than effect sizes. However, I did not present extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the two tests. In 2014, I introduced the replicability index to predict the outcome of replication studies. The replicability index corrects for the inflation of observed power when selection for significance is present. I did not think about RI as a bias test. However, Renkewitz and Keiner (2019) demonstrated that TES has low power and inflated type-I error rates. Here I examined whether IC performed better than TES and I found it did. Most important, it has much more conservative type-I error rates even with extreme heterogeneity. The reason is that selection for significance inflates observed power which is used to compute the expected percentage of significant results. This led me to see whether the bias correction that is used to compute the Replicability Index can boost power, while maintaining acceptable type-I error rates. The present results shows that this is the case for a wide range of scenarios. The only exception are meta-analysis of studies with a high population effect size and low heterogeneity in effect sizes. To avoid this problem, I created an alternative R-Index that reduces the inflation adjustment as a function of the percentage of non-significant results that are reported. I showed that the R-Index is a powerful tool that detects bias in Bem’s (2011) article and in a large number of multiple-study articles published in Psychological Science. In conclusion, the replicability index is the most powerful test for the presence of selection bias and it should be routinely used in meta-analyses to ensure that effect sizes estimates are not inflated by selective publishing of significant results. As the use of questionable practices is no longer acceptable, the R-Index can be used by editors to triage manuscripts with questionable results or to ask for a new, pre-registered, well-powered additional study. The R-Index can also be used in tenure and promotion evaluations to reward researchers that publish credible results that are likely to replicate.


Francis, G. (2013). Replication, statistical consistency, and publication bias. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 57, 153–169.

Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials, 4, 245–253.

 R. J. Light; D. B. Pillemer (1984). Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Renkewitz, F., & Keiner, M. (2019). How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research
A Comparative Evaluation of Six Statistical Methods. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227, 261-279.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. doi:10.1037/a0029487

Schimmack, U. (2014, December 30). The test of insufficient variance (TIVA): A new tool for the detection of questionable research practices [Blog Post]. Retrieved from

Schimmack, U. (2016). A revised introduction to the R-Index. Retrieved

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49, 108–112.

Baby Einstein: The Numbers Do Not Add Up

A small literature suggests that babies can add and subtract. Wynn (1992) showed 5-month olds a Mickey Mouse doll, covered this toy, and placed another doll behind the cover to imply addition (1 + 1 = 2). A second group of infants saw two Mickey Mouse dolls, that were covered and then one Mickey Mouse was removed (2 – 1 = 1). When the cover was removed, either 1 or 2 Mickeys were visible. Infants looked longer at the incongruent display, suggesting that they expected 2 Mickeys in the addition scenario and one Mickey in the subtraction scenario.

Both studies produced just significant results; Study 1, t(30) = 2.078, p = .046 (two-tailed), Study 2 , t(14) = 1.795, p = .047 (one-tailed). Post-2011, these just significant results raise a red flag about the replicability of these results.

This study produced a small literature that was meta-analyzed by Christodoulou, Lac, and Moore (2017). The headline finding was that a random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant effect, d = .34, “suggesting that the phenomenon Wynn originally reported is reliable.”

The problem with effect-size meta-analysis is that effect sizes are inflated when published results are selected for significance. Christodoulou et al. (2017) examined the presence of publication bias using a variety of statistical tests that produced inconsistent results. The Incredibility Index showed that there were just as many significant results (k = 12) as one would predict based on median observed power (k = 11). Trim-and-fill suggested some bias, but the corrected effect size estimate would still be significant, d = .24. However, PEESE showed significant evidence of publication bias, and no significant effect after correcting for bias.

Christodoulou et al. (2017) dismiss the results obtained with PEESE that would suggest the findings are not robust.

For instance, the PET-PEESE has been criticized on grounds that it severely penalizes samples with a small N (Cunningham & Baumeister, 2016), is inappropriate for syntheses involving a limited number of studies (Cunningham & Baumeister, 2016), is sometimes inferior in performance compared to estimation methods that do not correct for publication bias (Reed, Florax, & Poot, 2015), and is premised on acceptance of the assumption that large sample sizes confer unbiased effect size estimates (Inzlicht, Gervais, & Berkman, 2015). Each of the other four tests used have been criticized on various grounds as well (e.g., Cunningham & Baumeister, 2016)

These arguments are not very convincing. Studies with larger samples produce more robust results than studies with smaller samples. Thus, placing a greater emphasizes on larger samples is justified by the smaller sampling error in these studies. In fact, random effects meta-analysis gives too much weight to small samples. It is also noteworthy that Baumeister and Inzlicht are not unbiased statisticians. Their work has been criticized as unreliable using PEESE and their responses are at least partially motivated by defending their work.

I will demonstrate that the PEETSE results are credible and that the other methods failed to reveal publication bias because effect-size meta-analyses fail to reveal the selection bias in original articles. For example, Wynn’s (1992) seminal finding was only significant with a one-sided test. However, the meta-analysis used a two-sided p-value of .055, which was coded as a non-significant result. This is a coding mistake because the result was used to reject the null-hypothesis with a different alpha level. A follow-up study by McCrink and Wynn (2004) reported a significant interaction effect with opposite effects for addition and subtraction, p = .016. However, the meta-analysis coded addition and subtraction separately, which produced one significant, p = .01, and one non-significant result, p = .504. The coding by subgroups is common in meta-analysis to conduct moderator analyses. However, this practices mutes the selection bias, which makes it more difficult to detect selection bias. Thus, bias tests need to be applied to the focal tests that supported authors’ main conclusions.

I recoded all 12 articles that reported 14 independent tests of the hypothesis that babies can add and subtract. I found only two articles that reported a failure to reject the null-hypothesis. Wakeley,Rivera, and Langer’s (2000) article is a rare example of an article in a major journal that reported a series of failed replication studies before 2011. “Unlike Wynn, we found no systematic evidence of either imprecise or precise adding and subtracting in young infants” (p. 1525). Moore and Cocas (2006) published two studies. Study 2 reported a non-significant result with an effect in the opposite direction. They clearly stated that this result failed to replicate Wynn’s results. “This test failed to reveal a reliable difference between the two groups’ fixation preferences, t(87) = -1.31, p = .09” However, they continued to examine the data with an Analysis of Variance that produced a significant four-way interaction, F(1, 85) = 4.80, p = .031. If this result had been used as the focal test, there would be only 2 non-significant results. However, I coded the study as reporting a non-significant result. Thus, the success rate across 14 studies in 12 articles is 11/14 = 78.6%. Without Wakeley et al.’s exceptional report of replication failures, the success rate would have been 93%, which is the norm in psychology publications (Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995).

The mean observed power of the 14 studies was MOP = 57%. The binomial probabilty of obtaining 11 or more significant results in 14 studies with 57% power is p = .080. This shows significant bias with the typical alpha level of .10 for bias tests due to the low power of these tests in small samples.

I also developed a more powerful bias tests that corrects for the inflation in the estimate of observed mean power that is based on the replicability index (Schimmack, 2016). Simulation studies show that this method has higher power, while maintaining good type-I error rates. To correct for inflation, I subtract the difference between the success rate and observed mean power from the observed mean power (simulation studies show that the mean is superior to the median that was used in the 2016 manuscript). This yields a value of .57 – (.79 – .57) = .35. The binomial probability of obtaining 11 out of 14 significant results with just 35% power is p = .001. These results confirm the results obtained with PEESE that publication bias contributes to the evidence in favor of babies’ math abilities.

To examine the credibilty of the published literature, I submitted the 11 significant results to a z-curve analysis (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019). The z-curve analysis also confirms the presence of publication bias. Whereas the observed discovery rate is 79%, 95%CI = 57% to 100%, the expected discovery rate is only 6%, 95%CI = 5% to 31%. As the confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference is statistically significant. The expected replication rate is 15%. Thus, if the 11 studies could be replicated exactly only 2 rather than 11 are expected to be significant again. The 95%CI included a value of 5% which means that all studies could be false positives. This shows that the published studies do not provide empirical evidence to reject the null-hypothesis that babies cannot add or subtract.

Meta-analyses also have another drawback. They focus on results that are common across studies. However, subsequent studies are not mere replication studies. Several studies in this literature examined whether the effect is an artifact of the experimental procedure and showed that performance is altered by changing the experimental setup. These studies first replicate the original finding and then show that the effect can be attributed to other factors. Given the low power to replicate the effect, it is not clear how credible this evidence is. However, it does show that even if the effect were robust, it does not warrant the conclusion that infants can do math.


The problems with bias tests in standard meta-analysis are by no means unique to this article. It is well known that original articles publish nearly exclusively confirmatory evidence with success rates over 90%. However, meta-analyses often include a much larger number of non-significant results. This paradox is explained by the coding of original studies that produces non-significant results that were either not published or not the focus of an original article. This coding practices mutes the signal and makes it difficult to detect publication bias. This does not mean that the bias has disappeared. Thus, most published meta-analysis are useless because effect sizes are inflated to an unknown degree by selection for significance in the primary literature.

Statistics Wars: Don't change alpha. Change the null-hypothesis!

The statistics wars go back all the way to Fisher, Pearson, and Neyman-Pearson(Jr), and there is no end in sight. I have no illusion that I will be able to end these debates, but at least I can offer a fresh perspective. Lately, statisticians and empirical researchers like me who dabble in statistics have been debating whether p-values should be banned and if they are not banned outright whether they should be compared to a criterion value of .05 or .005 or be chosen on an individual basis. Others have advocated the use of Bayes-Factors.

However, most of these proposals have focused on the traditional approach to test the null-hypothesis that the effect size is zero. Cohen (1994) called this the nil-hypothesis to emphasize that this is only one of many ways to specify the hypothesis that is to be rejected in order to provide evidence for a hypothesis.

For example, a nil-hypothesis is that the difference in the average height of men and women is exactly zero). Many statisticians have pointed out that a precise null-hypothesis is often wrong a priori and that little information is provided by rejecting it. The only way to make nil-hypothesis testing meaningful is to think about the nil-hypothesis as a boundary value that distinguishes two opposing hypothesis. One hypothesis is that men are taller than women and the other is that women are taller than men. When data allow rejecting the nil-hypothesis, the direction of the mean difference in the sample makes it possible to reject one of the two directional hypotheses. That is, if the sample mean height of men is higher than the sample mean height of women, the hypothesis that women are taller than men can be rejected.

However, the use of the nil-hypothesis as a boundary value does not solve another problem of nil-hypothesis testing. Namely, specifying the null-hypothesis as a point value makes it impossible to find evidence for it. That is, we could never show that men and women have the same height or the same intelligence or the same life-satisfaction. The reason is that the population difference will always be different from zero, even if this difference is too small to be practically meaningful. A related problem is that rejecting the nil-hypothesis provides no information about effect sizes. A significant result can be obtained with a large effect size and with a small effect size.

In conclusion, nil-hypothesis testing has a number of problems, and many criticism of null-hypothesis testing are really criticism of nil-hypothesis testing. A simple solution to the problem of nil-hypothesis testing is to change the null-hypothesis by specifying a minimal effect size that makes a finding theoretically or practically useful. Although this effect size can vary from research question to research question, Cohen’s criteria for standardized effect sizes can give some guidance about reasonable values for a minimal effect size. Using the example of mean differences, Cohen considered an effect size of d = .2 small, but meaningful. So, it makes sense to set a criterion for a minimum effect size somewhere between 0 and .2, and d = .1 seems a reasonable value.

We can even apply this criterion retrospectively to published studies with some interesting implications for the interpretation of published results. Shifting the null-hypothesis from d = 0 to d < abs(.1), we are essentially raising the criterion value that a test statistic has to meet in order to be significant. Let me illustrate this first with a simple one-sample t-test with N = 100.

Conveniently, the sampling error for N = 100 is 1/sqrt(100) = .1. To achieve significance with alpha = .05 (two-tailed) and H0:d = 0, the test statistic has to be greater than t.crit = 1.98. However, if we change H0 to d > abs(.1), the t-distribution is now centered at the t-value that is expected for an effect size of d = .1. The criterion value to get significance is now t.crit = 3.01. Thus, some published results that were able to reject the nil-hypothesis would be non-significant when the null-hypothesis specifies a range of values between d = -.1 to .1.

If the null-hypothesis is specified in terms of standardized effect sizes, the critical values vary as a function of sample size. For example, with N = 10 the critical t-value is 2.67, with N = 100 it is 3.01, and with N = 1,000 it is 5.14. An alternative approach is to specify H0 in terms of a fixed test statistic which implies different effect sizes for the boundary value. For example, with t = 2.5, the effect sizes would be d = .06 with N = 10, d = .05 with N = 100, and d = .02 with N = 1000. This makes sense because researchers should use larger samples to test weaker effects. The example also shows that a t-value of 2.5 specifies a very narrow range of values around zero. However, the example was based on one-sample t-tests. For the typical comparison of two groups, a criterion value of 2.5 corresponds to an effect size of d = .1 with N = 100. So, while t = 2.5 is arbitrary, it is a meaningful value to test for statistical significance. With N = 100, t(98) = 2.5 corresponds to an alpha criterion of .014, which is a bit more stringent than .05, but not as strict as a criterion value of .005. With N = 100, alpha = .005 corresponds to a criterion value of t.crit = 2.87, which implies a boundary value of d = .17.

In conclusion, statistical significance depends on the specification of the null-hypothesis. While it is common to specify the null-hypothesis as an effect size of zero, this is neither necessary, nor ideal. An alternative approach is to (re)specify the null-hypothesis in terms of a minimum effect size that makes a finding theoretically interesting or practically important. If the population effect size is below this value, the results could also be used to show that a hypothesis is false. Examination of various effect sizes shows that criterion values in the range between 2 and 3 provide can be used to define reasonable boundary values that vary around a value of d = .1

The problem with t-distributions is that they differ as a function of the degrees of freedom. To create a common metric it is possible to convert t-values into p-values and then to convert the p-values into z-scores. A z-score of 2.5 corresponds to a p-value of .01 (exact .0124) and an effect size of d = .13 with N = 100 in a between-subject design. This seems to be a reasonable criterion value to evaluate statistical significance when the null-hypothesis is defined as a range of smallish values around zero and alpha is .05.

Shifting the significance criterion in this way can dramatically change the evaluation of published results, especially results that are just significant, p < .05 & p > .01. There have been concerns that many of these results have been obtained with questionable research practices that were used to reject the nil-hypothesis. However, these results would not be strong enough to reject the modified hypothesis that the population effect size exceeds a minimum value of theoretical or practical significance. Thus, no debates about the use of questionable research practices are needed. There is also no need to reduce the type-I error rate at the expense of increasing the type-II error rate. It can be simply noted that the evidence is insufficient to reject the hypothesis that the effect size is greater than zero but too small to be important. This would shift any debates towards discussion about effect sizes and proponents of theories would have to make clear which effect sizes they consider to be theoretically important. I believe that this would be more productive than quibbling over alpha levels.

To demonstrate the implications of redefining the null-hypothesis, I use the results of the replicability project (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). The first z-curve shows the traditional analysis for the nil-hypothesis and alpha = .05, which has z = 1.96 as the criterion value for statistical significance (red vertical line).

Figure 1 shows that 86 out of 90 studies reported a test-statistic that exceeded the criterion value of 1.96 for H0:d = 0, alpha = .05 (two-tailed). The other four studies met the criterion for marginal significance (alpha = .10, two-tailed or .05 one-tailed). The figure also shows that the distribution of observed z-scores is not consistent with sampling error. The steep drop at z = 1.96 is inconsistent with random sampling error. A comparison of the observed discovery rate (86/90, 96%) and the expected discovery rate 43% shows evidence that the published results are selected from a larger set of studies/tests with non-significant results. Even the upper limit of the confidence interval around this estimate (71%) is well below the observed discovery rate, showing evidence of publication bias. Z-curve estimates that only 60% of the published results would reproduce a significant result in an actual replication attempt. The actual success rate for these studies was 39%.

Results look different when the null-hypothesis is changed to correspond to a range of effect sizes around zero that correspond to a criterion value of z = 2.5. Along with shifting the significance criterion, z-curve is also only fitted to studies that produced z-scores greater than 2.5. As questionable research practices have a particularly strong effect on the distribution of just significant results, the new estimates are less influenced by these practices.

Figure 2 shows the results. Most important, the observed discovery rate dropped from 96% to 61%, indicating that many of the original results provided just enough evidence to reject the nil-hypothesis, but not enough evidence to rule out even small effect sizes. The observed discovery rate is also more in line with the expected discovery rate. Thus, some of the missing non-significant results may have been published as just significant results. This is also implied by the greater frequency of results with z-scores between 2 and 2.5 than the model predicts (grey curve). However, the expected replication rate of 63% is still much higher than the actual replication rate with a criterion value of 2.5 (33%). Thus, other factors may contribute to the low success rate in the actual replication studies of the replicability project.


In conclusion, statisticians have been arguing about p-values, significance levels, and Bayes-Factors. Proponents of Bayes-Factors have argued that their approach is supreme because Bayes-Factors can provide evidence for the null-hypothesis. I argue that this is wrong because it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate that a population effect size is exactly zero or any other specific value. A better solution is to specify the null-hypothesis as a range of values that are too small to be meaningful. This makes it theoretically possible to demonstrate that a population effect size is above or below the boundary value. This approach can also be applied retrospectively to published studies. I illustrate this by defining the null-hypothesis as the region of effect sizes that is defined by the effect size that corresponds to a z-score of 2.5. While a z-score of 2.5 corresponds to p = .01 (two-tailed) for the nil-hypothesis, I use this criterion value to maintain an error rate of 5% and to change the null-hypothesis to a range of values around zero that becomes smaller as sample sizes increase.

As p-hacking is often used to just reject the nil-hypothesis, changing the null-hypothesis to a range of values around zero makes many ‘significant’ results non-significant. That is, the evidence is too weak to exclude even trivial effect sizes. This does not mean that the hypothesis is wrong or that original authors did p-hack their data. However, it does mean that they can no longer point to their original results as empirical evidence. Rather they have to conduct new studies to demonstrate with larger samples that they can reject the new null-hypothesis that the predicted effect meets some minimal standard of practical or theoretical significance. With a clear criterion value for significance, authors also risk to obtain evidence that positively contradicts their predictions. Thus, the biggest improvement that arises form rethinking null-hypothesis testing is that authors have to specify effect sizes a priori and that that studies can provide evidence for and against a zero. Thus, changing the nil-hypothesis to a null-hypothesis with a non-null value makes it possible to provide evidence for or against a theory. In contrast, computing Bayes-Factors in favor of the nil-hypothesis fails to achieve this goal because the nil-hypothesis is always wrong, the real question is only how wrong.

Where Do Non-Significant Results in Meta-Analysis Come From?

It is well known that focal hypothesis tests in psychology journals nearly always reject the null-hypothesis (Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995). However, meta-analyses often contain a fairly large number of non-significant results. To my knowledge, the emergence of non-significant results in meta-analysis has not been examined systematically (happy to be proven wrong). Here I used the extremely well-done meta-analysis of money priming studies to explore this issue (Lodder, Ong, Grasman, & Wicherts, 2019).

I downloaded their data and computed z-scores by (1) dividing Cohen’s d by sampling errror (2/sqrt(N)) to compute t-values, (2) convert the absolute t-values into two-sided p-values, and (3) converting the p-values into absolute z-scores. The z-scores were submitted to a z-curve analysis (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019).

The first figure shows the z-curve for all test-statistics. Out of 282 tests, only 116 (41%) are significant. This finding is surprising, given the typical discovery rates over 90% in psychology journals. The figure also shows that the observed discovery rate of 41% is higher than the expected discovery rate of 29%, although the difference is relatively small and the confidence intervals overlap. This might suggest that publication bias in the money priming literature is not a serious problem. On the other hand, meta-analysis may mask the presence of publication bias in the published literature for a number of reasons.

Published vs. Unpublished Studies

Publication bias implies that studies with non-significant results end up in the proverbial file-drawer. Meta-analysts try to correct for publication bias by soliciting unpublished studies. The money-priming meta-analysis included 113 unpublished studies.

Figure 2 shows the z-curve for these studies. The observed discovery rate is slightly lower than for the full set of studies, 29%, and more consistent with the expected discovery rate, 25%. Thus, there this set of studies appears to be unbiased.

The complementary finding for published studies (Figure 3) is that the observed discovery rate increases, 49%, while the expected discovery rate remains low, 31%. Thus, published articles report a higher percentage of significant results without more statistical power to produce significant results.

A New Type of Publications: Independent Replication Studies

In response to concerns about publication bias and questionable research practices, psychology journals have become more willing to publish null-results. An emerging format are pre-registered replication studies with the explicit aim of probing the credibility of published results. The money priming meta-analysis included 47 independent replication studies.

Figure 4 shows that independent replication studies had a very low observed discovery rate, 4%, that is matched by a very low expected discovery rate, 5%. It is remarkable that the discovery rate for replication studies is lower than the discovery rate for unpublished studies. One reason for this discrepancy is that significance alone is not sufficient to get published and authors may be selective in the sharing of unpublished results.

Removing independent replication studies from the set of published studies further increases the observed discovery rate, 66%. Given the low power of replication studies, the expected discovery rate also increases somewhat, but it is notably lower than the observed discovery rate, 35%. The difference is now large enough to be statistically significant, despite the rather wide confidence interval around the expected discovery rate estimate.

Coding of Interaction Effects

After a (true or false) effect has been established in the literature, follow up studies often examine boundary conditions and moderators of an effect. Evidence for moderation is typically demonstrated with interaction effects that are sometimes followed by contrast analysis for different groups. One way to code these studies would be to focus on the main effect and to ignore the moderator analysis. However, meta-analysts often split the sample and treat different subgroups as independent samples. This can produce a large number of non-significant results because a moderator analysis allows for the fact that the effect emerged only in one group. The resulting non-significant results may provide false evidence of honest reporting of results because bias tests rely on the focal moderator effect to examine publication bias.

The next figure is based on studies that involved an interaction hypothesis. The observed discovery rate, 42%, is slightly higher than the expected discovery rate, 25%, but bias is relatively mild and interaction effects contribute 34 non-significant results to the meta-analysis.

The analysis of the published main effect shows a dramatically different pattern. The observed discovery rate increased to 56/67 = 84%, while the expected discovery rate remained low with 27%. The 95%CI do not overlap, demonstrating that the large file-drawer of missing studies is not just a chance finding.

I also examined more closely the 7 non-significant results in this set of studies.

  1. Gino and Mogliner (2014) reported results of a money priming study with cheating as the dependent variable. There were 98 participants in 3 conditions. Results were analyzed with percentage of cheating participants and extent of cheating. The percentage of cheating participants produced a significant contrast of the money priming and control condition, chi2(1, N = 65) = 3.97. However, the meta-analysis used the extent of cheating dependent variable, which should only a marginally significant effect with a one-tailed p-value of .07. “Simple contrasts revealed that participants cheated more in the money condition (M = 4.41, SD = 4.25) than in both the control condition (M = 2.76, SD = 3.96; p = .07) and the time condition (M = 1.55, SD = 2.41; p = .002).” Thus, this non-significant results was presented as supporting evidence in the original article.
  2. Jin, Z., Shiomura, K., & Jiang, L. (2015) conducted a priming studies with reaction times as dependent variables. This design is different from social priming studies in the meta-analysis. Moreover, money priming effects were examined within-participants, and the study produced several significant complex interaction effects. Thus, this study also does not count as a published failure to replicate money priming effects.
  3. Mukherjee, S., Nargundkar, M., & Manjaly, J. A. (2014) examined the influence of money primes on various satisfaction judgments. Study 1 used a small sample of N = 48 participants with three dependent variables. Two achieved significance, but the meta-analysis aggregated across DVs, which resulted in a non-significant outcome. Study 2 used a larger sample and replicated significance for two outcomes. It was not included in the meta-analysis. In this case, aggregation of DVs explains a non-significant result in the meta-analysis, while the original article reported significant results.
  4. I was unable to retrieve this article, but the abstract suggests that the article reports a significant interaction. ” We found that although money-primed reactance in control trials in which the majority provided correct responses, this effect vanished in critical trials in which the majority provided incorrect answers.”
  5. Wierzbicki, J., & Zawadzka, A. (2014) published two studies. Study 1 reported a significant result. Study 2 added a non-significant result to the meta-analysis. Although the effect for money priming was not significant, this study reported a significant effect for credit-card priming and a money priming x morality interaction effect. Thus, the article also did not report a money-priming failure as the key finding.
  6. Gasiorowska, A. (2013) is an article in Polish.
  7. is a duplication of article 5

In conclusion, none of the 7 studies with non-significant results in the meta-analysis that were published in a journal reported that money priming had no effect on a dependent variable. All articles reported some significant results as the key finding. This further confirms how dramatically publication bias distorts the evidence reported in psychology journals.


In this blog post, I examined the discrepancy between null-results in journal articles and in meta-analysis, using a meta-analysis of money priming. While the meta-analysis suggested that publication bias is relatively modest, published articles showed clear evidence of publication bias with an observed discovery rate of 89%, while the expected discovery rate was only 27%.

Three factors contributed to this discrepancy: (a) the inclusion of unpublished studies, (b) independent replication studies, and (c) the coding of interaction effects as separate effects for subgroups rather than coding the main effect.

After correcting for publication bias, expected discovery rates are consistently low with estimates around 30%. The main exception are the independent replication studies that found no evidence at all. Overall, these results confirm that published money priming studies and other social priming studies cannot be trusted because the published studies overestimate replicability and effect sizes.

It is not the aim of this blog post to examine whether some money priming paradigms can produce replicable effects. The main goal was to explain why publication bias in meta-analysis is often small, when publication bias in the published literature is large. The results show that several factors contribute to this discrepancy and that the inclusion of unpublished studies, independent replication studies, and coding of effects explain most of these discrepancies.