Meta-analyses are an important way of compiling our knowledge. They help us find true effect sizes and moderators and mediators. But meta-analyses that consist only of published results may be very biased. We need a way to make sure that people conducting meta-analyses can find the studies in other people’s file drawers — however those studies turned out. If you are conducting a meta-analysis, please contact this blog and I will post a notice of it. (Or you can post a comment here.)
Note: Perspectives DOES publish meta-analyses but there is no guarantee that ones mentioned in this blog will be published in the journal.
Starting the list now (and then moving comments up here, too):
1. Meta-analysis on the effect of induced disgust on moral judgment.
Especially interested in studies in which disgust is induced by a manipulation that is separate from the moral judgment itself (e.g., through disgusting images, hypnosis, filthy environment). Get in touch if you have any relevant data.
By: Justin Landy and Geoff Goodwin, University of Pennsylvania
Email for more information: landyj at psych.upenn.edu
2. Meta-analysis on the effect of weight on judgment based on the effect found in the following article: Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169-1174. Studies have to involve randomisation, a weight manipulation and a judgment or choice.
By: Steven Raaijmakers, Tilburg University
Email for more information: stevenraaijmakers [at] gmail.com
3. Meta-analysis on the accuracy of emotion recognition in depression compared to controls using face stimuli. I would be interested if anyone has any unpublished data they could share or any suggested works for inclusion.
By: Michael Dalili, University of Bristol