New paper on bias in the 'money priming' literature

In a new commentary published in JEP:G (Vadillo et al., 2016) we examine why ‘money priming’ effects have proved elusive in a number of replication attempts (Rohrer et al., 2015; Klein et al., 2014) when there appears to be a large body of literature reporting evidence in favour of the money priming hypothesis (Vohs, 2015).

We found that a range of meta-analytic tools suggest irregularities in the money priming literature that may indicate considerable selective reporting and/or p-hacking. This could explain why money priming effects are consistently absent in pre-registered and transparently reported direct replications that minimise potential biases.

Vadillo, M. A., Hardwicke, T. E., & Shanks, D. R. (2016). Selection bias, vote counting, and money priming effects: A comment on Rohrer, Pashler, and Harris (2015) and Vohs (2015). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 655-663. [doi] [osf] [pdf]