Mark Brandt

I think sorting out when moral behaviour leads to habits (consistency) and when it leads to immorality (licensing) is a really interesting topic (e.g. Mullen & Monin 2016). A major replication effort could help here.

Maybe. I'd like to see a paradigm that works consistently first.

Seems to me that moral psych could learn from the sizable literature on "positive and negative spillover" in environmental behavior, which corresponds to consistency vs licensing. Enviro psychs have been thinking about this issue at least since the 70s...

@goodphd just volunteered to write a cool integrative review paper-- can't wait to read it!!!

Haha that sounds like fun! Let's see once a couple of other manuscripts are off my desk... anyone want to step in as co-author/person I can bounce ideas off/editor?

I could provide comments at some point...

It would be more surprising if a research field in psych is not inflated by pub bias.

Foolproof bias detection technique: Ask if there’s publication bias, then nod and say ‘yes’

Kidding aside, from my perspective, moral licensing researchers seemed to interpret the metas as supportive. Good to have these analyses to reduce certainty in existing lit and prompt better studies.

Fair point. It's also worth noting that 1) the presence of bias doesn't necessarily imply the absence of a real effect, and 2) IMO we don't have any meta tools that are much good at properly correcting for bias.

Pet peese and 3psm is a good start. Adding bias tests like p curve would be even nicer.

Just my opinion here. PET: nah PEESE: maybe? PET-PEESE: neither one is great on its own, but put them together and you have two problems that on average look okay (even though every individual case is + or - biased) 3psm: okay. sometimes. maybe? Meta analysis is f....difficult

adding p-curve... now I'm in way over what I know well, but I do like that it doesn't just ask "is there bias" (yes, there is), but asks "is there evidence beyond bias?" Then again, AFAIK, it's special case of selection models like 3psm.

Actually more accurate, it asks whether we can reject evidence (or not), not whether there IS evidence - if I understand it well.