Open AccessPublication bias and low power in field studies on goal priming
Author(s) -
David R. Shanks,
Miguel A. Vadillo
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
royal society open science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 51
ISSN - 2054-5703
DOI - 10.1098/rsos.210544
Subject(s) - priming (agriculture) , psychology , field (mathematics) , chen , cognitive psychology , meta analysis , publication bias , computer science , social psychology , mathematics , medicine , biology , paleontology , botany , germination , pure mathematics
Research on goal priming asks whether the subtle activation of an achievement goal can improve task performance. Studies in this domain employ a range of priming methods, such as surreptitiously displaying a photograph of an athlete winning a race, and a range of dependent variables including measures of creativity and workplace performance. Chen, Latham, Piccolo and Itzchakov (Chen et al. 2021 J. Appl. Psychol. 70 , 216–253) recently undertook a meta-analysis of this research and reported positive overall effects in both laboratory and field studies, with field studies yielding a moderate-to-large effect that was significantly larger than that obtained in laboratory experiments. We highlight a number of issues with Chen et al .'s selection of field studies and then report a new meta-analysis ( k = 13, N = 683) that corrects these. The new meta-analysis reveals suggestive evidence of publication bias and low power in goal priming field studies. We conclude that the available evidence falls short of demonstrating goal priming effects in the workplace, and offer proposals for how future research can provide stronger tests.