Selective Literature Review and Selective Data Analyses: Implications for the (Re)Analysis of Public Access Research Data

ABSTRACT

This article addresses concerns raised by Pashler et al. (2016/this issue) about the effect size and data of Study 3 of Chatterjee et al. (2013). The analysis of the original data of Study 3, corrected for coding errors, shows that cash priming is associated with cost-related words (Cohen’s d = 0.49) and effect sizes of all three studies are within the range reported in the relevant literature. While this article underscores the importance of public access to research data to strengthen research enterprise, it alerts researchers that the use of selective literature and partial analysis can lead to misleading inferences.

Acknowledgments

I greatly appreciate Pashler and colleagues for taking time to reanalyze Chatterjee et al. (2013) data, which offered me motivation to undertake the literature review and analysis of data used for Study 3 in Chatterjee et al.