Gilbert et al . conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration’s Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.

Earlier work found that – compared to participants who adopted constrictive body postures – participants who adopted expansive body postures reported feeling more powerful, showed an increase in testosterone and a decrease in cortisol, and displayed an increased tolerance for risk. However, these power pose effects have recently come under considerable scrutiny. Here, we present a Bayesian meta-analysis of six preregistered studies from this special issue, focusing on the effect of power posing on felt power. Our analysis improves on standard classical meta-analyses in several ways. First and foremost, we considered only preregistered studies, eliminating concerns about publication bias. Second, the Bayesian approach enables us to quantify evidence for both the alternative and the null hypothesis. Third, we use Bayesian model-averaging to account for the uncertainty with respect to the choice for a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model. Fourth, based on a literature review, we obtained an empirically informed prior distribution for the between-study heterogeneity of effect sizes. This empirically informed prior can serve as a default choice not only for the investigation of the power pose effect but for effects in the field of psychology more generally. For effect size, we considered a default and an informed prior. Our meta-analysis yields very strong evidence for an effect of power posing on felt power. However, when the analysis is restricted to participants unfamiliar with the effect, the meta-analysis yields evidence that is only moderate.

Sexual minority men are at greater risk of depression and suicidality than heterosexuals. Stigma, the most frequently hypothesized risk factor for this disparity, operates across socioecological levels-structural (e.g., laws), interpersonal (e.g., discrimination), and individual (e.g., self-stigma). Although the literature on stigma and mental health has focused on interpersonal and individual forms of stigma, emerging research has shown that structural stigma is also associated with adverse mental health outcomes. However, there is limited data on whether changes in structural stigma, such as when a stigmatized person moves to a lower stigma context, affect mental health, and on the mechanisms underlying this association. To address these questions, we use data from the 2017/18 European Men-who-have-sex-with-men Internet Survey (n = 123,428), which assessed mental health (i.e., Patient Health Questionnaire) and psychosocial mediators (i.e., sexual orientation concealment, internalized homonegativity, and social isolation). We linked these data to an objective indicator of structural stigma related to sexual orientation-including 15 laws and policies as well as aggregated social attitudes-in respondents' countries of origin (N = 178) and receiving countries (N = 48). Among respondents who still live in their country of birth (N = 106,883), structural stigma was related to depression and suicidality via internalized homonegativity and social isolation. Among respondents who moved from higher-to-lower structural stigma countries (n = 11,831), longer exposure to the lower structural stigma environments of their receiving countries was associated with a significantly: 1) lower risk of depression and suicidality; 2) lower odds of concealment, internalized homonegativity, and social isolation; and 3) smaller indirect effect of structural stigma on mental health through these mediators. This study provides additional evidence that stigma is a sociocultural determinant of mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports in social and behavioural research. An accompanying online application allows users to complete the form and generate a report that they can submit with their manuscript or post to a public repository.