Is Ego Depletion Real? An Analysis of Arguments.

An influential line of research suggests that initial bouts of self-control increase the susceptibility to self-control failure (ego depletion effect). Despite seemingly abundant evidence, some researchers have suggested that evidence for ego depletion was the sole result of publication bias and p-hacking, with the true effect being indistinguishable from zero. Here, we examine (a) whether the evidence brought forward against ego depletion will convince a proponent that ego depletion does not exist and (b) whether arguments that could be brought forward in defense of ego depletion will convince a skeptic that ego depletion does exist. We conclude that despite several hundred published studies, the available evidence is inconclusive. Both additional empirical and theoretical works are needed to make a compelling case for either side of the debate. We discuss necessary steps for future work toward this aim.

Gender differences in sex drive: Reply to Conley and Yang (2024).

Our meta-analysis on gender differences in sex drive found a stronger sex drive in men compared to women (Frankenbach et al., 2022). Conley and Yang (2024) criticized how we interpreted the findings and provided suggestions regarding the origins of these gender differences, an undertaking that we had refrained from doing in our original work. We concur with several important points made by Conley and Yang (2024): (a) women's sexual experiences are generally more negative than men's, which could partly explain why men report more sex drive; (b) lack of statistical moderation by some sociocultural variables does not imply that the sex drives of men and women are generally unaffected by the social environment; and (c) gender differences in sexuality are likely smaller than they are often portrayed in research, and that the practical impact of this difference is largely unknown. Still, we reject other assertions made by Conley and Yang (2024): (a) we did not frame our findings in support of the view that gender differences in sex drive are determined by biology, (b) we did not conflate response bias with sociocultural biases more broadly, and (c) we did not fail to incorporate and consider gendered cultural messages about sexuality in our methods and discussion. We make several suggestions about future research on these matters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Sex drive: Theoretical conceptualization and meta-analytic review of gender differences.

Few spheres in life are as universally relevant for (almost) all individuals past puberty as sexuality. One important aspect of sexuality concerns individuals' sex drive-their dispositional sexual motivation. A vigorous scientific (and popular) debate revolves around the question of whether or not there is a gender difference in sex drive. Several theories predict a higher sex drive in men compared to women, with some theories attributing this difference to biased responding rather than true differences. Currently, there is little consensus on how to conceptualize sex drive, nor does a quantitative summary of the literature exist. In this article, we present a theory-driven conceptualization of sex drive as the density distribution of state sex drive, where state sex drive is defined as momentary sexual motivation that manifests in sexual cognition, affect, and behavior. We conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of gender differences in sex drive based on 211 studies, 856 effect sizes, and 621,463 persons. The meta-analysis revealed a stronger sex drive in men compared to women, with a medium-to-large effect size, g = 0.69, 95% CI [0.58, 0.81]. Men more often think and fantasize about sex, more often experience sexual affect like desire, and more often engage in masturbation than women. Adjustment for biased responding reduced the gender difference (g = 0.54). Moderation analyses suggest that the effect is robust and largely invariant to contextual factors. There was no evidence of publication bias. The discussion focuses on validity considerations, limitations, and implications for psychological theory and people's everyday lives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.

Science depends on trustworthy evidence. Thus, a biased scientific record is of questionable value because it impedes scientific progress, and the public receives advice on the basis of unreliable evidence that has the potential to have far-reaching detrimental consequences. Meta-analysis is a technique that can be used to summarize research evidence. However, meta-analytic effect size estimates may themselves be biased, threatening the validity and usefulness of meta-analyses to promote scientific progress. Here, we offer a large-scale simulation study to elucidate how p-hacking and publication bias distort meta-analytic effect size estimates under a broad array of circumstances that reflect the reality that exists across a variety of research areas. The results revealed that, first, very high levels of publication bias can severely distort the cumulative evidence. Second, p-hacking and publication bias interact: At relatively high and low levels of publication bias, p-hacking does comparatively little harm, but at medium levels of publication bias, p-hacking can considerably contribute to bias, especially when the true effects are very small or are approaching zero. Third, p-hacking can severely increase the rate of false positives. A key implication is that, in addition to preventing p-hacking, policies in research institutions, funding agencies, and scientific journals need to make the prevention of publication bias a top priority to ensure a trustworthy base of evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Does Self-Control Training Improve Self-Control? A Meta-Analysis.

Self-control is positively associated with a host of beneficial outcomes. Therefore, psychological interventions that reliably improve self-control are of great societal value. A prominent idea suggests that training self-control by repeatedly overriding dominant responses should lead to broad improvements in self-control over time. Here, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis based on robust variance estimation of the published and unpublished literature on self-control training effects. Results based on 33 studies and 158 effect sizes revealed a small-to-medium effect of g = 0.30, confidence interval (CI95) [0.17, 0.42]. Moderator analyses found that training effects tended to be larger for (a) self-control stamina rather than strength, (b) studies with inactive compared to active control groups, (c) males than females, and (d) when proponents of the strength model of self-control were (co)authors of a study. Bias-correction techniques suggested the presence of small-study effects and/or publication bias and arrived at smaller effect size estimates (range: gcorrected = .13 to .24). The mechanisms underlying the effect are poorly understood. There is not enough evidence to conclude that the repeated control of dominant responses is the critical element driving training effects.