Comment: Why Meta-Analyses Rarely Resolve Ideological Debates. (July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ferguson, Christopher J.
• Is Part Of: Emotion review. Volume 6:Number 3(2014:Jul.)
• Page Start: 251
• Page End: 252
• Publication Date: 2014-07
• Subjects: evolutionary psychology -- mating preferences -- meta-analysis; Emotions -- Periodicals; Emotions -- Research -- Periodicals; 152.4
• DOI: 10.1177/1754073914523046
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1754-0739

Abstract

In their meta-analysis Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) argue little evidence supports shifts in mating preferences across the menstrual cycle. They imply this may represent a critical weakness of evolutionary psychology theories of mating preferences more generally. This report represents a fairly common use of meta-analysis: to assemble data to support or reject a particular proposition over which there is debate. Yet, rarely do meta-analyses succeed at resolving ideological debates. Multiple decision points related to the selection, coding, effect size extraction, and interpretation of studies leaves considerable room for meta-analytic authors to interject their own beliefs. Meta-analyses are typically hailed by those who agreed a priori with their conclusion, and rejected as fatally flawed by those in disagreement. As such, meta-analyses have failed in replacing narrative reviews as more objective.