| name | jpsp-data-analysis |
| description | Use when analyzing and reporting the multi-study package for a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) manuscript to JARS standard — effect sizes with uncertainty, honest robustness, and an internal meta-analysis that pools effects across studies. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results. |
Data Analysis & Internal Meta-Analysis (jpsp-data-analysis)
JPSP reviewers are methodologically sophisticated and the journal requires JARS reporting and
TOP Level 2 transparency. Two things set JPSP analysis apart from short-report work: (1) you are
analyzing a set of studies, and (2) the section expects you to integrate across them — an
internal meta-analysis is a core move, explicitly prioritized in IRGP guidance. This skill covers
execution and reporting; design lives in jpsp-study-design.
When to trigger
- Analyzing studies and building the results sections
- Pooling effects across your own studies (internal meta-analysis)
- A reviewer asked for robustness, mechanism, or alternative-explanation analyses
- Reconciling preregistered vs. exploratory analyses
Analysis norms JPSP expects
- Effect sizes with uncertainty. Report standardized effect sizes and confidence (or credible)
intervals, not just p-values/stars; state the substantive magnitude, per JARS.
- Internal meta-analysis across studies. Pool the comparable effects from all studies (including
any reported only in the supplement) into a random-effects estimate with a forest plot;
report heterogeneity. This is the package's strongest summary and an explicit section expectation.
- Accessible results sections. Write results for readers with general statistical expertise;
relegate complex justification to tables, notes, or supplements (IRGP house rule; verify).
- Honest robustness. Show specifications that could break an effect (alternative measures,
exclusions, estimators); report what held and what did not.
- Mechanism done right. Report mediation/process with bootstrapped indirect effects and CIs;
do not over-claim causal mediation from cross-sectional data.
- Alternative explanations. Provide the focused alternative-explanation analyses the section asks
for (construct validity, confounds, alternative mediators/causal models).
- Registered vs. exploratory. Clearly separate confirmatory (preregistered) from exploratory
analyses; reconcile and justify any deviations from the plan.
- Measurement. Report reliability and, where relevant, measurement invariance (especially PPID
individual-differences and dyadic work).
Reproducibility while you work (not at the end)
- A master script regenerates every table and figure from the raw/constructed data, per study.
- Set and report seeds for bootstrap, simulation, and any stochastic step.
- Pin software/package versions (
renv.lock, requirements.txt).
- Post data/code/materials to a trusted repository with a persistent identifier (TOP Level 2).
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Run the battery, don't just enumerate it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. JPSP is predominantly experimental social/personality psychology; randomization inference, mediation done right (mediate, not naive controlling-away), power, and family-wise corrections are decisive.
- Many outcomes / specifications:
romano_wolf (step-down FWER) or
benjamini_hochberg — report the adjusted threshold.
- OVB sensitivity:
oster_delta / sensemakr.
- Inference:
wild_cluster_bootstrap (few clusters), twoway_cluster / conley;
multilevel data → cluster at the right level.
- Re-fit off one handle:
audit_result(result_id) lists the missing checks and the
exact suggest_function for each.
- Exhibits:
etable / did_summary_to_latex from the handle — no retyped numbers.
Keep the decisive checks in the body and the exhaustive battery in the supplement. See
the executed chain in the JF execution walkthrough.
Anti-patterns
- Stars-only tables with no effect sizes or intervals
- Reporting each study in isolation and skipping the internal meta-analysis
- p-hacking / fishing for a significant interaction; HARKing exploratory results into hypotheses
- Over-claiming causal mediation from correlational designs
- Burying a failed study instead of pooling it honestly into the meta-analysis
Reviewer-pushback patterns and the analysis-side fix
These are the recurring post-credibility-revolution objections a JPSP section reviewer raises about results, and the move that defuses each. The fix is an analysis-and-reporting fix — design lives in jpsp-study-design.
| Reviewer says | What they distrust | The JPSP-fit fix |
|---|
| "Stars only — where are the effect sizes?" | You hid magnitude behind significance | Report d/r/β with 95% CIs and a sentence on substantive meaning, per JARS |
| "Each study reads in isolation" | No cumulative claim | Add the internal meta-analysis: pooled estimate + forest plot + heterogeneity (I²) |
| "This could be a confound" | Alternative causal account | A focused alternative-explanation analysis or a study that manipulates the confound |
| "Mediation is over-claimed" | Causal language on cross-sectional data | Bootstrapped indirect effect with CI, hedged: "consistent with, not proof of, the path" |
| "Was this predicted?" | Suspected HARKing | A confirmatory/exploratory table mapping each test to the preregistration; flag deviations |
Worked micro-example: pooling a preregistered three-study package
Illustrative numbers — invented to show the reporting logic, not real results.
Three ASC studies estimate the same gratitude→construal effect. Per-study d (95% CI): S1 = 0.34 [0.10, 0.58], S2 = 0.21 [−0.02, 0.44], S3 = 0.40 [0.16, 0.64]. S2 alone is "non-significant" — the trap that invites a reviewer to call the package inconsistent. The internal meta-analysis instead reports a random-effects pooled d ≈ 0.31, 95% CI [0.18, 0.45], low heterogeneity (I² ≈ 12%). That one sentence — "across three preregistered studies, pooled d = 0.31 [0.18, 0.45]" — is the strongest summary in the paper and exactly what an ASC reviewer means by integrative analysis. Report S2 inside the pool, not as a footnote.
Output format
【Per-study effects】effect size + CI + substantive meaning
【Internal meta-analysis】pooled random-effects estimate + heterogeneity + forest plot
【Mechanism】indirect effect + bootstrapped CI (design caveats)
【Robustness】specs that could break it → what held
【Registered vs exploratory】clearly separated?
【JARS + repository】reported to standard + data/code/materials posted? [Y/N]
【Next】jpsp-tables-figures
Supplementary resources
