Psychological Bulletin

When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes.
We conducted a multilevel meta-analysis of 390 effect sizes from 167 studies with 157,923 participants examining the relationship between connectedness with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) communities and health-related outcomes, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted our initial search in January 2023 in APA PsycInfo, ERIC, Medline, and Open Dissertations, selecting studies that (a) measured LGBTQ+ community connectedness, (b) measured health, and (c) provided an estimate of the relationship between LGBTQ+ community connectedness and health. We found that connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities promotes mental health (r = .11), well-being (r = .17), and physical health (r = .09). Conversely, we found that connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities promotes substance use among younger participants, likely through behavioral engagement with LGBTQ+ others. We found that connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities was related to less mental health and more suicidality for younger people, likely because younger LGBTQ+ people seek out connectedness in response to this psychological distress. We also found that connectedness was not as health-promoting for LGBTQ+ individuals with multiple marginalized identities and that psychological feelings of belongingness with LGBTQ+ communities are generally more health-promoting than behavioral community engagement. Results from a narrative review and moderation meta-analyses suggested that, contrary to predictions made by minority stress theory, connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities does not buffer the relationship between minority stressors and health. Rather, meta-analytic mediation analyses suggested that proximal minority stressors negatively impact health-related outcomes by reducing connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities and that distal minority stressors are often less impactful on health-related outcomes because they promote connectedness with LGBTQ+ communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence.
People’s subjective beliefs about themselves affect what people think and, consequently, what they do. Positive self-beliefs are important for many life outcomes, from academic success to well-being, especially during K–12 education as a crucial developmental period. Many empirical studies and meta-analyses have examined correlates of self-beliefs. The present second-order meta-analytic review integrates this large and diverse body of research, addressing two research aims: First, we examined the comparative strength of different variables related to self-beliefs. Second, we provide a methodological review of meta-analyses in this area, thereby facilitating readers’ ability to assess the risk of bias when interpreting the results. We summarized 105 first-order meta-analyses published before July 2023 that investigated variables associated with self-beliefs during K–12 education, comprising 493 first-order effect sizes based on more than 8,500 primary studies and more than 16 million children and adolescents. We computed second-order standardized mean differences (SMD) using two-level meta-analyses with robust variance estimation. Personal characteristics (SMD = 0.50) showed stronger relations with self-beliefs than interventions (SMD = 0.27). Achievement (SMD = 0.66) and noncognitive variables (SMD = 0.67) were the personal characteristics most strongly related to self-beliefs compared to cognitive abilities (SMD = 0.30) and background variables (SMD = 0.21). Interventions targeting individual characteristics (SMD = 0.35) and especially self-beliefs (SMD = 0.52) showed larger effect sizes than interventions that focused on improving teaching and classroom structure (SMD = 0.20). Few meta-analyses investigated situational aspects, such as the geographical origin of the sample, in association with children’s and adolescents’ self-beliefs. Overall, this second-order meta-analytic review provides a comprehensive map of correlates of the self, highlighting pathways for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach.
Research has suggested that the endorsement of ideologies supporting the status quo leads to higher subjective psychological well-being—an idea labeled as the palliative function of ideology within system justification theory. Furthermore, this approach has suggested that this association should be moderated by social status. Specifically, the association between the endorsement of ideologies supporting the status quo and well-being should be positive among high-status groups and negative among low-status groups—mainly as a function of the existence of a unique motivation to justify the status quo. Given contradictory evidence in previous studies, we conducted a meta-analysis to test these ideas. Across 1,627 studies and 1,856,940 participants, we observed a meta-analytic association between endorsement of ideologies supporting the status quo and well-being of r = .07, p <.001. Nonetheless, we did not find evidence supportive of the moderator role of social status. These results provide partial evidence supporting the main tenets of system justification theory, and they are inconsistent with the idea of the existence of a unique motivation to justify the status quo. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature.
Evidence has ostensibly been accumulating over the past 2 decades suggesting that an external focus on the intended movement effect (e.g., on the golf club during a swing) is superior to an internal focus on body movements (e.g., on your arms during a swing) for skill acquisition. Seven previous meta-studies have all reported evidence of external focus superiority. The most comprehensive of these concluded that an external focus enhances motor skill retention, transfer, and performance and leads to reduced eletromyographic activity during performance and that more distal external foci are superior to proximal external foci for performance. Here, we reanalyzed these data using robust Bayesian meta-analyses that included several plausible models of publication bias. We found moderate to strong evidence of publication bias for all analyses. After correcting for publication bias, estimated mean effects were negligible: g = 0.01 (performance), g = 0.15 (retention), g = 0.09 (transfer), g = 0.06 (electromyography), and g = −0.01 (distance effect). Bayes factors indicated data favored the null for each analysis, ranging from BF01 = 1.3 (retention) to 5.75 (performance). We found clear evidence of heterogeneity in each analysis, suggesting the impact of attentional focus depends on yet unknown contextual factors. Our results contradict the existing consensus that an external focus is always more effective than an internal focus. Instead, focus of attention appears to have a variety of effects that we cannot account for, and, on average, those effects are small to nil. These results parallel previous metascience suggesting publication bias has obfuscated the motor learning literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Psychological Bulletin - Vol 150, Iss 11