Checking the counterarguments confirms that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior

The analysis in Francis (2012c) was a modification of an approach proposed by Ioannidis and Trikalinos (2007). The basic argument was that the power values for the experiments in Piff et al. (2012a) were usually (with one exception) close to 0.5, so the probability that all seven experiments would reject the null hypothesis was so small that one doubted that the experiments were run properly and reported fully. Piff et al. (2012b) made three counterarguments to suggest that the analysis in Francis (2012c) was invalid. In fact, an investigation of the counterarguments only leads to further confirmation of the analysis in Francis (2012c).