Skip to main content

Table 2 Criteria for risk of bias

From: Reducing meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: protocol for a meta-analysis and theoretical review

CriterionExample of low risk of biasExample of high risk of bias
Exchangeability of the control and intervention groupsThe study is randomized.The study is observational with uncontrolled self-selection into the intervention group (e.g., inducing confounding by a pre-existing interest in dietary change).
Proximity of the outcome measure to actual meat consumption or purchaseThe study measures meat consumption using subjects’ actual food choices in a cafeteria.The study measures subjects’ intended meat consumption.
Missing dataNearly all enrolled subjects completed the intervention and provided outcome measures.Many subjects failed to complete the intervention or were lost to follow-up before the outcome was measured.
Minimization of social desirability biases and demand characteristicsThe intervention was subtly embedded in a decoy task about a topic unrelated to meat consumption, leading subjects to believe the study was not about meat consumption.Subjects interact with experimenters who are clearly identifiable as animal welfare advocates.
Potential for selective reportingThe study was preregistered.The study was not preregistered
Analytic reproducibilityThe study has publicly available data, materials, and code.The study does not have publicly available data, materials, or code.