ArticlePloS one2025
Examining the availability/findability of stimuli employed in social media and body image research.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concerns over the trustworthiness of the research findings generated in Psychology (as well as other disciplines) has led to calls for the adoption of practices that make research more open, transparent, and reproducible. One of these practices is the open sharing of research materials, such as task stimuli. There is some evidence that, generally, the uptake of this practice has been slow in Psychology. The aim of this study was to examine the availability/findability of the stimuli used in a sample of papers that investigated the effect of exposure to images from social media on participants' body image, as this may be a field where progress in the open sharing of task stimuli may be especially slow. We coded the method sections of 38 studies (published across 36 articles from 2012 to 2021) in terms of the availability/findability of the images they employed and found that in only two articles were we able to fully access task stimuli. We also found no evidence that the sharing of images used as task stimuli had increased over time. We discuss likely reasons for this reticence to share task stimuli in this field, the impact this has on reproducibility, replicability, and research waste, and ways in which this issue can be addressed. All study materials and data are available at doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/wpvst.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.