Table 1.
Effect sizes determined by the current study, for each well-being measure and each study included in Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) well-being meta-analysis.
Table 2.
Effect sizes determined by the current study, for each depression measure and each study included in Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) depression meta-analysis.
Fig 1.
Reanalysis of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates substantial scatter among the effect sizes and suggests that small studies resulted in larger effect sizes than large studies.
Fig 2.
Reanalysis of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) well-being effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small-study effect.
Fig 3.
Complete replication of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates substantial scatter among the effect sizes and suggests that small studies resulted in larger effect sizes compared to larger studies.
Fig 4.
Complete replication of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) well-being effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small-study effect.
Fig 5.
Reanalysis of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) depression effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates substantial scatter among the effect sizes and suggests that small studies resulted in larger effects than large studies.
Fig 6.
Reanalysis of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) depression effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
Top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small study effects.
Fig 7.
Complete replication of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) depression effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates substantial scatter among the effect sizes and suggests that small studies resulted in larger effect sizes than large studies.
Fig 8.
Complete replication of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) depression effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small study effects.
Fig 9.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) subjective well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates some scatter among the effect sizes but suggests no consistent relationship between effect sizes and study sizes.
Fig 10.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) well-being effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis taking into account any small study effects.
Table 3.
Effect sizes determined by the current study, for each subjective well-being measure and each study included in Bolier et al. (2013) subjective well-being meta-analysis.
Fig 11.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) subjective well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates some scatter among the effect sizes but suggests no obvious relationship between effect sizes and study sizes.
Fig 12.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) subjective well-being effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis taking into account any small study effects.
Fig 13.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) psychological well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates that smaller studies reported large effect sizes than larger studies and also indicates the presence of a possible outlier (Fava.2005.1).
Fig 14.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) psychological well-being effect sizes: Relationship between effect sizes and study sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis taking into account any small study effects.
Table 4.
Effect sizes determined by the current study, for each psychological well-being measure and each study included in Bolier et al. (2013) psychological well-being meta-analysis.
Fig 15.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) psychological well-being effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates that smaller studies reported larger effect sizes than larger studies.
Fig 16.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) psychological well-being effect sizes: Relationship between effect sizes and study sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis taking into account any small study effects.
Fig 17.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) depression effect sizes: Forest plot of study effect sizes.
The forest plot indicates that small studies resulted in larger effect sizes than large studies and also suggests the presence of outliers.
Fig 18.
Reanalysis of Bolier et al. (2013) depression effect sizes: Relationship between study sizes and effect sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small study effects.
Fig 19.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) depression effect sizes: Forest plot of effect sizes.
The forest plot shows some scatter and suggests the presence of an outlier.
Table 5.
Effect sizes determined by the current study, for each depression measure and each study included in Bolier et al. (2013) depression meta-analysis.
Fig 20.
Complete replication of Bolier et al. (2013) depression effect sizes: Relationship between effect sizes and sample sizes.
The top panel shows the scatter plot of effect sizes by study sizes. The bottom panel shows the funnel plot and the results of the limit meta-analysis including the estimated effect size taking into account small study effects.
Table 6.
Summary of reanalyses of the previous meta-analyses.
Table 7.
Summary of replications of the previous meta-analyses.