Review studies suggest that results that are statistically significant or consistent with hypotheses are preferred in the publication process and in reception. The mechanisms underlying this bias remain unclear, and prior research has focused on between-subjects rather than within-subjects designs. We conducted a within-subjects study, grounded in dual-process decision-making theories, to examine these dynamics. Across four online experiments, 303 clinical-psychology researchers evaluated 16 fictitious abstracts varying in statistical significance and hypothesis consistency. Participants provided fast, intuitive judgments about each abstract’s likelihood of being submitted, read, or cited, rated their feeling of rightness (FOR), and gave deliberated evaluations. We analyzed the data using multilevel and mediation models. Researchers rated statistically nonsignificant abstracts as less likely to be submitted, read, or cited compared with significant ones. No such bias was found for hypothesis-inconsistent results. Intuitive judgments were rarely revised, and FOR did not predict response changes. Overall, researchers favored statistically significant results, with deliberation and FOR playing minimal roles.
