Publication bias may exist when nonsignificant findings remain unpublished, thereby artificially inflating the apparent magnitude of an effect. This concern is not new, but it is particularly current in relation to genetic association studies. Data from a recent meta-analysis of association studies of personality were used to assess the potential of different graphical and statistical methods for assessing evidence of publication bias. The results suggest that no single method is sufficient for assessing evidence of publication bias, and that such methods may also offer insight into potential sources of heterogeneity, which may in turn guide the design of future studies.