Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

cos.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#11

Post by jonnycomputer »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #9
andrelaszlo wrote: post #7

List of studies, and the outcome: 1 Direction & SES (Huang et al., 2014) p 2 Structure and goal-pursuit (Kay et al., 2014) p=0.97 3 Incidental disfluency (Alter et al., 2007) p=0.67 4 Moral Foundations (Graham et al., 2009) p 5 Affect and Risk (Rottenstreich & Hsee, 2001) p=0.77 6 Priming consumerism (Bauer et al., 2012) p=0.15 7 Correspondence Bias (Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002) p 8 Disgust & Homophobia (Inbar et al.,…

Let me know if I messed anything up and I'll fix it, it was a quick copy-paste.

which journals would be nice. quick way of getting idea of how important these papers actually were.

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#12

Post by tlb »

iandanforth wrote: post #8

"It was surprising that even with these efforts we were only able to obtain support for the original findings for half of the studies. These results do not definitively mean that the original findings were wrong, but they do suggest that they are not as robust as might have been assumed." - Michelangelo Vianello, one of the project leads. Yes, yes they do. It's ok to say the original findings were wrong. It's ok to r…

Failure to replicate doesn't prove the original findings were wrong. Other things that can cause replication failure are:

- Poor explanation of experimental procedure, so the replication doesn't match the original experiment.

- Awareness of the effect may invalidate it. For example, it'd be hard to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment because every psychology undergrad has heard the story.

- Change in social conditions or prevailing attitudes. Consumer behavior (the subject of some of these studies) has changed significantly over the decades. Homophobia (another study) varies dramatically over time and place.

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#14

Post by sys_64738 »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #7

List of studies, and the outcome: 1 Direction & SES (Huang et al., 2014) p 2 Structure and goal-pursuit (Kay et al., 2014) p=0.97 3 Incidental disfluency (Alter et al., 2007) p=0.67 4 Moral Foundations (Graham et al., 2009) p 5 Affect and Risk (Rottenstreich & Hsee, 2001) p=0.77 6 Priming consumerism (Bauer et al., 2012) p=0.15 7 Correspondence Bias (Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002) p 8 Disgust & Homophobia (Inbar et al.,…

None of the classics.

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#15

Post by iandanforth »

tlb wrote: post #12
iandanforth wrote: post #8

"It was surprising that even with these efforts we were only able to obtain support for the original findings for half of the studies. These results do not definitively mean that the original findings were wrong, but they do suggest that they are not as robust as might have been assumed." - Michelangelo Vianello, one of the project leads. Yes, yes they do. It's ok to say the original findings were wrong. It's ok to r…

Failure to replicate doesn't prove the original findings were wrong. Other things that can cause replication failure are: - Poor explanation of experimental procedure, so the replication doesn't match the original experiment. - Awareness of the effect may invalidate it. For example, it'd be hard to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment because every psychology undergrad has heard the story. - Change in social cond…

We should continue this argument over coffee, hope you're doing well!

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#16

Post by pfortuny »

iandanforth wrote: post #8

"It was surprising that even with these efforts we were only able to obtain support for the original findings for half of the studies. These results do not definitively mean that the original findings were wrong, but they do suggest that they are not as robust as might have been assumed." - Michelangelo Vianello, one of the project leads. Yes, yes they do. It's ok to say the original findings were wrong. It's ok to r…

Not exactly: it is ok to say that there were no original findings. This is a tiny semantic detail but important: if the author does not support his findings, it is OK to re-assert the null hypothesis but not to say that "the findings were wrong".

What I mean is: "no experiment" does not mean the same as "wrong experiment".

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#17

Post by iandanforth »

pfortuny wrote: post #16
iandanforth wrote: post #8

"It was surprising that even with these efforts we were only able to obtain support for the original findings for half of the studies. These results do not definitively mean that the original findings were wrong, but they do suggest that they are not as robust as might have been assumed." - Michelangelo Vianello, one of the project leads. Yes, yes they do. It's ok to say the original findings were wrong. It's ok to r…

Not exactly: it is ok to say that there were no original findings. This is a tiny semantic detail but important: if the author does not support his findings, it is OK to re-assert the null hypothesis but not to say that "the findings were wrong". What I mean is: "no experiment" does not mean the same as "wrong experiment".

Well, let's agree that 'wrong' doesn't mean 'bad.' I use the term in the Feynman sense, if your guess doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. The assertion that they found a statistically significant effect was wrong (or to Trevor's point in a sibling comment, is no longer true.)

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#18

Post by conjectures »

sys_64738 wrote: post #14
andrelaszlo wrote: post #7

List of studies, and the outcome: 1 Direction & SES (Huang et al., 2014) p 2 Structure and goal-pursuit (Kay et al., 2014) p=0.97 3 Incidental disfluency (Alter et al., 2007) p=0.67 4 Moral Foundations (Graham et al., 2009) p 5 Affect and Risk (Rottenstreich & Hsee, 2001) p=0.77 6 Priming consumerism (Bauer et al., 2012) p=0.15 7 Correspondence Bias (Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002) p 8 Disgust & Homophobia (Inbar et al.,…

None of the classics.

I'm not much of a psychologist, but I can see at least one paper by Khaneman, who won the economics Nobel for that sort of stuff. So not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#19

Post by sys_64738 »

conjectures wrote: post #18
sys_64738 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the classics.

I'm not much of a psychologist, but I can see at least one paper by Khaneman, who won the economics Nobel for that sort of stuff. So not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

20 of the 28 are from this decade which hardly makes them classics. Nothing from the 50s, for example. This list isn't The List.

Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated

#20

Post by skrebbel »

iandanforth wrote: post #15
tlb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failure to replicate doesn't prove the original findings were wrong. Other things that can cause replication failure are: - Poor explanation of experimental procedure, so the replication doesn't match the original experiment. - Awareness of the effect may invalidate it. For example, it'd be hard to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment because every psychology undergrad has heard the story. - Change in social cond…

We should continue this argument over coffee, hope you're doing well!

Please record the audio, i'm curious who convinces who.

(or just continue here on HN of course)

Post reply on HN