Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#2Is there a list of the experiments and the effect sizes and how they differed from the original studies?
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#3TLDR; only 50% succeeded replication.
You don't have to feel so bad about not reading that Malcolm Gladwell book, now.
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#4Is there a list of the experiments and the effect sizes and how they differed from the original studies?
Yes, in the paper, you can to follow the links.
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#5I'm just going to point out that the ridiculous idea that using a hard to read font improves retention of information was disproven.
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#6Short summary:
- The 28 findings was repeated in more than 60 laboratories all over the world resulting in a median sample size of 7,157
- Overall, 14 of the 28 findings (50%) replicated successfully
- The replication team obtained the original materials to ensure faithful replications of the original findings
- All 28 studies underwent formal peer review at the journal prior to conducting the studies
- All of the studies were preregistered at OSF
- Researchers can predict whether findings will replicate or not in surveys and prediction markets with pretty good accuracy. (prediction market)
Full paper (100 pages): https://psyarxiv.com/9654g/
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#7List of studies, and the outcome:
1 Direction & SES (Huang et al., 2014) p2 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) p5 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) p8 Disgust & Homophobia (Inbar et al., 2009) p=0.56
9 Incidental Anchors (Critcher & Gilovich, 2008) p=0.25
10 Social Value Orientation (Van Lange et al., 1997) p11 Trolley Dilemma 1 (Hauser et al., 2007) p12 SMS & Well-Being (Anderson et al., 2012) p=0.58
13 False Consensus 1 (Ross et al., 1977) p=0.23
14 False Consensus 2 (Ross et al., 1977) p15 Position & Power (Giessner & Schubert, 2007) p=0.31
16 Framing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) p=0.43
17 Trolley Dilemma 2 (Hauser et al., 2007) p=0.42
18 Tempting Fate (Risen & Gilovich, 2008) p=0.01
19 Actions are Choices (Savani et al. 2010) p20 Intuitive Reasoning (Norenzayan et al. 2002) p21 Less is Better (Hsee, 1998) p22 Moral Typecasting (Gray & Wegner, 2009) p23 Moral Cleansing (Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006) p=0.08
24 Assimilation and Contrast (Schwarz et al., 1991) p=0.39
25 Choosing or Rejecting (Shafir, 1993) p=0.10
26 Priming warmth (Zaval et al., 2014) p=0.01
27 Intentional Side Effects (Knobe, 2003) p28 Direction and Similarity (Tversky & Gati, 1978) p=0.99
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#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 re-assert the null hypothesis. The unwillingness to do so undermines the process and is disconcerting to say the least.
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#9List 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.
Re: Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
#10I read psych papers. Regularly. I don't know any of these aside from Tversky's.
Psychology is a big field. I just find it hard to accept that these papers are representiative of much of anything.