Does expertise matter in replication? An examination of the reproducibility project: Psychology

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 68, Issue , 2017, Pages 181-184

  Bench, Shane W ^a   Rivera, Grace N ^a   Schlegel, Rebecca J ^a   Hicks, Joshua A ^a   Lench, Heather C ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive psychology; Experimentation; Expertise; Replication; Social psychology

Indexed keywords

EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 84978633389     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Biostat, Comprehensive meta-analysis, version 3 [Computer software], 2014 (Retrieved from) http://www.meta-analysis.com.
2. Bornstein, M., Cooper, H., Effect sizes for continuous data. Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., Valentine, J.C., (eds.) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2009, 221–235 (Russel Sage Foundation).
3. Carey, B., Many psychology findings not as strong as claimed, study says. The New York times, 2015, August 27 (Retrieved from) http://www.nytimes.com.
4. Ebersole, C.R., Atherton, O.E., Belanger, A.L., Skulborstad, H.M., Adams, R.B., Allen, J.,.. Nosek, B.A., Many labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2015.
5. Higgins, J.P., Thompson, S.G., Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 21 (2002), 1539–1558.
6. Inbar, Y., The association between “contextual dependence” and replicability in psychology may be spurious. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016 (In Press).
7. Kahneman, D., Klein, G., Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 2009, 515.
8. Klein, R., Ratliff, K., Vianello, M., Adams, R. Jr., Bahník, S., Bernstein, M.,.. Nosek, B., Data from investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology 45 (2014), 142–152.
9. Lindsay, D.S., Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science 26 (2015), 1827–1832.
10. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 2015, aac4716.
11. Schimmack, U., September 3). The reproducibility of social psychology in the OSF-reproducibility project, 2015 (Retrieved November 20, 2015 from) https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/comparison-of-php-curve-predictions-and-outcomes-in-the-osf-reproducibility-project-social-psychology-part-1/.
12. Smith, E.R., Research design. Reis, H.T., Judd, C.M., (eds.) Handbook of research methods in social psychology, 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 17–39.
13. Van Bavel, J.J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W.J., Reinero, D.A., Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (2016), 6454–6459.
14. Van Bavel, J.J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W.J., Reinero, D.A., Reply to Inbar: Contextual sensitivity helps explain the reproducibility gap between social and cognitive psychology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016 (In Press).
15. Wilson, T.D., Aronson, E., Carlsmith, K., The art of laboratory experimentation. Fiske, S.T., Gilbert, D.T., Lindzey, G., (eds.) Handbook of social psychology, Vol 1, 5th ed., 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 51–81.