Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
by andrelaszlo on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @11:41AM
(#18503898)
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
by jonnycomputer on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @12:07PM
(#18504159)
which journals would be nice. quick way of getting idea of how important these papers actually were.
Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
by your-nanny on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:50PM
(#18504996)
it's almost as if they are avoiding all the experiments that have been replicated so often the result barely bears mention in the papers using them in favor of random crap from the field.
Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
by sys_64738 on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @12:32PM
(#18504360)
None of the classics.
Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
by conjectures on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @12:57PM
(#18504591)
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
by sys_64738 on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:01PM
(#18504628)
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
by Wohlf on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @01:23PM
(#18504797)
To be fair, the title says classic and contemporary. Probably would have been better to just say "High Profile" or something instead.
Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated
by tropo on Thursday November 22, 2018 @12:21AM
(#18508040)
Nobody wants to touch some of the classics, at least in the USA. Like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair
Scientifically, it might be of value to replicate the experiments, but I really can't imagine anybody attempting them.
1 Direction & SES (Huang et al., 2014) p<.001
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<.001
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<.001
8 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) p<.001
11 Trolley Dilemma 1 (Hauser et al., 2007) p<.001
12 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) p<.001
15 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) p<.001
20 Intuitive Reasoning (Norenzayan et al. 2002) p<.001
21 Less is Better (Hsee, 1998) p<.001
22 Moral Typecasting (Gray & Wegner, 2009) p<.001
23 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) p<.001
28 Direction and Similarity (Tversky & Gati, 1978) p=0.99