The story about the rigged Monopoly game made me think of the reproducibility crisis. I have a hard time believing that most people wouldn't point out their huge starting advantage when asked why they won. Really? You played a whole game of Monopoly, where you had four times the other guy's money, rolled twice as many dice, and got more money for passing Go, and you think you won because of superior skill? I don't know people who win at fair Monopoly and are under the delusion that Monopoly is a particularly skill based game.

This seems like the kind of result that would be tough to reproduce. This test result is ideologically satisfying and sensational - "The rich are evil, we knew it." The null result, "People realize it when they are massively advantaged in an unfair game" seems unpublishable.

I googled the study and the name of the author with the word "replication". It seems like at least some of the author's research on this subject area, though I can't tell if this is the same Monopoly experiment or not, failed to replicate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2016120