3 ms·

Approximate replication rates in psychology: social 37% cognitive 42% personality 55% clinical 44% So a list of famous psychology experiment

Approximate replication rates in psychology: social 37% cognitive 42% personality 55% clinical 44% So a list of famous psychology experiments that do replicate may be shorter. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248

NewJazz 1y ago
I think one would wish the famous ones to be more often replicable.
- sunscream89 1y ago
  There may be minute details like having a confident frame of reference for the confidence tests. Cultures, even psychologies might swing certain ideas and their compulsions.
- tomjakubowski 1y ago
  Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones (2021) > We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 Press release: https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/news/2021/05-21-a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-to-be-true-is-cited-more.html https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/news/2021/05-21-a-new-replication-...
  - nitwit005 1y ago
    This feels like some sort of truth telling paradox, where if you assume the study is true, then seeing a citation like this means it's likely not true.
  - esperent 1y ago
    This is at least partially a failure in publication. Once a paper is published, it's usually left up in the same state forever. If it fails to replicate, that data is published somewhere else. So when someone references the paper, and the diligent reader follows up and reads the reference, it looks convincing, just as it did when first published. It's not reasonable to expect the reader, or even the writer, to be so well versed in all the thousands and thousands of papers published that they know when something has failed to be replicated. What we need is for every paper to be published alongside a stats card that is kept up to date. How many times it's been cited, how many times people tried to replicate it, and how many times they failed.
- dlcarrier 1y ago
  Isn't the unexpected more famous than the expected?
t_mann 1y ago
Thanks for providing the reference, that's useful context. Those are awful replication rates, worse than a coin flip. Sounds like the OP can add their own introduction to their list. From the introduction: > Most results in the field do actually replicate and are robust[citation needed]

NewJazz 1y ago

I think one would wish the famous ones to be more often replicable.

sunscream89 1y ago
There may be minute details like having a confident frame of reference for the confidence tests. Cultures, even psychologies might swing certain ideas and their compulsions.
tomjakubowski 1y ago
Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones (2021) > We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 Press release: https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/news/2021/05-21-a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-to-be-true-is-cited-more.html https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/news/2021/05-21-a-new-replication-...
- nitwit005 1y ago
  This feels like some sort of truth telling paradox, where if you assume the study is true, then seeing a citation like this means it's likely not true.
- esperent 1y ago
  This is at least partially a failure in publication. Once a paper is published, it's usually left up in the same state forever. If it fails to replicate, that data is published somewhere else. So when someone references the paper, and the diligent reader follows up and reads the reference, it looks convincing, just as it did when first published. It's not reasonable to expect the reader, or even the writer, to be so well versed in all the thousands and thousands of papers published that they know when something has failed to be replicated. What we need is for every paper to be published alongside a stats card that is kept up to date. How many times it's been cited, how many times people tried to replicate it, and how many times they failed.
dlcarrier 1y ago
Isn't the unexpected more famous than the expected?

t_mann 1y ago

Thanks for providing the reference, that's useful context. Those are awful replication rates, worse than a coin flip. Sounds like the OP can add their own introduction to their list. From the introduction: > Most results in the field do actually replicate and are robust[citation needed]