So how many “confirmed kills” of ideas found in the sequences actually are there? I know the priming studies got eviscerated, but the last time I looked into this I couldn’t exactly find an easy list of “famous psychology studies that didn’t replicate” to compare against.
Well, if someone were interested in this, it seems possible (though time-consuming, of course) to go through every mentioned study or result in the Sequences, research it, and figure out whether it’s been replication crisis’d, etc. This seems like valuable information to gather, and (as noted in the linked comment thread) the tools to aggregate, store, and collaborate on that gathered info already exist.
I know the priming studies got eviscerated, but the last time I looked into this I couldn’t exactly find an easy list of “famous psychology studies that didn’t replicate” to compare against.
My understanding is that even this story is more complicated; Lauren Lee summarizes it on Facebook as follows:
OK, the Wikipedia article on priming mostly refers to effects of the first kind (faster processing on lexical decision tasks and such) and not the second kind (different decision-making or improved performance in general).
So uh. To me it just looks like psych researchers over-loaded the term ‘priming’ with a bunch of out-there hypotheses like “if the clipboard you’re holding is heavy, you are more likely to ‘feel the significance’ of the job candidate.” I mean REALLY, guys. REALLY.
Priming has been polluted, and this is a shame.
I would not be surprised if most of the references in the Sequences are to old-school definitions of various terms that are more likely to survive, which complicates the research task quite a bit.
So how many “confirmed kills” of ideas found in the sequences actually are there? I know the priming studies got eviscerated, but the last time I looked into this I couldn’t exactly find an easy list of “famous psychology studies that didn’t replicate” to compare against.
Here’s the list of studies included in the original Reproducibility Project: Psychology.
Well, if someone were interested in this, it seems possible (though time-consuming, of course) to go through every mentioned study or result in the Sequences, research it, and figure out whether it’s been replication crisis’d, etc. This seems like valuable information to gather, and (as noted in the linked comment thread) the tools to aggregate, store, and collaborate on that gathered info already exist.
I do not know of any extant list, though.
My understanding is that even this story is more complicated; Lauren Lee summarizes it on Facebook as follows:
I would not be surprised if most of the references in the Sequences are to old-school definitions of various terms that are more likely to survive, which complicates the research task quite a bit.