At this point, it seems like if it was written about in Cialdini’s Influence, you can safely assume it’s not real.
Are you sure “does not replicate” is the same as “not real”? If we can’t trust the studies that found these effects, why are you so confident in the replications?
Time-reversal heuristic: if the failed replication had come first, why would you privilege the original over that? If the replications cannot be trusted, despite the benefit of clear hypotheses to test and almost always higher power & incorporation of heterogeneity, a fortiori, the original cannot be trusted either...
It would be surprising if the necessary level of power & incorporation of heterogeneity always happened to fall right in between that of the original study and the replication. I would expect that in many cases, the necessary level is above that of both studies, which means neither can be considered definitive.
Are you sure “does not replicate” is the same as “not real”? If we can’t trust the studies that found these effects, why are you so confident in the replications?
Time-reversal heuristic: if the failed replication had come first, why would you privilege the original over that? If the replications cannot be trusted, despite the benefit of clear hypotheses to test and almost always higher power & incorporation of heterogeneity, a fortiori, the original cannot be trusted either...
It would be surprising if the necessary level of power & incorporation of heterogeneity always happened to fall right in between that of the original study and the replication. I would expect that in many cases, the necessary level is above that of both studies, which means neither can be considered definitive.