Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”
- 4 March 2016
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 351 (6277) , 1037
Abstract
A paper from the Open Science Collaboration (Research Articles, 28 August 2015, aac4716) attempting to replicate 100 published studies suggests that the reproducibility of psychological science is surprisingly low. We show that this article contains three statistical errors and provides no support for such a conclusion. Indeed, the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.Keywords
Funding Information
- NSF (BCS-1423747)
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Estimating the reproducibility of psychological scienceScience, 2015
- Investigating Variation in ReplicabilitySocial Psychology, 2014
- False-Positive PsychologyPsychological Science, 2011
- Why people are reluctant to tempt fate.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008
- Detecting the Snake in the GrassPsychological Science, 2008
- Toward a Physiology of Dual-Process Reasoning and Judgment: Lemonade, Willpower, and Expensive Rule-Based AnalysisPsychological Science, 2008
- Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008
- Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008
- A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008