Despite the obvious replication crisis in psychology, psychologists lack a consensus about the cause.
1. Some say it is normal (e.g., Strack, Stroebe, Fiedler).
2. Some say it was too easy to get significance (DataColada)
3. Some say the replication studies are shoddy (Gilbert, Baumeister).
4 Some say nobody did replication studies before (Nosek).
5. I say failed replications were common and hidden.
What do you think?
Follow
@uebernerd
If you are true, it is a story of how the hierarchy and "status bias" corrupt science.
