slug,finding,topic,outcome,original_reference,original_doi,original_year,original_n,original_statistic,original_r,original_ci_low,original_ci_high,replication_reference,replication_doi,replication_year,replication_n,replication_statistic,replication_r,replication_ci_low,replication_ci_high,replication_ci_source,original_raw,replication_raw,scale,size_ratio,replication_team_verdict,pair_source,citations_total,cites_before,cites_after,cite_change_pct,crossref_notices,openalex_id,checked,notes
a nearby smartphone drains brainpower,A nearby smartphone drains brainpower,attention,failed,"Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462",10.1086/691462,2017,275,"Phone-location main effect on OSpan, Exp. 2: partial eta2 = .026 (2 numerator df; as restated in the replication's power analysis, footnote 1). FReD's F(1, 263) = 0.05 is the original's null phone-POWER effect",0.161,0.044,0.274,"Ruiz Pardo, A. C., & Minda, J. P. (2022). Reexamining the “brain drain” effect: A replication of Ward et al. (2017). Acta Psychologica, 230, 103717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103717",10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103717,2022,383,"Location main effect on OSpan: F(2, 377) = 0.10, p = .91, generalized eta2 = 0.001",0.023,-0.077,0.123,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.143,failed,FReD effect 1265,783,76.3,92.3,21,none,W2605310309,"Ruiz Pardo & Minda (2022) Acta Psychologica 230, 103717, p. 4 footnote 1 (original eta2p = .026), p. 6 section 3.1.1 (F tests), p. 6-7 Discussion. Read in Western University repository PDF. Ward et al. (2017) itself blocked (403)","FReD 1223 coded the power on/off effect, which was null in BOTH studies; the famous claim is phone LOCATION (desk vs other room) lowering working memory. Both r values are eta from 2-df omnibus F tests (non-directional): sign not printed (r_r unsigned). r_r from F = 0.023 (generalized eta2 .001 -> 0.032). Checked in raw/FReD rows: 1265 = location effect (original eta2 .026), 1223 = power, 1224 = power x location. Original stats not read in the original paper (blocked)."
mozart-effect,Listening to Mozart boosts spatial reasoning (the Mozart effect),attention,failed,"Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.",10.1038/365611a0,1993,36,"Mean SAS 57.56 (Mozart), 54.61 (relaxation), 54.00 (silence), i.e. spatial IQ 119, 111, 110; repeated-measures ANOVA F(2,35) = 7.08, P = 0.002; Scheffe t = 3.41 (vs relaxation), t = 3.67 (vs silence)",,,,"Steele, K. M., Bass, K. E., & Crook, M. D. (1999). The mystery of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate. Psychological Science, 10(4), 366-369.",10.1111/1467-9280.00169,1999,125,Mozart vs silence d = 0.06 (Table 1 and p. 368; no CI printed; CI computed from n = 86),0.03,-0.183,0.24,computed from the printed estimate and n,,,r,,failed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),1235,12.0,14.0,17,none,W2090096462,checked in PDF text (original: p. 611 (one-page letter: text + figure); replication: Table 1 p. 367 (n per group 44/42/39); Results p. 368; Discussion p. 368 (d = 0.06 vs 0.72)),"Largest direct replication of Mozart vs silence (Psychological Science, 125 students; 44 Mozart, 42 silence). It copied the 1995 version of the experiment; the 1993 within-subject result cannot be put on the same scale. Steele et al. 1999 (Nature, 3 labs) also found nothing."
people find time alone with their thoughts unpleasant,People find time alone with their thoughts unpleasant,attention,held,"Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., Brown, C. L., & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250830",10.1126/science.1250830,2014,30,"t(28) = 4.83, p = .000044 (Study 8: enjoyment, external activity vs 'thinking period'; restated by SSRP)",0.674,0.414,0.832,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,39,"SSRP Stage 1 (replicated, no Stage 2): r = 0.594, p < .001",0.594,0.343,0.766,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.881,successful,FReD effect 642,536,27.7,61.3,122,none,W2118531620,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (p. 52, hypothesis + original test), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54)","Replicated at about 88% of original size. CAVEAT: the replications tested 'thinking alone is rated less enjoyable than an external activity' (Study 8), NOT the electric-shock finding. FReD 489 (Boyce 2023, N = 52) gives its value only in the posted data file, not in a printed report, so the printed SSRP replication (FReD 642) is used. Fisher-z 95% CI computed: [0.343, 0.766]."
stroop effect,Stroop effect,attention,held,"Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651",10.1037/h0054651,1935,100,"Stroop 1935 Exp. 2: 47 s difference = '4.35 standard deviation units' (47/10.8, SD of the colour-patch test only); ML3 restates the original as d = 3.07; ML3 benchmark d = 2.04 [1.90, 2.18] is from a meta-analysis (Verhaeghen & De Meersman 1998), not Stroop",,,,"Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budiman, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012",10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012,2016,3337,"Aggregate d = 0.88 [0.84, 0.92], t(3336) = 49.80 (D-score metric; meta-analytic 0.91 [0.84, 0.98])",0.403,0.387,0.418,printed in the replication report,,,r,,successful,FReD effect 719,18624,817.7,778.7,-5,none,W2120357670,"Ebersole et al. (2016) Many Labs 3, Table 3 'Original and replication results' (authors' OSF file 'Many Labs 3 Manuscript Tables.pdf', osf.io/ct89g, p. 52-53); methods in OSF Supplementary Materials; Stroop (1935) p. 651 read in psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop (63.3 s vs 110.3 s, SDs 10.8 / 18.8); ML3 Supplement section 1 (D scoring, d = 3.07)","NOT comparable. 4.35 divides by the control-test SD only (Glass delta); pooled-SD d = 3.07 (r = 0.84). ML3's 0.88 is an IAT-style D score (3 colours, 63 keypress trials, within-person SD), and ML3 says it did not use the original as a benchmark. Both are robust, same direction; only the size is not comparable. r_r is d->r of 0.88 and is within-subject."
affect heuristic,Affect heuristic,decision,held,"Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::aid-bdm333>3.0.co;2-s",10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::aid-bdm333>3.0.co;2-s,2000,219,"r = -.74 [-0.92, -0.30] between the 12 condition-level t-values (manipulated vs non-manipulated attribute; 4 information conditions x 3 technologies), as restated in the replication (abstract, Supplement Table S38); n = 219 (Table S1)",0.74,0.3,0.92,"Efendić, E., Chandrashekar, S. P., Lee, C. S., Yeung, L. Y., Kim, M. J., Lee, C. Y., & Feldman, G. (2022). Risky therefore not beneficial: Replication and extension of Finucane et al.'s (2000) affect heuristic experiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(7), 1173-1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211056761",10.1177/19485506211056761,2022,776,"MTurk sample: r(10) = -0.87, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.59], p = .003 (correlation of 12 t-values); Prolific sample (n = 776): r(10) = -0.84, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.50]",0.87,0.59,0.96,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.176,successful,FReD effect 1407,2870,189.0,112.7,-40,none,W2162260603,"Journal print PDF (OSF sufjn /Preprint/...-print.pdf): abstract p. 1173 (original r = -.74 [-0.92, -0.30]); Results pp. 1176-1177 (r(10) = -.87 and -.84 with CIs); Supplement p. 45 and Table S38 p. 47 ('the correlation in the original study was -.74')","Signs aligned: both r values are negative (risk vs benefit), so the original direction is set positive and the same-direction replication is +0.87. FReD coded the original as -0.75; the replication report prints -.74 (the replicators note the original printed exact t only for one condition and they digitised the rest from Exhibit 6). The r is computed across only 12 condition-level t-values (df = 10), not across participants, so it is large and its CI is wide; it is not comparable in size to participant-level r on other rows. Two samples of 776 each (combined N = 1,552 in the mixed models); FReD uses the MTurk one. Caveat from the paper: no change in risk when low benefit was highlighted. Online 2021; issue 2022."
anchoring in estimates,Anchoring in estimates,decision,held,"Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111004",10.1177/01461672952111004,1995,104,"d = 0.93 [0.51, 1.33] (as restated by Many Labs 1, Table 2; pooled over all 15 topics, the original did not report topics separately); FReD's t(102) = 7.99 not checked against the closed original",0.422,0.247,0.554,"Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C. C., Cemalcilar, Z., Chandler, J., Cheong, W., Davis, W. E., Devos, T., Eisner, M., Frankowska, N., Furrow, D., Galliani, E. M., … Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating Variation in Replicability. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178",10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,2014,5627,"Mt. Everest item: weighted d = 2.23, 99% CI [2.14, 2.32]; t(5625) = 83.66, p < .001 (unweighted 2.45 [2.12, 2.77])",0.744,0.734,0.754,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.763,successful,FReD effect 686,753,21.0,31.7,51,none,W2147091291,"Klein et al. (2014) Many Labs 1, Table 2 (accepted manuscript, LSE Research Online copy, PDF p. 25) + footnote 3 (p. 15)","Replication far LARGER than the original. ML1 prints 99% CIs; r_ci is the 95% CI derived from the 99% CI (symmetric SE). Other items: babies born d = 2.42, Chicago 1.79, NYC distance 1.17 (all vs the same pooled original d = 0.93). Caveat: original effect pooled across 15 topics, replication is per item. FReD's t(102) = 7.99 would give r = 0.62."
availability heuristic,Availability heuristic,decision,weaker,"Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9",10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,1973,152,"d = 0.82 [0.47, 1.17] (as restated by ML3)",0.379,0.229,0.505,"Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budiman, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012",10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012,2016,3088,"Aggregate d = 0.09 [0.02, 0.16] (from PSdep = .522, p = .015; meta-analytic 0.09 [0.02, 0.16])",0.045,0.01,0.08,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.119,successful,FReD effect 721,9977,342.0,452.0,32,none,W2035782089,"Ebersole et al. (2016) Many Labs 3, Table 3 'Original and replication results' (authors' OSF file 'Many Labs 3 Manuscript Tables.pdf', osf.io/ct89g, p. 52-53); methods in OSF Supplementary Materials","Letter-position task (K, L, N, R, V judged more frequent in first position). Same direction, about a tenth of the original size; 14% of sites significant."
"better than average at easy things, worse at hard ones","Better than average at easy things, worse at hard ones",decision,held,"Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221",10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221,1999,37,"Kruger (1999) Study 1: correlation across the 8 ability domains between mean domain difficulty and mean comparative ability (percentile), r(6) = -.96, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.92], p < .001, N = 37 (as restated in the replication, Table 15 p. 475; sample size Table 4)",0.96,0.92,0.98,"Korbmacher, M., Kwan, C. I., & Feldman, G. (2022). Both better and worse than others depending on difficulty: Replication and extensions of Kruger's (1999) above and below average effects. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(2), 449-486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500009189",10.1017/S1930297500009189,2022,240,"Replication condition: r(6) = -0.85, p = .0073, 95% CI [-0.97, -0.37] (difficulty vs comparative ability across the 8 domains)",0.85,0.37,0.97,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.885,successful,FReD effect 652,899,30.3,31.3,3,none,W4246357531,"Journal PDF (Cambridge, CC BY 3.0): abstract p. 449; Table 4 p. 460 (original N = 37; MTurk N = 756, 691 after exclusions); section 3.2.3 p. 465 (r(6) = -0.85 [-0.97, -0.37]); Table 15 p. 475 (original r(6) = -.96 [-0.98, -0.92]); Table 17 p. 477 (one-sample ds)","Signs aligned: both r are negative (harder domain -> lower self-rating), so the original direction is set positive; the replication goes the same way (+0.85). FReD values are right, but the 'using a mouse' label does not match them: -0.96/-0.85 are the across-domain correlations. Unit = 8 domain means (df = 6), so r is huge and its CI wide; not comparable in size to participant-level rows. The printed original CI [-0.98, -0.92] is narrower than 8 points allow (about [-0.99, -0.79]); it is reproduced as printed. Caveats from the paper: at the participant level the sign flips (inventory means r(238) = +0.16 [0.04, 0.28], a Simpson's paradox); per-item data give r(1918) = -0.35 [-0.39, -0.31]; difficulty was not a predictor in the mixed model for the replication condition. One-sample effects: mouse d = 1.18 (original 'each easy ability' d = 0.90); difficult items smaller than the original (original -1.44; replication -0.32 to -0.65; jokes no signal). N = 240 is the replication condition only (total 691 after exclusions, with 2 extension conditions)."
bias blind spot,Bias blind spot,decision,held,"Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008",10.1177/0146167202286008,2002,24,"t(23) = 8.31 (self 5.31 vs average American 6.75, eight-bias composite; FReD quote of original p. 3, original not opened); replication paper restates original d = -0.86 [-1.28, -0.43]",0.866,0.711,0.941,"Chandrashekar, S. P., Yeung, S. K., Yau, K. C., Cheung, C. Y., Agarwal, T. K., Wong, C. Y. J., Pillai, T., Thirlwell, T. N., Leung, W. N., Tse, C., Li, Y. T., Cheng, B. L., Chan, H. Y. C., & Feldman, G. (2021). Agency and self-other asymmetries in perceived bias and shortcomings (subtitle shortened). Judgment and Decision Making, 16(6), 1392–1412. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008470",10.1017/s1930297500008470,2021,621,"Study 3: Md = -1.80, t(620) = -32.04, p < .001, dz = -1.29, 95% CI [-1.39, -1.18] (self minus other; negative = self rated less biased, as in the original)",0.79,0.763,0.812,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.912,successful,FReD effect 1389,1285,86.0,104.7,22,none,W2036469702,"Chandrashekar et al. (2021) JDM 16(6), p. 1401 (Results, Study 3 t, dz, CI), p. 1406 Table 4 (original d -0.86 vs mini-meta d -1.00 [-1.33, -0.67])","Negative t is only the self-minus-other coding: SAME direction as the original. Both r from paired t (within-subject); r_ci converts the printed dz CI with r = dz/sqrt(dz^2+1), which equals the t-based r. Table 4's d's (-0.86 vs -1.00) mix metrics; on either metric the replication is as large or larger. Mini-meta of 3 samples (N = 969): d = -1.00 [-1.33, -0.67]."
choosing versus rejecting,Choosing versus rejecting,decision,failed,"Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory &amp; Cognition, 21(4), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197186",10.3758/bf03197186,1993,170,"d = 0.35 [-0.04, 0.68] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.172,-0.02,0.322,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,7901,"d = -0.13 [-0.18, -0.09] (global estimate, all samples)",-0.065,-0.09,-0.045,printed in the replication report,,,r,-0.376,failed,FReD effect 881,572,16.3,17.7,8,none,W2088424126,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Effect of choosing versus rejecting on relative desirability.
deep thinkers adjust more from their own anchors,Deep thinkers adjust more from their own anchors,decision,failed,"Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x,2006,81,"Epley & Gilovich (2006) Study 2a: high- vs low-need-for-cognition (extreme quintiles) difference in susceptibility to self-generated anchors, d = 0.49, 95% CI [0.039, 0.936], N = 81 (as restated in the replication, pp. 6 and 12)",,,,"Röseler, L., Bögler, H. L., Koßmann, L., Krueger, S. M., Bickenbach, S. L. C., Bühler, R., della Guardia, J., Köppel, L.-M. A., Möhring, J., Ponader, S., Roßmaier, K., & Sing, J. (2024). Need for cognition, cognitive load, and forewarning do not moderate anchoring effects. A replication study of Epley & Gilovich (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2005; Psychological Science, 2006). Journal of Comments and Replications in Economics, 3(2024-8). https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.38",10.18718/81781.38,2024,303,"r(301) = .050, 95% CI [-1, .14] (one-sided), p = .809 one-tailed; correlation between need for cognition and susceptibility to self-generated anchors, full NFC range; positive = opposite to the predicted negative direction",-0.05,-0.162,0.063,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,,mixed,FReD effect 1309,920,,,,none,W2052618511,"Published JCRE PDF (jcr-econ.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/JCRE-2024-8-Roseleretal.pdf): p. 6 (original d = 0.49 [0.039, 0.936]), p. 10-11 Results 4.2 (N = 303; r(301) = .050), p. 12 (N original = 81, expected full-range r = .16). Also read PsyArXiv preprint v3 (OSF bgp3m), which prints different numbers.","FReD's sign is wrong here. The original predicted a NEGATIVE NFC-susceptibility link (high-NFC people adjust more). The replication r = +.050 went the other way (one-tailed p = .809), so aligned r_r = -0.05. The printed CI is one-sided [-1, .14] (one-sided upper bound 0.144 matches r = .05, N = 303), so r_ci is left null; there is no printed two-sided CI. Not comparable: the original d is an extreme-groups (top vs bottom quintile) contrast, the replication a full-range correlation; the authors' simulation put the expected full-range r at .16 (power target), against o_r 0.238 from the extreme-groups d. German sample, different item set. The paper is about moderators: anchoring itself replicated (all experimenter-provided items d >= 0.89; only 2 of 8 self-generated items showed effects). The 2022 PsyArXiv preprint printed N = 300, r(298) = -.017 [-.13, .10]; FReD 753 (n = 300) likely reflects that version. FReD 1037/1038 = the cognitive-load study (N = 183), also null."
disjunction effect,Disjunction effect,decision,held,"Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3(5), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x,1992,66,"Cramer V = .218 [.137, .317], ""paying to know"" problem (restated in the replication, Table 1)",0.218,0.137,0.317,"Ziano, I., Kong, M. F., Kim, H. J., Liu, C. Y., Wong, S. C., Cheng, B. L., & Feldman, G. (2021). Replication: Revisiting Tversky and Shafir’s (1992) Disjunction Effect with an extension comparing between and within subject designs. Journal of Economic Psychology, 83, 102350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350",10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350,2021,445,"Cramer V = .302 [.239, .368]",0.302,0.239,0.368,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.385,mixed,FReD effect 1990,581,24.7,21.7,-12,none,W2031845357,"Ziano et al. 2021 JoEP, OSF preprint (final), abstract + summary table","Paying-to-know problem. The second problem (choice under risk) did not replicate: V .26 -> .11 [-.07, .20]."
emotion makes people ignore probability,Emotion makes people ignore probability,decision,failed,"Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00334",10.1111/1467-9280.00334,2001,40,"d = 0.74 [0.0005, 1.74] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.347,0.0,0.656,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,7218,"d = -0.08 [-0.13, -0.03] (global estimate, all samples)",-0.04,-0.065,-0.015,printed in the replication report,,,r,-0.115,failed,FReD effect 880,825,40.7,39.7,-2,none,W2112818819,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Original lower CI printed as <0.001.
false consensus effect,False consensus effect,decision,held,"Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-x",10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-x,1977,80,"d = 0.80 [0.22, 1.87] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.371,0.109,0.683,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,7827,"d = 0.95 [0.90, 1.00] (global estimate, all samples)",0.429,0.41,0.447,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.155,successful,FReD effect 855,3163,109.7,158.3,44,none,W2088614984,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Traffic-ticket scenario (the item with the most participants; supermarket scenario: 0.99 -> 1.18).
feelings make people ignore quantity,Feelings make people ignore quantity,decision,held,"Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23",10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23,2004,331,"Study 2 (music book vs cash): Scope x Target interaction F(1, 327) = 7.48, p = .01, MSE = 4.26, eta2 = 0.02 (90% CI [0.003, 0.05] computed by the replicators); N = 331; as restated in the replication supplement pp. 11 and 18",0.15,0.043,0.254,"Tam, C. Y., & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the affective psychology of value: Replication and extension of Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) [Unpublished preprint]. OSF. https://osf.io/qbp4g/ (preregistration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AHCPW)",10.17605/osf.io/ahcpw,2024,1041,"Replication DV (hours willing to work): Scope x Target interaction F(1, 1037) = 12.48, p < .001, eta2 = 0.01, 90% CI [0.003, 0.03] (Results p. 43, Table 11)",0.109,0.049,0.169,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.727,successful,FReD effect 1882,654,,,,none,W2111488870,"Public results report: preprint PDF in OSF project qbp4g /Preprint (file ue9gm, posted 1 Apr 2024): abstract p. 4, sample p. 26, Results p. 43, Table 11 p. 52 (replication), Table 15 p. 62 (extension), supplement pp. 11 and 18 (original statistics)","A results report IS public (unpublished preprint, not in a journal; data collected April 2021). FReD used the WRONG test: F(1, 1037) = 16.96 in Table 15 is the extension (affect ratings as the DV, r = 0.126). The replication test on the original DV (willingness to work) is F(1, 1037) = 12.48 -> r = 0.109; original F(1, 327) = 7.48 -> 0.150. Only 90% CIs are printed (eta2 [0.003, 0.03] -> r about [0.055, 0.173]), so r_ci is null. Direction matches (cash more scope-sensitive than the music book: d 1.46 vs 0.71), but the music book was still clearly scope-sensitive, unlike the original. The same preprint FAILED the two other studies: pandas (Study 3) interaction F(1, 1037) = 0.84, p = .361, eta2 = 0.001 vs original 0.03; muggers (Study 4) F(1, 1037) = 1.18, p = .278, eta2 = 0.001 vs original 0.02. The authors call support 'mixed'. Showing only Study 2 makes the paper look better than it is. The same report did not replicate the paper's pandas study (F = 0.84) or muggers study (F = 1.18); the scorecard follows the rule (first study listed)."
"framing effect (the ""asian disease"" problem)","Framing effect (the ""Asian disease"" problem)",decision,weaker,"Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683",10.1126/science.7455683,1981,181,"d = 1.08 [0.71, 1.45] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.475,0.335,0.587,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,7228,"d = 0.40 [0.35, 0.45] (global estimate, all samples)",0.196,0.172,0.22,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.413,successful,FReD effect 862,17834,729.7,858.7,18,none,W2096452841,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Framing (Asian disease).
frequencies do not remove the conjunction fallacy,Frequencies do not remove the conjunction fallacy,decision,held,"Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in           Adversarial Collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350",10.1111/1467-9280.00350,2001,108,"d = 0.59 [0.36, 0.82] (Linda, and vs unlikely; computed by the replication team)",0.283,0.177,0.379,"Chandrashekar, S., Cheng‎, Y. H., Fong‎, C. L., Leung‎, Y. C., Wong, Y. T., Cheng, B. L., & Feldman, G. (2021). Frequency estimation and semantic ambiguity do not eliminate ‎conjunction bias, when it ‎occurs: Replication and extension of ‎Mellers, Hertwig, and Kahneman (2001)‎. Meta-Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2020.2474",10.15626/mp.2020.2474,2021,1032,"d = 0.49 [0.31, 0.67], t(431.26) = 5.51",0.238,0.153,0.318,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.841,mixed,FReD effect 1940,448,26.0,24.0,-8,none,W2101446476,"Chandrashekar et al. 2021 Meta-Psychology, Table 2 and Results",Linda story replicated; the James story was a likely failure.
goals act as reference points,Goals act as reference points,decision,held,"Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 79–109. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0708",10.1006/cogp.1998.0708,1999,45,"100% of 45 listed a positive reaction for Sally; h = 1.57 [1.28, 1.86] (computed by the replication team, Table 1)",0.618,0.539,0.681,"Au, I. N. Y., &amp; Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting ""Goals as Reference Points"": Replication and extensions of Heath et al. (1999). <i>OSF</i>. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WMQTB",10.17605/osf.io/wmqtb,2024,377,"91.5% (345 of 377); h = 0.98 [0.88, 1.08] (Table 9)",0.44,0.403,0.475,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.713,successful,FReD effect 2,1008,,,,none,W2160010213,"Au & Feldman, OSF preprint, Table 1 and Table 9","Cohen h against 50%, converted like d. Problem 1 part 1."
hindsight bias,Hindsight bias,decision,held,"Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 544–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.544",10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.544,1977,184,Slovic & Fischhoff (1977) Exp. 1: probability estimates; no comparable effect size coded,,,,"Chen, J., Kwan, L. C., Ma, L. Y., Choi, H. Y., Lo, Y. C., Au, S. Y., Tsang, C. H., Cheng, B. L., & Feldman, G. (2021). Retrospective and prospective hindsight bias: Replications and extensions of Fischhoff (1975) and Slovic and Fischhoff (1977). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104154",10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104154,2021,608,Study 2 (N = 608): mean d = 0.40 across scenarios (abstract),0.196,0.118,0.271,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,,successful,FReD effect 1397,488,9.7,5.0,-48,none,W2003824622,"Chen et al. 2021 JESP, OSF preprint v3, abstract",No CI printed for the mean d; CI computed from n.
less is better,Less is better,decision,held,"Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199806)11:2<107::aid-bdm292>3.0.co;2-y",10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199806)11:2<107::aid-bdm292>3.0.co;2-y,1998,83,"d = 0.69 [0.24, 1.13] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.326,0.119,0.492,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,7646,"d = 0.78 [0.74, 0.83] (global estimate, all samples)",0.363,0.347,0.383,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.114,successful,FReD effect 882,404,15.3,16.7,9,none,W3126001372,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Hsee 1998 Study 1.
money illusion,Money illusion,decision,held,"Shafir, E., Diamond, P., & Tversky, A. (1997). Money Illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555208",10.1162/003355397555208,1997,358,"Cramer V = 0.26 [0.17, 0.37], Problem 1 (as restated)",0.26,0.17,0.37,"Ziano, I., Li, J., Tsun, S. M., Lei, H. C., Kamath, A. A., Cheng, B. L., & Feldman, G. (2021). Revisiting “money illusion”: Replication and extension of Shafir, Diamond, and Tversky (1997). Journal of Economic Psychology, 83, 102349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102349",10.1016/j.joep.2020.102349,2021,604,"Cramer V = 0.28 [0.21, 0.36]",0.28,0.21,0.36,printed in the replication report,,,r,1.077,successful,FReD effect 1411,616,35.3,28.3,-20,none,W4233461763,"Ziano et al. 2021 JoEP, OSF preprint, abstract + Table (original vs replication)",Problem 1 (income assessments).
most drivers think they are above average,Most drivers think they are above average,decision,held,"Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6",10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6,1981,86,Shares of drivers above the median (Svenson 1981); no test statistic,,,,"Koppel, L., Andersson, D., Tinghög, G., Västfjäll, D., & Feldman, G. (2023). We are all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers: Successful replication and extension of Svenson (1981)‎. Meta-Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2021.2932",10.15626/mp.2021.2932,2023,1203,"Safer than average on a 7-point scale: t(386) = 27.28, g = 1.39 [1.25, 1.53] (subsample of 387; total N = 1,203)",0.811,0.774,0.843,printed in the replication report,,,r,,successful,FReD effect 1398,1969,,,,none,W1982314020,"Koppel et al. 2023 Meta-Psychology, Results (p. 6) and abstract","Original reported percentages only, not on a comparable scale. Replication r from the one-sample t."
norm theory: regret after unusual choices,Norm theory: regret after unusual choices,decision,held,"Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.136",10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.136,1986,138,"88% vs 12% chose Mr. Jones (exception) as feeling more regret, N = 138; original prints percentages only; replication report restates 88% of 138 and gives original d = 2.29 (converted from chi-square)",0.753,0.67,0.817,"Kutscher, L., & Feldman, G. (2019). The impact of past behaviour normality on regret: replication and extension of three experiments of the exceptionality effect. Cognition and Emotion, 33(5), 901-914. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1504747",10.1080/02699931.2018.1504747,2019,342,"Mr. Jones 315 (92%) vs Mr. Smith 27 (8%); chi2(1, N = 342) = 242.53, p < .001; d = 3.12 (converted from chi-square, no CI)",0.842,0.808,0.87,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,1.118,successful,FReD effect 1383,3027,98.3,108.3,10,none,W1984871604,"Published PDF (OSF fnmk4, 'Final published manuscript'): p. 902 (original 88% of 138), p. 906 Results Part 1 (chi2 = 242.53), Table 1 p. 908, Table 4 p. 910 (d 3.12 vs original 2.29)","Hitchhiker scenario (Kahneman & Miller 1986 p. 145), regret question. o_r from printed original d = 2.29 -> 0.753 (matches FReD's chi2 78.38 -> 0.754); r_r = sqrt(242.53/342) = 0.842 (same as d 3.12 -> 0.842). Both are one-sample 50/50 goodness-of-fit tests on a forced choice within subjects, so r here equals Cohen's w (about 2p - 1) and is not comparable in size to between-group r values on other rows. Published online 10 Aug 2018; issue year 2019. FReD 1384 = car-accident scenario (orig 82%, d 1.62; rep 81%, chi2(1, N=342) = 131.42, d 1.58)."
outcome bias: good results make decisions look good,Outcome bias: good results make decisions look good,decision,held,"Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569",10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569,1988,20,d = 0.21 (patient judgments; as restated by the replication team; physician d = 0.53),0.104,-0.354,0.523,"Aiyer, S., Kam, H. C., Ng, K. Y., Young, N. A., Shi, J., & Feldman, G. (2023). Outcomes affect evaluations of decision quality: Replication and extensions of Baron and Hershey's (1988) outcome bias Experiment 1. International Review of Social Psychology, 36(1).",10.5334/irsp.751,2023,692,"d = 0.77 [0.62, 0.93] (patient; physician d = 1.10 [0.94, 1.26])",0.359,0.296,0.422,printed in the replication report,,,r,3.442,successful,FReD effect 1825,872,,,,none,W4242732483,"Aiyer et al. 2023, International Review of Social Psychology (print PDF on OSF), Results",Outcome bias replicated with much larger effects.
people rate good traits as more like themselves,People rate good traits as more like themselves,decision,held,"Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1621–1630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621",10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621,1985,88,"Desirability effect: partial eta-squared = .78 [.73, .81] (computed by the replication team from F(3, 261) = 22.72)",0.883,0.854,0.9,"Ziano, I., Mok, P. Y. (Cora), & Feldman, G. (2020). Replication and Extension of Alicke (1985) Better-Than-Average Effect for Desirable and Controllable Traits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 1005–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620948973",10.1177/1948550620948973,2020,1573,"Squared semi-partial r = .54 [.43, .65] (trait-level analysis, 149 traits)",0.735,0.656,0.806,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.832,successful,FReD effect 1314,1046,39.3,42.7,8,none,W1979506848,"Ziano, Mok & Feldman 2020 SPPS, OSF preprint (final), abstract","Different variance measures (partial eta-squared vs squared semi-partial r); comparison approximate. Analysis at the level of 149 traits; 1,573 participants in two waves."
scarcity changes how people judge value,Scarcity changes how people judge value,decision,failed,"Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity Frames Value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563958",10.1177/0956797614563958,2015,73,"F(1, 69) = 5.16 (scarcity x account interaction, Study 6; restated by O'Donnell et al.); r = 0.264 [0.036, 0.466]",0.264,0.036,0.466,"O’Donnell, M., Dev, A. S., Antonoplis, S., Baum, S. M., Benedetti, A. H., Brown, N. D., Carrillo, B., Choi, A. L., Connor, P., Donnelly, K., Ellwood-Lowe, M. E., Foushee, R., Jansen, R., Jarvis, S. N., Lundell-Creagh, R., Ocampo, J. M., Okafor, G. N., Azad, Z. R., Rosenblum, M., … Nelson, L. D. (2021). Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(44). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103313118",10.1073/pnas.2103313118,2021,207,"Interaction F(1, 203) = 1.69, p = .19; r = 0.090 [-0.047, 0.224], direction same as original",0.09,-0.047,0.224,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.341,failed,FReD effect 1974,432,40.3,47.7,18,none,W2130478903,"O'Donnell et al. (2021) OSF project osf.io/a2e96: authors' summary table 'Study overviews and small telescopes' + 'Correlation coefficients_CIs_for plots' (printed F, r, 95% CI, direction 'positive'); per-study write-up osf.io/me6jy (Rahmani): F(1, 205) = 1.68, p = .20, N = 209 before exclusions, cell means. PNAS SI p. 65 not reachable (403); FReD's F(1, 203) = 1.69 matches","Study 6 = time-scarce vs time-rich Family Feud players, 10-s loss framed against a small vs large account. Write-up means: time-rich players still showed the framing effect (7.34 vs 6.73), time-scarce did not (8.69 vs 8.98) - same pattern, much weaker. Note: FReD 431-434 (Boyce 2023, N = 387) cover the paper's headline 'beer on the beach' income x context studies (1b-1d); their final statistics are not printed in any report I could open (only a pilot write-up), so not used."
scarcity tires the mind for later tasks,Scarcity tires the mind for later tasks,decision,failed,"Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some Consequences of Having Too Little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222426",10.1126/science.1222426,2012,56,"F(1, 54) = 4.16, p = .046 (Dots-Mixed attention task, poor vs rich; restated by SSRP)",0.267,0.004,0.495,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,619,"Stage 2 pooled: r = -0.015, p = .710",-0.015,-0.094,0.064,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.056,failed,FReD effect 639,1562,77.3,161.7,109,none,W2088027515,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55)","SSRP tested the attention/fatigue outcome (poor players do worse on the later Dots-Mixed task), not borrowing. FReD's original partial eta2 = .07 gives r = .265, same as F. Stage 1 alone: r = -0.087, N = 278. No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [-0.094, 0.064]. Larger later tests (FReD 2020-2029, N up to 1,439) are Shah, Mullainathan & Shafir (2019), a self-replication by the original authors, so not independent."
the effort heuristic,The effort heuristic,decision,held,"Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00065-9",10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00065-9,2004,138,"Kruger et al. (2004) Exp. 1 (poem, 18 h vs 4 h): liking/quality F(1, 136) = 3.98, p = .048; replicators' d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.00, 0.68] (as restated in the replication: supplement p. 4-5, Table 4)",0.169,0.0,0.322,"Ziano, I., Yeung, S. K., Lee, C. S., Shi, J., & Feldman, G. (2023). ""The effort heuristic"" revisited: Mixed results for replications of Kruger et al. (2004)'s Experiments 1 and 2. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), 87489. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87489",10.1525/collabra.87489,2023,700,"Study 2 (Prolific, close replication of Exp. 1): liking/quality index t(698) = 3.00, p = .003, d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.08, 0.38]",0.113,0.04,0.187,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.669,mixed,FReD effect 1926,438,,,,none,W3125783638,"Collabra print PDF (OSF qxf5c /Print/...-print.pdf): p. 8 Study 2 results (t(698) = 3.00, d = 0.23 [0.08, 0.38]), Table 4 p. 10 (original d = 0.34 [0.00, 0.68]; MTurk d = -0.05), Table 5 p. 11; supplement pp. 4-5 (original F(1, 136) = 3.98)","FReD values correct. o_r from F(1, 136) = 3.98 (d 0.34 gives 0.168); o_ci from the printed d CI. r_r from t(698) = 3.00 (d 0.23 gives 0.114); r_ci from the printed d CI. Mixed overall: the earlier MTurk replication of the same Exp. 1 (Study 1a, N = 602 after exclusions; FReD 1924) found d = -0.05 [-0.21, 0.11] (r -0.025), and neither sample replicated the monetary-value effect (Prolific d = 0.08 [-0.07, 0.22]). The paintings experiment (Exp. 2, within-subject; FReD 1925) replicated but smaller (partial eta2 0.02 vs 0.09). Prolific sample is the largest (700) and was a revised second attempt."
babies learn abstract rules at 7 months,Babies learn abstract rules at 7 months,infant,failed,"Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants. Science, 283(5398), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5398.77",10.1126/science.283.5398.77,1999,16,"Exp. 1: F(1, 14) = 25.6 (longer looking to inconsistent test sentences; FReD quote of original p. 2, original closed)",0.804,0.513,0.929,"Geambașu, A., Spit, S., van Renswoude, D., Blom, E., Fikkert, P. J. P. M., Hunnius, S., Junge, C. C. M. M., Verhagen, J., Visser, I., Wijnen, F., & Levelt, C. C. (2022). Robustness of the rule‐learning effect in 7‐month‐old infants: A close, multicenter replication of Marcus et al. (1999). Developmental Science, 26(1). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13244",10.1111/desc.13244,2022,96,"Consistency main effect: F(1, 94) = 0.155, p = .695 (2-way ANOVA; one-way as in original F(1, 95) = 0.148, p = .702); looking 6.60 s inconsistent vs 6.52 s consistent; mixed model beta = 0.08 [-0.69, 0.84], BF01 = 3.08",0.041,-0.161,0.24,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.051,failed,FReD effect 1216,1246,65.0,26.3,-59,none,W1979539191,"Geambasu et al. (2022) Developmental Science, Results (repeated-measures ANOVAs) and Table 3 (all-lab means), read in PMC10078110 full text","FReD's F(1, 94) = 0.017 is the familiarization x trial-type interaction (repetition-bias check), NOT the rule-learning effect. Both are within-infant consistency effects (F with df = N - 2). Inconsistent trials looked at 0.08 s longer: same direction, essentially zero."
babies track what others believe,Babies track what others believe,infant,held,"Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The Social Sense: Susceptibility to Others’ Beliefs in Human Infants and Adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190792",10.1126/science.1190792,2010,24,"t(23) = 2.42, p = .024 (within-subject RT, P-A- vs P-A+, Study 1; restated by SSRP)",0.45,0.057,0.722,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,95,"Stage 1 only (replicated): r = 0.586, p < .001",0.586,0.436,0.704,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,1.302,successful,FReD effect 632,923,59.7,67.7,13,none,W1992793549,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55)","Replication larger than original. Caveat: later work (Phillips et al. 2015) argued the RT pattern is an attention-check timing artefact, so 'replicated' means the RT pattern, not belief tracking. No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [0.436, 0.704]."
verbal-overshadowing,Describing a face makes it harder to recognise (verbal overshadowing),memory,held,"Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 36-71.",10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-m,1990,88,Correct lineup identification: verbal description 17/44 (38.6%) vs control 28/44 (63.6%); difference -25.00%,,,,"Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P., Bahnik, S., Birch, S., Birt, A. R., ... Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Registered Replication Report: Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 556-578.",10.1177/1745691614545653,2014,2055,"RRR2 (22 labs): -16.31% correct identification, verbal description minus control (abstract: '16% less likely'); 95% CI: 95% CI -20.47% to -12.14%",,,,"raw units, see replication_statistic",25.0 percentage points correct (description minus control),"16.31 percentage points correct (description minus control) [12.14, 20.47]",raw,0.652,successful,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),791,35.0,24.7,-30,none,W1985876211,"checked in PDF text (original: Alogna et al. 2014 author manuscript: Results ms p. 17-18 (-25.00%); Fig. 3 row 'S&E-S Study 1' (ms p. 61); RRR2 per-lab table (ms pp. 71-75: 44 + 44 included); replication: Author manuscript ms pp. 17-18 + Fig. 3 (ms p. 61). n = 2,055 is OUR sum of the 22 labs' 'Total Included' (table ms pp. 71-75). It is not printed as a total.)","RRR2 (22 labs) replicated Study 1. Risk differences in percentage points of correct line-up identification; n = 2,055 is the sum of the labs included. The effect as phi is at least 0.16 whatever the base rate (phi >= the risk difference for equal groups)."
retrieval practice beats concept mapping,Retrieval practice beats concept mapping,memory,held,"Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327",10.1126/science.1199327,2011,40,"F(1, 38) = 21.63 (retrieval practice vs concept mapping, 1-week recall; restated by SSRP)",0.602,0.358,0.769,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,49,"Stage 1 only (replicated, no Stage 2): r = 0.384, p = .006",0.384,0.115,0.6,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.638,successful,FReD effect 630,1014,55.3,68.3,23,none,W2161621074,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55)","Replicated at about 64% of the original size. FReD's original d = 1.5 (p. S4) gives r = 0.60, same as F. Small replication (N = 49). No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [0.115, 0.6]."
"the ""google effect"" on memory","The ""Google effect"" on memory",memory,failed,"Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745",10.1126/science.1207745,2011,69,"t(45) = 3.26, paired (as restated by SSRP); SSRP prints original r = 0.368 with corrected N = 69",0.368,0.144,0.556,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,234,"Stage 2 pooled: paired t(233) = 0.7579, p = .449; SSRP r = 0.050",0.05,-0.079,0.177,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.136,failed,FReD effect 641,1744,74.7,108.3,45,none,W1964596829,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55); per-study report osf.io/84fyw p. 1, 4-6 (t values, n = 69 correction)","Sparrow Study 1 modified Stroop (computer words after hard trivia). Original authors told SSRP the true n was 69, not 46, so r = 0.368 (0.437 if n = 46). FReD's d = 0.371 from means/SDs is a different metric. Stage 1 alone: r = 0.110, N = 104. No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [-0.079, 0.177]."
writing about worries boosts exam scores,Writing about worries boosts exam scores,memory,failed,"Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom. Science, 331(6014), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199427",10.1126/science.1199427,2011,20,"F(1, 18) = 30.53, p = .00003 (expressive writing x pre/post, high-pressure math; restated by SSRP)",0.793,0.54,0.915,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,79,"Stage 2 pooled: F(1, 77) = 0.7352, p = .39, opposite direction; SSRP r = -0.098",-0.098,-0.312,0.126,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.124,failed,FReD effect 637,433,31.0,32.7,5,none,W2118377505,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55); per-study report osf.io/j8pbk p. 6 (F(1,77), N split)","N = 79 = participants in the two high-pressure conditions used for the focal test (131 total incl. low-pressure checks). Lab version of Study 2, not the classroom study. No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [-0.312, 0.126]."
elderly words make people walk slower,Elderly words make people walk slower,priming,failed,"Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230",10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,1996,30,"Exp. 2a: t(28) = 2.86, p < .01 (elderly prime 8.28 s vs neutral 7.30 s walking time)",0.475,0.138,0.713,"Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral Priming: It’s All in the Mind, but Whose Mind? PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081",10.1371/journal.pone.0029081,2012,120,"Exp. 1: ANCOVA (entry speed as covariate) F(1, 119) < 1, eta2 = .01; prime M = 6.27 s (SD 2.15) vs no-prime 6.39 s (SD 1.11)",-0.1,-0.274,0.081,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.211,failed,FReD effect 670,2736,108.0,136.3,26,none,W4249924107,"Original: Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996) p. 236 (Results, Exp. 2a), read in PDF (acs.ist.psu.edu copy). Replication: Doyen et al. (2012) PLoS ONE 7(1) e29081, p. 3 Exp. 1 Results","Primed group walked slightly FASTER (printed unadjusted means), so opposite direction. r from the printed rounded eta2 .01; since F < 1 with df 119 the true |r| is below 0.09. Exp. 2 (N = 50) found slowing only when experimenters expected it."
heavy clipboards make things seem important,Heavy clipboards make things seem important,priming,failed,"Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an Embodiment of Importance. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1169–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,2009,51,"d = 0.59 [0.01, 1.16] (as restated by ML3; Study 2, heavy vs light clipboard, importance of student voice)",0.283,0.005,0.502,"Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budiman, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012",10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012,2016,2285,"Aggregate d = 0.03 [-0.06, 0.11], t(2283) = 0.61, p = .543 (meta-analytic 0.03 [-0.05, 0.11])",0.015,-0.03,0.055,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.053,failed,FReD effect 706,404,35.3,38.0,8,none,W2104686673,"Ebersole et al. (2016) Many Labs 3, Table 3 'Original and replication results' (authors' OSF file 'Many Labs 3 Manuscript Tables.pdf', osf.io/ct89g, p. 52-53); methods in OSF Supplementary Materials",Essentially zero; no site significant. FReD's N 2374 differs from Table 3's N = 2285 (used here).
facial-feedback,Holding a pen in your teeth makes cartoons funnier (facial feedback),priming,failed,"Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768-777.",10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,1988,,Mean funniness rating: teeth/smile 5.14 vs lips/pout 4.32 (0-9 scale); difference 0.82 units. Test statistic not restated in the RRR.,,,,"Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Acosta, A., Adams, R. B., Jr., ... Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917-928.",10.1177/1745691616674458,2016,1894,Rating difference (smile minus pout) of 0.03 units; 17 labs; 95% CI: 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16,,,,"raw units, see replication_statistic",0.82 rating points (0-9 scale),"0.03 rating points (0-9 scale) [-0.11, 0.16]",raw,0.037,failed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),1894,92.7,128.0,38,none,W2169284121,"checked in PDF text (original: Wagenmakers et al. 2016: p. 918 (means 5.14/4.32), p. 917 abstract and p. 922 (0.82); replication: Abstract p. 917; 'Primary result' p. 922 + Fig. 4; total N = 1,894 p. 924)","Registered Replication Report, 17 labs. Both studies report the funniness difference in rating points on the same 0-9 scale."
hostility priming,Hostility priming,priming,weaker,"Srull, T. K., & Wyer, Jr., R. S. (2004). The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications. Social Cognition, 154–166. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203496398-9",10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1660,2004,96,"Raw difference about 3 scale points (Donald hostility, 0-10 scale, 80% vs 20% hostile primes, 30-item/immediate cells: 8.57 vs 5.56, n = 8 each; as restated in RRR Fig. 1). FReD's F(1, 72) = 590.67 (full 2x2x3x2 design, df 72) would give r = 0.94, but the RRR says the original statistics may be erroneous",,,,"McCarthy, R. J., Skowronski, J. J., Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., Orthey, R., Acar, O. A., Aczel, B., Bakos, B. E., Barbosa, F., Baskin, E., Bègue, L., Ben-Shakhar, G., Birt, A. R., Blatz, L., Charman, S. D., Claesen, A., Clay, S. L., … Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918777487",10.1177/2515245918777487,2018,5610,"Meta-analytic mean difference = 0.08 scale points, 95% CI [0.004, 0.16] (22 labs; 20%: 6.97, n = 2,813; 80%: 7.06, n = 2,797)",0.029,0.001,0.058,printed in the replication report,,,r,,failed,FReD effect 1978,1529,48.3,32.0,-34,none,W2119266780,"McCarthy et al. (2018) RRR, AMPPS 1(3): text p. 322-323 (original ~3 points, possible error), Results p. 327 (0.08 [0.004, 0.16], tau, Q), Fig. 1 values; Supplemental Table 1 (per-lab M, SD, d) from OSF bh82z 'Srull & Wyer - Supplemental tables.docx'. Read in Maastricht repository PDF","FReD's 'd = 0.08' is NOT a d: it is a raw difference in 0-10 rating points. r_r is derived: 0.08 / pooled SD 1.383 (computed from the per-lab SDs printed in Supplemental Table 1, 22 primary labs) = d 0.058 -> r 0.029; drop it if only directly printed effect sizes are allowed. Original cannot be standardised (no SDs; data lost; reported F may be wrong), so o_r = null. On the raw 0-10 scale the two ARE comparable: about 3.0 points vs 0.08 points. Secondary measure (ambiguous behaviours): -0.08 [-0.18, 0.01], opposite direction."
spatial metaphors shape how we think about time,Spatial metaphors shape how we think about time,priming,weaker,"Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00073-6",10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00073-6,2000,56,"d = 0.63 [0.07, 1.20] (as restated by ML3; from chi2, Study 1)",0.3,0.035,0.514,"Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budiman, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012",10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012,2016,1335,"Aggregate d = 0.26 [0.15, 0.37], chi2(1) = 21.90, p < .001 (meta-analytic 0.29 [0.17, 0.42])",0.129,0.075,0.182,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.43,successful,FReD effect 720,1841,96.3,106.3,10,none,W1968133283,"Ebersole et al. (2016) Many Labs 3, Table 3 'Original and replication results' (authors' OSF file 'Many Labs 3 Manuscript Tables.pdf', osf.io/ct89g, p. 52-53); methods in OSF Supplementary Materials",Ego-moving vs object-moving spatial prime -> 'Wednesday meeting moved forward' answer. Replicated in aggregate at about 40% of original size; 25% of sites significant.
thinking about distance weakens felt bonds to family,Thinking about distance weakens felt bonds to family,priming,failed,"Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping One’s Distance. Psychological Science, 19(3), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x,2008,84,"Linear contrast t(81) = -2.86 (distance prime -> weaker bonds, M 4.86 vs 5.61); omnibus F(2, 81) = 4.97, eta2 = .11",0.303,0.095,0.486,"(2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716",10.1126/science.aac4716,2015,125,"Linear contrast t(122) = -0.59, p = .56 (distance 5.31 vs closeness 5.44); omnibus F(2, 122) = 0.24, p = .79, eta2 = .00",0.053,-0.124,0.226,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.175,failed,FReD effect 967,459,30.7,26.7,-13,none,W2028665277,"Original: Williams & Bargh (2008) Study 4 results, PMC2394280 full text. Replication: Joy-Gaba, Clay & Cleary final report 'post data collection_Williams_Bargh.docx' (osf.io/vnsqg), Results + Table 1; RPP master data (osf.io/fgjvw) row 140","Study 4 = bonds to siblings, parents, hometown (not emotion ratings). Used the directional linear contrast on both sides; FReD's eta2 values are the 2-df omnibus. Replication tiny, same direction (RPP 'Direction (R) = same'). Fisher-z 95% CI computed: [-0.123, 0.227]."
professor-priming,Thinking about professors improves trivia scores,priming,failed,"Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 865-877.",10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,1998,,"Professor 55.60% vs hooligan 42.50% correct; difference 13.20% (text: '13% higher', '2.6 more of the 20 questions')",,,,"O'Donnell, M., Nelson, L. D., et al. (2018). Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 268-294.",10.1177/1745691618755704,2018,4493,"Professor minus hooligan: 0.14% (0.042 more of the 30 questions correct); 23 labs; 95% CI: 95% CI [-0.71%, 1.00%]",,,,"raw units, see replication_statistic",13.2 percentage points correct,"0.14 percentage points correct [-0.71, 1.0]",raw,0.011,failed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),584,28.0,21.7,-23,none,W4246265603,"checked in PDF text (original: O'Donnell et al. 2018: abstract p. 268; 'Primary analyses' p. 273; Fig. 1 'Original Result' row p. 274; replication: Abstract p. 268; 'Primary analyses' p. 273 (5,146 collected, 653 excluded); Fig. 1 p. 274)","Registered Replication Report, 23 labs; it tested a variant of Experiment 4 (30 questions). Differences in percentage points correct."
weight in your hands sways how you judge a job candidate,Weight in your hands sways how you judge a job candidate,priming,failed,"Ackerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). Incidental Haptic Sensations Influence Social Judgments and Decisions. Science, 328(5986), 1712–1715. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189993",10.1126/science.1189993,2010,54,"F(1, 52) = 4.08, p = .049 (heavy vs light clipboard, resume rating; restated by SSRP)",0.27,0.002,0.502,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,599,"Stage 2 pooled: r = 0.063, p = .125",0.063,-0.017,0.142,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.233,successful,FReD effect 629,575,37.0,45.3,23,none,W2069581519,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55)","Same direction, about a quarter of the original size; Stage 1 alone was significant (r = 0.141, N = 259) but the pooled result was not. Only the weight-on-resume test was replicated, not texture or hardness. No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [-0.017, 0.142]."
analogies plus a stated principle help solve new problems,Analogies plus a stated principle help solve new problems,reasoning,held,"Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6",10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6,1983,143,"Exp. 5, with- vs without-principle: 45/73 vs 28/70 solved before hint; G2(1) = 6.75, p = .009 (recomputed in the replication report from the original counts)",0.217,0.055,0.368,"Boyce, V., Mathur, M., & Frank, M. C. (2023). Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology. Royal Society Open Science, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231240",10.1098/rsos.231240,2023,175,"With vs without principle: 32/83 vs 13/92 solved before hint; G2(1) = 13.90, p = .0002",0.282,0.139,0.413,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,1.3,successful,FReD effect 557,2933,,,,none,W1994925058,"Student report rpubs.com/Greses88/449388 (Perez 2018, part of Boyce et al. 2023), power-analysis and confirmatory-analysis output (contingency table, G-test)","Replicated, slightly larger. Caveat: tested Exp. 5 (adding a stated principle to two analog stories), not the one- vs two-story comparison. r = sqrt(G2/N); FReD's Yates chi2 5.86 gives 0.202 for the original. Student project run 2018 (MTurk), published in Boyce 2023. Fisher-z 95% CI computed: [0.139, 0.413]."
deep thinkers are swayed more by strong arguments,Deep thinkers are swayed more by strong arguments,reasoning,failed,"Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805",10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,1983,114,"F(1, 110) = 22.45 (need for cognition x argument quality)",0.412,0.245,0.539,"Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budiman, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012",10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012,2016,2365,"Interaction partial eta-squared = 0.00005 (Many Labs 3, Table 3); sign not printed",0.007,-0.033,0.047,printed in the replication report,,,r,0.017,mixed,FReD effect 711,849,41.7,38.3,-8,none,W2056166734,"Ebersole et al. 2016 (Many Labs 3), Table 3 and text; original F restated there","Famous claim = people high in need for cognition are swayed more by argument strength (the interaction). The replication effect is essentially zero; ML3 prints no sign, so the CI is computed from r and n. The argument-quality main effect itself did replicate. ML3 measured need for cognition continuously; the original used extreme groups. (Not computed from the ML3 data file.)"
dual-n-back-training,Dual n-back training raises fluid intelligence (brain training),reasoning,failed,"Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829-6833.",10.1073/pnas.0801268105,2008,69,"Group x session F(1, 67) = 5.27, partial eta-squared .07 (trained d = 0.65 pre-post)",0.27,0.036,0.476,"Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359-379.",10.1037/a0029082,2013,73,"Spatial fluid-intelligence composite gain at post-test: F(2, 70) = 0.39, p = .68 (verbal composite F(2, 70) = 0.62, p = .54). RAPM Group x Session F = 0.33, p = .86, partial eta2 = .009. RAPM means, dual n-back group: 7.04 pre -> 6.25 post.; 95% CI: None printed",,,,no single estimate,,,none,,failed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),2183,107.0,149.0,39,none,W2123803218,"checked in PDF text (original: Results para. 2; Materials and Methods (70 enrolled; 34 trained after 1 dropout; 35 controls); replication: In-press manuscript: participants ms p. 15 (75 completed, 2 excluded; 24 dual n-back, 29 visual search, 20 no-contact); Table 2 ms p. 64; Table 3 ms p. 67; Table 4 ms p. 69)","Randomised, placebo-controlled replication (20 sessions, active visual-search placebo and no-contact controls). No group differed in fluid-intelligence gain; on Raven matrices all groups declined. No single directional estimate, so no r is drawn."
growth mindset predicts better grades,Growth mindset predicts better grades,reasoning,failed,"Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x",10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x,2007,373,"Theory of intelligence on change in grades: beta = .53, t = 2.93 (Blackwell et al. 2007, as quoted in FReD)",0.53,0.453,0.599,"Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2020). Testing the association of growth mindset and grades across a challenging transition: Is growth mindset associated with grades? Intelligence, 81, 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101471",10.1016/j.intell.2020.101471,2020,586,"Mindset on grades across the school-to-university transition: beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.05], t = -0.95, p = .345 (abstract)",-0.05,-0.14,0.05,printed in the replication report,,,r,-0.094,failed,FReD effect 1075,3780,281.7,280.3,0,none,W2113101808,"Replication: Li & Bates 2020 abstract (Study 2, n = 586; read via OpenAlex). Original: Blackwell et al. 2007 p. 6 sentence as quoted in FReD",Standardised betas treated as r (approximate). Different setting: Blackwell followed US junior-high students; Li & Bates followed Chinese students from school to university.
hard-to-read fonts improve reasoning,Hard-to-read fonts improve reasoning,reasoning,failed,"Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569",10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569,2007,41,"d = 0.63 [-0.004, 1.25] (as restated by Many Labs 2)",0.3,-0.002,0.53,"Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225",10.1177/2515245918810225,2018,2580,"d = -0.03 [-0.08, 0.01] (global estimate, all samples)",-0.015,-0.04,0.005,printed in the replication report,,,r,-0.05,failed,FReD effect 878,844,57.3,48.0,-16,none,W2138921773,"Klein et al. (2018), Many Labs 2, AMPPS 1(4), Table 2 (p. 468-469): original d [95% CI] and global replication d [95% CI], read in the PDF (TU/e repository copy)",Alter et al. 2007 Study 4 (syllogisms).
"low numeracy, bigger framing effect","Low numeracy, bigger framing effect",reasoning,weaker,"Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and Decision Making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x,2006,100,"F(1, 96) = 5.6 (numeracy x frame interaction)",0.235,0.04,0.412,"Zhu, M., & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication Registered Report of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1).",10.1525/collabra.77608,2023,860,"F(1, 855) = 5.02, p = .025, partial eta-squared = 0.01, 90% CI [0.00, 0.02]",0.076,0.01,0.143,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.325,successful,FReD effect 1386,1178,,,,none,W2145885996,"Zhu & Feldman 2023 Collabra (Stage 2 preprint v3 on OSF), abstract and Study 1 results",Interaction replicated but small. The replication team counted it as successful.
praise-for-intelligence,Praising intelligence (not effort) makes children give up,reasoning,weaker,"Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.",10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33,1998,77,"Intelligence vs effort praise, change in performance: t(75) = -5.93 (Study 1; F(2, 120) = 17.62 across three groups)",0.565,0.39,0.7,"Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). You can't change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that's how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1640-1655.",10.1037/xge0000669,2019,190,"Study 1 (close replication; 95 per arm): effort (growth) vs intelligence (fixed) praise on trial 3 minus trial 1, F(1,188) = 3.930, p = .049; beta = -0.28; 95% CI: CI95 [-0.55, 0.00]",0.143,0.001,0.28,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.253,failed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),1703,97.0,117.3,21,none,W1972987799,checked in PDF text (original: Study 1 Results p. 38 (128 participants p. 35; 5 excluded p. 36); replication: Edinburgh accepted manuscript ('peer reviewed version'): abstract; Study 1 results ms p. 9),"Study 1 close replication (Chinese 10-12-year-olds, no control arm). Same direction, borderline (p = .049); none of 8 motivation measures replicated, and Studies 2-3 (n = 222, 211) found no effect. Original n = 77 children in the two compared groups (df 75)."
reading literary fiction improves mind-reading,Reading literary fiction improves mind-reading,reasoning,failed,"Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918",10.1126/science.1239918,2013,86,"F(1, 82) = 6.40 (RMET, literary vs nonfiction, Exp. 1; restated by SSRP)",0.269,0.061,0.455,"Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z",10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z,2018,714,"Stage 2 pooled: r = -0.027, p = .468",-0.027,-0.1,0.046,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.1,failed,FReD effect 631,1641,114.0,156.3,37,none,W2159585297,"Camerer et al. (2018) SSRP, Supplementary Information PDF: Table 1 (hypothesis + original test, p. 49-51), Table 3 (Stage 1, p. 54), Table 4 (Stage 2 pooled, p. 55)","Opposite direction (literary fiction scored slightly lower). Stage 1 alone: r = -0.066, N = 285. SSRP N = 714 is larger than every other FReD replication of this original (max 370). No numeric CIs printed (figure only); Fisher-z 95% CI computed from r and N: [-0.1, 0.046]."
the curse of knowledge,The curse of knowledge,reasoning,failed,"Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. (2007). The Curse of Knowledge in Reasoning About False Beliefs. Psychological Science, 18(5), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01909.x",10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01909.x,2007,155,"t(105) = -2.42 (ignorance vs knowledge-plausible, probability for the key container; d = 0.47)",0.23,0.075,0.374,"Boyce, V., Mathur, M., & Frank, M. C. (2023). Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology. Royal Society Open Science, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231240",10.1098/rsos.231240,2023,225,"Bridgers replication in Boyce 2023: Welch t(149.58) = -1.20, p = .23, same direction as original",0.098,-0.033,0.226,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.426,failed,FReD effect 599,451,,,,none,W2080335873,"2023 rescue report rpubs.com/ottuba/birch2007_2_rescue_final (Abutto), 'Power Analysis' paragraph restating original t(105) = -2.42, d = 0.472, Bridgers N = 225 t(149.58) = -1.20 and Borchers N = 73 t(70.25) = -0.65; Key Test output","Bridgers (N = 225) is the larger replication inside Boyce 2023 (assumed to be FReD 599). FReD 587's t(239.15) = -1.70 is an EXPLORATORY blue-container test from the 2023 rescue study (Abutto, final N = 374), not Boyce 2023. That study's confirmatory test (red container): t(237.01) = -1.47, p = .14, same direction (means 20.49 vs 23.97), r = 0.095. Either way about 0.1, n.s. o_n 155 total; 107 in the test. Fisher-z 95% CI computed: [-0.063, 0.253]."
unlikely events are thought of more abstractly,Unlikely events are thought of more abstractly,reasoning,failed,"Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641",10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641,2006,34,"Exp. 5 task x likelihood crossover: F(1, 32) = 11.75 (FReD quote); restated by replication as partial eta2 = .269, 95% CI [.071, .442]",0.519,0.266,0.665,"Calderon, S., Mac Giolla, E., Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2020). Subjective likelihood and the construal level of future events: A replication study of Wakslak, Trope, Liberman, and Alony (2006). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), e27–e37. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000214",10.1037/pspa0000214,2020,120,"Study 2 task x likelihood interaction: F(1, 118) = 0.04, p = .835, partial eta2 < .001; BF01 = 10.92",0.018,-0.162,0.197,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.035,failed,FReD effect 1352,468,24.7,29.3,19,none,W3125469407,"Calderon et al. (2020) JPSP, PsyArXiv preprint gd6ej: Study 2 Method (original eta2p restated, p. 8) and Results (p. 10-11)","Interaction F is non-directional: sign not printed (r_r unsigned). Simple effects tiny (SPT d = -0.10, GCT d = 0.05). Alternative directional test, Study 1 = FReD 1645 (segmentation, N = 115): original d = 1.54 [0.52, 2.50] (r 0.61) vs replication d = -0.19 [-0.56, 0.18] (r -0.095 [-0.27, 0.09]), opposite direction."
ego depletion (willpower runs out),Ego depletion (willpower runs out),selfcontrol,failed,"Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774",10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774,1998,,"Not available: Muraven et al. (1998) Study 2 anagram-persistence statistic not in any source I could open (original closed; the replication only says 'significantly less time'). FReD's F(2, 56) = 7.58 is the effortfulness rating (manipulation check), not the outcome",,,,"Murtagh, A. M., & Todd, S. A. (2004). Self-regulation: A challenge to the strength model. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 3(1), 19-51.",,2004,76,"Study 2 (white-bear suppression -> anagram persistence): one-way F(2, 73) = 0.274, p = .761; means: suppress 628.9 s, express 574.1 s, no-instruction 633.7 s",-0.086,-0.306,0.142,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,,failed,FReD effect 655,1723,21.0,40.0,90,none,W4295800929,"Murtagh & Todd (2004) JASNH 3(1), jasnh.com/a14.htm: Study 2 Results (pp. 32-33) and Table 2 (p. 49-50)","Right effect id is 655 (replication side = anagram persistence); 656/657 are correlations with thought intrusions, not the depletion test. Original effect could not be read, so o_r = null and comparable = false. r_r = eta from the 2-df omnibus F (an upper bound for a suppress-vs-control contrast); sign from printed means: the suppression group persisted slightly LONGER than the controls (opposite to depletion). o_n for Study 2 not verified."
mental fatigue lowers physical endurance,Mental fatigue lowers physical endurance,selfcontrol,failed,"Marcora, S. M., Staiano, W., & Manning, V. (2009). Mental fatigue impairs physical performance in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(3), 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.91324.2008",10.1152/japplphysiol.91324.2008,2009,16,"Time to exhaustion 640 +/- 316 s (mental fatigue) vs 754 +/- 339 s (control), P = 0.003 (FReD quote of original p. 5; original not opened); d_av = 0.348",0.171,-0.355,0.615,"Holgado, D., Troya, E., Perales, J. C., Vadillo, M. A., & Sanabria, D. (2019). Does mental fatigue impair physical performance? A replication study. https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/tzn6d",10.31236/osf.io/tzn6d,2019,30,Time to exhaustion 765.5 s (SE 92.05) mental fatigue vs 705.4 s (SE 79.49) control; one-sided BF01 = 9.76 (no t or d printed),-0.064,-0.415,0.303,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.374,failed,FReD effect 1044,1450,78.7,116.7,48,none,W13437719,"Holgado et al. (2019) SportRxiv preprint osf.io/tzn6d (later Eur J Sport Sci 2020), Results 'Performance' (p. 8-9)","Opposite direction: participants lasted LONGER after the fatiguing task. Both r use d_av (mean difference / average condition SD; replication SDs = SE x sqrt(30), from printed SEs). These are within-subject designs; a paired-t based r would be larger for the original (p = .003 with n = 16) but no paired statistic is printed for the replication."
marshmallow-test,Preschool self-control (the marshmallow test) predicts later achievement,selfcontrol,held,"Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 978-986.",10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978,1990,35,"r(35) = .57 with SAT maths, .42 with SAT verbal (diagnostic condition), as restated by Watts et al. 2018",0.57,0.292,0.759,"Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication investigating links between early delay of gratification and later outcomes. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159-1177.",10.1177/0956797618761661,2018,918,"Full sample (n = 918): r = .30 with age-15 achievement (Table 7). Focal sample (n = 552): beta 0.24 bivariate, 0.08 with early controls, 0.05 with 54-month controls (Table 4).",0.3,0.24,0.358,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,0.526,mixed,multi-site or large replication not in FReD (read from the paper),1246,60.3,83.0,38,none,W2033674186,"checked on web page (original: Watts et al. 2018, introduction (PMC6050075). Watts: '35 to 48 children' in the diagnostic condition had follow-up data.; replication: Results, Table 4 cols 4-6 (0.236 / 0.081 / 0.050); age-15 text paragraph; Table 7 (r = .30); abstract ('half the size', 'reduced by two thirds'))","Conceptual replication in a national cohort (NICHD SECCYD). Bivariate r = .30 (full sample, n = 918, Table 7) against the original .57 (SAT maths; verbal .42). With early family controls the focal-sample coefficient falls to 0.08, and to 0.05 after 54-month controls."
self-control tasks drain later self-control,Self-control tasks drain later self-control,selfcontrol,failed,"Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241",10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241,2007,141,"d = 0.42 (OSPAN after attention-control video vs control; FReD quote of original p. 4; original closed, n not verified)",0.206,0.042,0.359,"Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2013). After a pair of self-control-intensive tasks, sucrose swishing improves subsequent working memory performance. BMC Psychology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-22",10.1186/2050-7283-1-22,2013,235,"Effort main effect on OSPAN component score: F(1, 229) = 5.86, p < .05; low-effort group did WORSE, d = -0.30",-0.148,-0.271,-0.02,computed from r and n (Fisher z),,,r,-0.718,failed,FReD effect 659,643,34.0,49.3,45,none,W1992744669,"Carter & McCullough (2013) BMC Psychology 1:22, Results 'OSPAN ratings and performance' and Table 1, read in PMC4269986 full text","Opposite direction: participants who did the two effortful tasks then scored BETTER on working memory. Conceptual, not direct, replication: two depleting tasks (video + essay) and a 3-level mouth-rinse factor; effort x rinse interaction significant (high-effort better after sucrose rinse, d = 0.63). From F: r = -0.158."