Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi

Across 7 experiments (N = 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d = 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011)

When Advertisements Improve Television

Though they have trouble predicting it, people adapt to most positive experiences. Consequently, an experience with a marvelous start can have a mild ending. If the experience is disrupted, however, the intensity can be prolonged, making the experience more enjoyable. Four studies found support for the hypothesis that disrupting television programs can make these programs more enjoyable. Although consumers thought that advertising disruptions would be aversive, they actually made the program more enjoyable to watch (Study 1). Subsequent studies showed that this was not due to evaluative contrast effects (Study 2) or the mere presence of advertisements (Study 3), and in fact could emerge with non-advertising disruptions (Study 4)

Characterizing and predicting repeat food consumption behavior for just-in-time interventions

National Research Foundation (NRF) Singapore under its International Research Centres in Singapore Funding Initiativ

An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science. However, because of strong incentives for innovation and weak incentives for confirmation, direct replication is rarely practiced or published. The Reproducibility Project is an open, large-scale, collaborative effort to systematically examine the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. So far, 72 volunteer researchers from 41 institutions have organized to openly and transparently replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals in 2008. Multiple methods will be used to evaluate the findings, calculate an empirical rate of replication, and investigate factors that predict reproducibility. Whatever the result, a better understanding of reproducibility will ultimately improve confidence in scientific methodology and findings

The Influence of Contextual Cues in Judgment Formation: An Ecologically Valid Test.

An ecologically valid experiment investigated the propositions that (a) people's judgments are influenced by contextual cues, (b) that they are often unaware that those cues influenced them, and (c) that even when they know the cues should influence them, they do not readily incorporate those cues into their judgment formation. After participating in a realistic simulation of a shopping experience, 405 consumers made judgments about whether the product they examined contained fresh or preserved grapefruit sections. Our findings show that despite being aware that contextual cues (such as the location within a store where the product is sold, the type of container it is sold in, and whether the container is chilled or not) generally influence the judgment at hand, people generally fail to realize that their specific judgments were influenced at all. These findings replicate prior studies, thereby extending the generalizability and robustness of prior research

Too Much of a Good Thing: Insensitivity to Rate of Consumption Leads to Unintended Satiation

Repetition of a well-liked stimulus-whether a tasty treat, catchy tune, or favorite piece of art-can cause satiation. This research suggests that rate of consumption moderates that tendency, but that consumers do not fully account for rate in either their predictions or behavior. Consequently, people consume too rapidly, growing tired of initially well-liked stimuli more quickly than if they spaced repetitions. Paradoxically, participants who chose their own (rapid) rate of consumption were less satisfied than those who had their rate of consumption decided for them

Compensate a little, but punish a lot: Asymmetric routes to restoring justice.

Most people have a desire to live in a just world, a place where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, injustices do occur: good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Across four experiments, we show that people respond quite differently to correct these two types of injustices. When bad things happen to good people, individuals are eager to compensate a good person's losses, but only do so to a small degree. In contrast, when a good thing happens to a bad person, because the only perceived appropriate act of punishment is to fully strip the bad actor of all his or her illegitimate gains, few people choose to punish in this costly way. However, when they do, they do so to very large degrees. Moreover, we demonstrate that differential psychological mechanisms drive this asymmetry