Files | Discussion Wiki | Discussion | Discussion

default Loading...

Home

Menu

Loading wiki pages...

View
Wiki Version:
<p>The Accelerated CREP partnership study will be Turri et al (2015). <a href="https://psysciacc.org/2018/04/08/the-accelerated-crep/" rel="nofollow">https://psysciacc.org/2018/04/08/the-accelerated-crep/</a></p> <ul> <li>Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., & Blouw, P. (2015). Knowledge and luck. <em>Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22</em>(2), 378-390.</li> </ul> <p>ACCELERATED CREP: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yy-za3xYi7uX0yzhzIfL9GW0hk4QBO583gA7Ijjj-sc/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are the step-by-step instructions for this project.</p> <p>Our project has received provisional acceptance from <em>Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science</em>. AccCREP diverges from a traditional CREP direct replication by introducing new variables and measurements (as recommended by AMPPS reviewers). You can see our preprint <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/zeux9/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p> <p>DIRECT REPLICATIONS: The RRR submission process took some time, so many of our contributors used that time by completing a <strong>DIRECT replication</strong> of Turri et al., using the exact same stimuli, procedures, and analyses. This is more of a traditional CREP replication.</p> <p>For teams completing direct replications, Jordan Wagge has prepared a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTTLWRTCq44&feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow">video demonstrating how to do the relevant analyses in SPSS</a> and a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NozKJ537yU&feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow">video demonstrating the analyses in R</a>. The data and R script can be found in the component "Direct Replication Stats Support".</p> <p><strong>Turri et al. (2015)</strong> <strong>Abstract</strong>:</p> <p>Nearly all success is due to some mix of ability and luck. But some successes we attribute to the agent's ability, whereas others we attribute to luck. To better understand the criteria distinguishing credit from luck, we conducted a series of four studies on knowledge attributions. Knowledge is an achievement that involves reaching the truth. But many factors affecting the truth are beyond our control, and reaching the truth is often partly due to luck. Which sorts of luck are compatible with knowledge? We found that knowledge attributions are highly sensitive to lucky events that change the explanation for why a belief is true. By contrast, knowledge attributions are surprisingly insensitive to lucky events that threaten, but ultimately fail to change the explanation for why a belief is true. These results shed light on our concept of knowledge, help explain apparent inconsistencies in prior work on knowledge attributions, and constitute progress toward a general understanding of the relation between success and luck.</p> <p><strong><em>Additional Comments From Dr. Turri follow</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Request for materials</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>All the original study materials, along with a complete description of experimental procedures, were included in the published version of the paper your reference, so there is nothing more for me to send you.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Additional contextual information</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>As for additional contextual information, subsequent work, which used more sensitive scaled measures for the knowledge attribution, found a statistically significant difference between structurally similar "No Threat" and "Threat" conditions. Such a finding is reported in this paper:</p> <p>Turri, J. (2016). Vision, knowledge, and assertion. <em>Consciousness and Cognition, 41</em>(C), 41–49. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.004" rel="nofollow">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.004</a> </p> <p>Study 1 from Turri et al. (2015) used a dichotomous knowledge attribution and it wasn't very highly powered, so the observed numerical difference (between "No Threat" and "Threat" conditions) didn't come out significant (p = .164). Overall in the literature, closely matched "No Threat"/"Threat" comparisons sometimes reveal a small statistically significant difference, and other times reveal a small but non-significant difference (in the same direction). So, at this point, it would be reasonable to conclude that there probably is a small but real difference. For a student replication project, that might not be an ideal place to focus. By contrast, several subsequent studies have replicated the large difference between either of those conditions (i.e. "No Threat" and "Threat") and a "No Detection" condition. </p> <p>So if you're looking to focus on comparisons that stand a good chance of replicating because large effect sizes have previously been repeatedly observed, then you might want to focus on of those pairwise comparisons.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Potential moderators</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>This one is harder, but existing evidence points to a role for perceptions of luck and ability, in relation to knowledge attributions. These papers include relevant findings:</p> <p>Turri, J. (2016). A new paradigm for epistemology: from reliabilism to abilism. Ergo, 3(8), 189–231.</p> <p>Turri, J. (2017). Knowledge attributions in iterated fake barn cases. Analysis, 77(1), 104–115. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx036" rel="nofollow">http://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx036</a></p> <p>Your students could start there, if they want to include potential moderating variables.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>FROM Executive Reviewer:</strong> </p> <p>These comments suggest possible Direct+Plus options.</p> <p>We will try to coordinate Direct+Plus replications if there is sufficient interest in multiple locations working on same moderator questions.</p> <p>Please do not contact Dr. Turri directly, rather contact us first with questions.</p> <p><strong>Study Selection:</strong></p> <p>The Collaborative Replications and Education Project (CREP: Leighton, Legate, LePine, Anderson, & Grahe, 2018) invites students to conduct high-quality replications of high impact research projects as a part of their methodological training. Studies are selected by narrowing down the list of the most highly cited papers from the flagship journals in psychology from 3 years prior (in this case, 2015). </p> <p>From that list, CREP reviewers exclude non-empirical papers and then code the remaining papers for feasibility and potential undergraduate student interest. Feasibility is evaluated by considering whether undergraduate teams of researchers could reasonably replicate the study within a semester with a reasonably powered sample size, excluding studies that require access to specific equipment, resources, or populations.</p> <p>Interest is evaluated by considering whether CREP reviewers believe that undergraduate students will be interested in the topic (this includes ratings by the CREP’s undergraduate student administrators). In selecting the 3 to 5 studies for replication, feasibility is weighed more heavily. In this way, the studies selected are important articles to replicate without prejudice or bias regarding expected replicability. </p> <p>Through this process, the Turri et al. (2015) paper emerged as one of the most highly cited papers in the 2015 volume of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (cited 51 times according to Google Scholar as of October 22nd, 2018), and was rated as both feasible and interesting for undergraduate students.</p>
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
Accept
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.
Accept
×

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.