The Accelerated CREP partnership study will be Turri et al (2015). https://psysciacc.org/2018/04/08/the-accelerated-crep/ CREP replicaiton for PY 261: Psychological Statistics & Methods | at Avila University Fall 2018 - Spring 2019 - Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., & Blouw, P. (2015). Knowledge and luck. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22*(2), 378-390. If you are planning to participate in the Accelerated CREP during the 2019 calendar year, please add your information to this [Accelerated CREP Google Form][1] If you plan to contribute to another CREP study, please see Step 1 of our [instructions and workflow procedures][2]. For anyone completing a CREP study, please use these instructions when creating your own page by "forking" and editing this [Turri et al][3] study page (http://osf.io/n5b3w/) page to record your own sample. Because we anticipate more than normal number of contributors simultaneously, please consider reviewing our ([Direct+Plus][4]) list and replicating existing extensions. **Turri et al. (2015)** **Abstract**: 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. ***Additional Comments From Dr. Turri follow*** **Request for materials** > 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. **Additional contextual information** > 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: > > Turri, J. (2016). Vision, knowledge, and assertion. *Consciousness and Cognition, 41*(C), 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.004 > > 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. > > 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. **Potential moderators** > 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: > > Turri, J. (2016). A new paradigm for epistemology: from reliabilism to > abilism. Ergo, 3(8), 189–231. > > Turri, J. (2017). Knowledge attributions in iterated fake barn cases. > Analysis, 77(1), 104–115. http://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx036 > > > Your students could start there, if they want to include potential moderating variables. **FROM Executive Reviewer:** These comments suggest possible Direct+Plus options. We will try to coordinate Direct+Plus replications if there is sufficient interest in multiple locations working on same moderator questions. Please do not contact Dr. Turri directly, rather contact us first with questions. [1]: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd0YkPnjKqJEHAU-g2Yq-DhlWvf2H6NhFwRlgKOPbxHm11zrQ/viewform [2]: https://osf.io/srh4k/ [3]: http://osf.io/n5b3w [4]: https://osf.io/2snvk/