CheungI.CampbellL.LeBelE.AckermanR. A.AykutogğluB.BahníkŠ., . . . YongJ. C. (in press). Registered Replication Report: Study 1 from Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon (2002). Perspectives on Psychological Science.
FinkelE. J. (in press). Reflections on the commitment-forgiveness Registered Replication Report. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
4.
GilbertD. T.KingG.PettigrewS.WilsonT. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.”Science, 351, 1037.
5.
KoehlerJ. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28–55.
6.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
7.
LucasR. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75–79.
8.
LucasR. E.LawlessN. M. (2013). Does life seem better on a sunny day? Examining the association between daily weather conditions and life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 872–884.
9.
MahoneyM. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.
10.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
11.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
12.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (2016). Evaluating psychological research requires more than attention to the N: A comment on Simonsohn’s (2015) “small telescopes.”Psychological Science, 27, 1407–1409.
SimonsohnU. (2015b). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559–569. doi:10.1177/0956797614567341
15.
SimonsohnU. (2016, March3). Evaluating replications: 40% full ≠ 60% empty [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.datacolada.org/47