BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558.
2.
CrandallC. S.ShermanJ. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99.
3.
FunderD. C.LevineJ. M.MackieD. M.MorfC. C.VazireS.WestS. G. (2014). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 2–22.
4.
KerrN. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
5.
McConnellR. (2013). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 3–5.
6.
NosekB. A.AlterG.BanksC.BorsboomD.BowmanS. D.BrecklerS. J.YarkoniT. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.
7.
NosekB. A.EberoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2600–2606.
8.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
9.
SimonsD. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76–80.
10.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. PFongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.
11.
van ‘t VeerA.Giner-SorollaR. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology: A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12.
12.
VazireS. (2016). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 3–7.
13.
VazireS. (2018). Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 411–417.
14.
VizeC. E.CollisonK. LMillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (in press). Using item level analyses to better understand the consequences of partialing procedures: An example using the Dark Triad. Journal of Personality.
15.
YzerbytV. (2010). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 3.
