Carmel A. Levitan

TL;DR: A large-scale assessment suggests that experimental reproducibility in psychology leaves a lot to be desired, and correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

TL;DR: The authors compared variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants and found that the results of these experiments are more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

TL;DR: This paper conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings, and found that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the task were administered in lab versus online.

TL;DR: This paper reviewed the empirical literature concerning the important question of whether or not food color influences taste and flavor perception in humans and argued that this is, at least in part, due to the fact that many researchers have failed to distinguish between two qualitatively distinct research questions.

TL;DR: An overview of the recent literature on the use of internet-based testing to address important questions in perception research is provided, andStrengths and weaknesses of the online approach, relative to others, are highlighted, and recommendations made for those researchers who might be thinking about conducting their own studies using this increasingly-popular approach to research in the psychological sciences.