Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: “Investigating variation in replicability: A ‘many labs’ replication project”: Correction to Klein et al. (2014).

The article below may contain offensive and/or incorrect content.

Reports an error in "Investigating variation in replicability: A "many labs" replication project" by Richard A. Klein, Kate A. Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello, Reginald B. Adams Jr., Štěpán Bahník, Michael J. Bernstein, Konrad Bocian, Mark J. Brandt, Beach Brooks, Claudia Chloe Brumbaugh, Zeynep Cemalcilar, Jesse Chandler, Winnee Cheong, William E. Davis, Thierry Devos, Matthew Eisner, Natalia Frankowska, David Furrow, Elisa Maria Galliani, Fred Hasselman, Joshua A. Hicks, James F. Hovermale, S. Jane Hunt, Jeffrey R. Huntsinger, Hans IJzerman, Melissa-Sue John, Jaime Kurtz, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Heather Barry Kappes, Lacy E. Krueger, Carmel A. Levitan, Robyn K. Mallett, Wendy L. Morris, Anthony J. Nelson, Jason A. Nier, Grant Packard, Ronaldo Pilati, Abraham M. Rutchick, Kathleen Schmidt, Jeanine L. Skorinko, Robert Smith, Troy G. Steiner, Justin Storbeck, Lyn M. Van Swol, Donna Thompson, A. E. van 't Veer, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Marek Vranka, Aaron L. Wichman, Julie A. Woodzicka and Brian A. Nosek (Social Psychology, 2014, Vol 45[3], 142-152). The article contained some errors. One line of code was incorrect in the script that generated results for Rugg (1941). Effectively, the authors failed to correctly invert two of the columns in Tables 2 and 3. The revised statistics do not alter the substantive conclusions for this effect (e.g., it remains a successful replication), however the correct effect size is much smaller and closer to the result reported in the original study. In addition, a typo was incorrect in Table 2, that led to the df and N reported for one of the anchoring studies to be slightly off. The corrections are included in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-20922-002.) Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effectimagined contact reducing prejudiceshowed weak support for replicability. And two effectsflag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justificationdid not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)