Estimating the reproducibility of experimental philosophy
- Cova, Florian
- Strickland, Brent
- Abatista, Angela
- Allard, Aurélien
- Andow, James
- Attie, Mario
- Beebe, James
- Berniūnas, Renatas
- Boudesseul, Jordane
- Colombo, Matteo
- Cushman, Fiery
- Diaz, Rodrigo
- van Dongen, Noah N’Djaye Nikolai
- Dranseika, Vilius
- Earp, Brian
- Torres, Antonio Gaitán
- Hannikainen, Ivar
- Hernández-Conde, José V
- Hu, Wenjia
- Jaquet, François
- Khalifa, Kareem
- Kim, Hanna
- Kneer, Markus
- Knobe, Joshua
- Kurthy, Miklos
- Lantian, Anthony
- Liao, Shen-yi
- Machery, Edouard
- Moerenhout, Tania
- Mott, Christian
- Phelan, Mark
- Phillips, Jonathan
- Rambharose, Navin
- Reuter, Kevin
- Romero, Felipe
- Sousa, Paulo
- Sprenger, Jan
- Thalabard, Emile
- Tobia, Kevin
- Viciana, Hugo
- Wilkenfeld, Daniel
- Zhou, Xiang
DOIAbstract
Responding to recent concerns about the reliability of the published literature in psychology and other disciplines, we formed the X-Phi Replicability Project (XRP) to estimate the reproducibility of experimental philosophy (). Drawing on a representative sample of 40 x-phi studies published between 2003 and 2015, we enlisted 20 research teams across 8 countries to conduct a high-quality replication of each study in order to compare the results to the original published findings. We found that x-phi studies - as represented in our sample - successfully replicated about 70% of the time. We discuss possible reasons for this relatively high replication rate in the field of experimental philosophy and offer suggestions for best research practic...
Add to ORKG