Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy
- 464 Downloads
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 (osf.io/dvkpr). 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 practices going forward.
This project could not have been possible without the financial support of multiple organizations. Florian Cova’s work on this project was supported by a grant from the Cogito Foundation (Grant No. S-131/13, “Towards an Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics”).
Brent Strickland’s work was supported by two grants from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grants No. ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*, ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC).
Matteo Colombo, Noah van Dongen, Felipe Romero and Jan Sprenger’s work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) through Starting Grant. No. 640638 (“Making Scientific Inferences More Objective”).
Rodrigo Diaz and Kevin Reuter would like to acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Grant No. 100012_169484.
Antonio Gaitán Torres and Hugo Viciana benefited from funding from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad for the project “La constitución del sujeto en la interacción social” (Grant No. FFI2015-67569-C2-1-P & FFI2015-67569-C2-2-P).
José Hernández-Conde carried out his work as a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh’s HPS Department. He was financially supported by a PhD scholarship and mobility grant from the University of the Basque Country, and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness research project No. FFI2014-52196-P. His replication research was supported by the Pittsburgh Empirical Philosophy Lab.
Hanna Kim’s work was supported by the Pittsburgh Empirical Philosophy Lab.
Shen-yi Liao’s work was supported by the University of Puget Sound Start-up Funding.
Tania Moerenhout carried out her work as a Visiting Researcher at the Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, PA (Aug 2016-July 2017).
Aurélien Allard, Miklos Kurthy, and Paulo Sousa are grateful to Rashmi Sharma for her help in the replication of Knobe & Burra (2006), in particular for her help in translating the demographic questions from English to Hindi.
Ivar Hannikainen and Florian Cova would like to thank Uri Simonsohn for his help in discussing the meaning and best interpretation of p-curves.
Finally, we would like to thank all the authors of original studies who accepted to take the time to answer our questions, share their original material and data, and discuss the results of our replication attempts with us.
- Alfano, M. & Loeb, D. 2014. Experimental moral philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), ed. E. N. Zalta. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/experimental-moral/
- American Statistical Association. 2016. American Statistical Association statement on statistical significance and p-values. American Statistical Association. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf
- Amrhein, V., and S. Greenland. 2017. Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0224-0.
- Benjamin, D.J., J.O. Berger, M. Johannesson, B.A. Nosek, E.-J. Wagenmakers, R. Berk, et al. in press. Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.
- Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., ... & Cesarini, D. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour 2 (1): 6Google Scholar
- Boyle, G. J. (in press). Proving a negative? Methodological, statistical, and psychometric flaws in Ullmann et al. (2017) PTSD study. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research.Google Scholar
- Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., … van ’t Veer, A. 2014. The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50 (supplement C), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005, The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?
- Chambers, C., & Munafò, M. 2013. Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration
- Champely, S. 2018. Package ‘pwr’. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=pwr
- Chang, A.C., and P. Li. 2015. Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “usually not”, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015–083. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
- Colombo, M., Duev, G., Nuijten, M. B., & Sprenger, J. 2017. Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/z65fv
- Cova, F. 2012. Qu’est-ce que la philosophie expérimentale ? In La Philosophie Expérimentale, ed. F. Cova, J. Dutant, E. Machery, J. Knobe, S. Nichols, and E. Nahmias. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
- Cova, F. 2016. The folk concept of intentional action: Empirical approaches. In A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, ed. W. Buckwalter and J. Sytsma, 121–141 Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Cumming, G. 2013. Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. 2006. The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science 17 (12): 1082–1089.Google Scholar
- Del Re, A. C. 2015. Package “compute.es”. Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es/compute.es.pdf Accessed 08 Apr 2018.
- Earp, B.D. in press. Falsification: How does it relate to reproducibility? In Key concepts in research methods, ed. J.-F. Morin, C. Olsson, and E.O. Atikcan. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Greene, J. D., Morelli, S.A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L.E., & Cohen, J.D. 2008. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition 107 (3): 1144–1154.Google Scholar
- Grens, K. (2014). The rules of replication. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41265/title/The-Rules-of-Replication/
- Hendrick, C. 1990. Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5 (4): 41–49.Google Scholar
- Hitchcock, C., & Knobe, J. (2009). Cause and norm. The Journal of Philosophy 106 (11): 587–612.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J. 2016. Experimental philosophy is cognitive science. In A companion to experimental philosophy, ed. J. Sytsma and W. Buckwalter, 37–52. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118661666.ch3.
- Knobe, J. 2003a. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63 (279): 190–94.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J. 2003b. Intentional action in folk psychology: An experimental investigation. Philosophical psychology 16 (2): 309–324.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J., & Burra, A. 2006. The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6 (1): 113–132.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J. 2007. Experimental Philosophy. Philosophy Compass 2 (1): 81–92.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J., and S. Nichols. 2008. Experimental philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Knobe, J., W. Buckwalter, S. Nichols, P. Robbins, H. Sarkissian, and T. Sommers. 2012. Experimental philosophy. Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lakens, D., F.G. Adolfi, C. Albers, F. Anvari, M.A.J. Apps, S.E. Argamon, et al. 2017. Justify your alpha: a response to “Redefine statistical significance”. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9S3Y6.
- Lam, B. 2010. Are Cantonese-speakers really descriptivists? Revisiting cross-cultural semantics. Cognition 115 (2), 320–329.Google Scholar
- Liao, S. 2015. The state of reproducibility in experimental philosophy Retrieved from http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/xphi/2015/06/the-state-of-reproducibility-in-experimental-philosophy.html
- Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. 2004. Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition 92 (3): B1–B12.Google Scholar
- Machery, E. 2017b. What is a replication? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Makel, M.C., & Plucker, J.A. 2014. Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the educationsciences. Educational Researcher 43 (6), 304–316.Google Scholar
- Malle, B. F. 2006. Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6 (1), 87–112.Google Scholar
- McShane, B.B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., & Tackett, J L. (2017). Abandon Statistical Significance. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1709.07588.Google Scholar
- Nadelhoffer, T., & Feltz, A. 2008. The actor–observer bias and moral intuitions: adding fuel to Sinnott-Armstrong’s fire. Neuroethics 1 (2): 133–144.Google Scholar
- Nadelhoffer, T., Kvaran, T., & Nahmias, E. 2009. Temperament and intuition: A commentary on Feltz and Cokely. Consciousness and cognition, 18 (1): 351–355.Google Scholar
- Nahmias, E., Morris, S.G., Nadelhoffer, T., & Turner, J. (2006). Is incompatibilism intuitive? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1): 28–53.Google Scholar
- Nichols, S. 2004. After objectivity: An empirical study of moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology 17 (1): 3–26.Google Scholar
- Nichols, S. 2006. Folk intuitions on free will. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6 (1): 57–86.Google Scholar
- Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. 2007. Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous 41 (4): 663–685.Google Scholar
- Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (in press). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
- O’Neill, E., and E. Machery. 2014. Experimental philosophy: What is it good for? In Current controversies in experimental philosophy, ed. E. Machery and E. O’Neill. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Reuter, K. 2011. Distinguishing the appearance from the reality of pain. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18 (9-10): 94–109.Google Scholar
- Rose, D., Machery, E., Stich, S., Alai, M., Angelucci, A., Berniūnas, R., … & Cohnitz, D. (in press). Nothing at stake in knowledge. Noûs.Google Scholar
- Scott, S. 2013. Pre-registration would put science in chains. Retrieved July 29, 2017, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/pre-registration-would-put-science-in-chains/2005954.article
- Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. 2017. Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40: e311.Google Scholar
- Young, N.S., Ioannidis, J.P., & Al-Ubaydli, O. 2008. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS medicine 5 (10): e201.Google Scholar
- Zalla, T., & Leboyer, M. 2011. Judgment of intentionality and moral evaluation in individuals with high functioning autism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (4), 681–698.Google Scholar