giladfeldman.bsky.social
Social psychology, judgment/decision-making, agency, & action. Open/meta science. (Peer Community in) Registered Reports, mass replications, & meta-analyses.
https://mgto.org/resume-cv/
424 posts
3,116 followers
3,034 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Interestingly, they do acknowledge that we could break them:
“rapid changes in customer choice, regulation or technologies in this area could impact the revenue”
Risks to revenue include: unis pulling out of subscriptions, and funders building their own free publication platform 💪
comment in response to
post
If you'd like, there's an AI podcast discussion in plain language: mgto.org/misestimatio...
comment in response to
post
PSPB was our first journal target, given the pottery barn rule, and I'm very glad they accepted responsibility for this and were willing to consider and then allow the publication of a replication of one of their seminal papers.
Hopefully things are slowly changing, atleast in PSPB.
comment in response to
post
Preprint, pre-registration, materials, data, and code, available on the OSF:
osf.io/bwmtr/
comment in response to
post
In prediction polls I ran on TwitterX back in 2023, 60% of 35 votes thought it would successfully replicate.
Depending on what you consider the core hypotheses, it's tricky what to conclude. I would say mixed results, at best.
Poll:
x.com/giladfeldman...
comment in response to
post
Amazing work for a ==UG== thesis by Melody IP. UG students can do remarkable work.
Grateful for the original authors for sharing their materials, and engaging in a constructive debate, also in peer review.
Grateful for our red-team assessors for their help.
comment in response to
post
The findings were somewhat surprising and puzzling, though in hindsight ours make more sense, see discussion.
We asked red team assessors to reanalyze our data and they came up with the same findings.
We reached out to the original authors and had a positive discussion.
comment in response to
post
Interesting findings:
- UNDERestimation of both positive & negative prevalence. Negative > positive. Partial support.
- OVERestimation of both positive & negative intensity. Negative > positive. Important insight.
- Opposite associations with well-being compared to target.
comment in response to
post
We conducted a replication & extensions of Jordan etal. (2011) claiming an underestimation of the =prevalence= of negative but not positive emotions.
- We improved on target's methods: Both item & participant level.
- Added =intensity= of emotions.
- Added social orientation.
comment in response to
post
Slides at osf.io/jqw9r
comment in response to
post
And the starting pack one is here.
go.bsky.app/R8RNJgc