Analyzing 487,996 statistical tests from 35,515 papers (1975–2017), the study finds substantial publication bias and p‑hacking and persistently low power, yet estimates only about 17.7% of reported significant results are false under stated assumptions. Power improved only slightly over four decades and meets 80% only for large effects.
— This tempers replication‑crisis nihilism while underscoring the need for power, preregistration, and bias controls, shaping how media, funders, and policymakers treat psychology evidence.
Steve Stewart-Williams
2026.04.07
85% relevant
The Tyner et al. replication project provides broad empirical confirmation that many published social‑science findings fail to replicate and that effect sizes shrink on replication; this reinforces the existing claim that psychology and related fields suffer substantial false‑discovery rates and unreliable literature that should be treated with caution in policy and public debate.
2026.04.04
72% relevant
Jussim’s ~75% estimate directly challenges the existing claim that psychology’s false discovery rate is around 18%; the article provides a higher, contrarian upper‑bound built from replication run‑rates (~50%) plus additional error channels (overclaiming, citation of unreproducible work, censorship, fabrication), making it a substantive contestation of that prior figure.
2026.04.04
81% relevant
Gioia foregrounds replication failure (citing ~40% failure) as his first proof point for systemic breakdown; this maps directly onto existing concerns about high false‑discovery/replication rates in social science and biomedical literature and amplifies that technical problem into a broader public‑trust narrative.
Josh Zlatkus
2026.03.11
78% relevant
The article highlights the contrast between 'hard' and 'soft' psychology and warns that vague, unfalsifiable claims in social/clinical areas produce unreliable results — a direct thematic match to discussions of high false‑discovery rates in psychology and the replication crisis.
The Living Fossils
2026.03.11
75% relevant
By listing multiple canonical claims (priming, birth‑order, EQ, self‑esteem causation) as likely false or weak, the article exemplifies the broader pattern that psychology has a substantial false‑positive rate and many high‑profile claims overstate effects.
2026.03.05
85% relevant
Inzlicht uses the ego‑depletion saga—original claims, failed replications, and continuing defenses by originators (Roy Baumeister)—as a concrete case of psychology producing high false‑positive rates and unreliable effects, directly illustrating the broader claim that many published findings in the field overstate truth.
Arnold Kling
2026.01.12
88% relevant
The article cites Josh Zlatkus and Rob Kurzban on replication failures and explicitly frames psychology as operating near the boundary of 'science and baloney sandwich,' directly matching the registered idea that psychology shows systemic publication bias, low power, and a substantial false‑discovery problem.
Lee Jussim
2026.01.10
75% relevant
The discussion of how academics and laypeople badly predict meta‑analytic outcomes and how the IAT is routinely misinterpreted ties directly to broader replication‑quality concerns summarized by the false‑discovery work—showing why psychology/social science credibility metrics are central to public debates.
Josh Zlatkus
2026.01.07
92% relevant
The article argues that many psychological findings are not true science but artifacts of poor methods; that diagnosis matches the existing calculation that a substantial share of reported significant results in psychology are likely false positives, directly connecting to claims about low replication and publication bias.
Steve Stewart-Williams
2025.11.29
70% relevant
The article relies on large syntheses and meta‑analytic results (e.g., Zell & Lesick on conscientiousness, Ferretti et al. comparing Big Five vs MBTI) and thus provides an example of psychology producing robust, replicable findings rather than one‑off claims; this connects to the existing idea about the replication and false‑discovery profile of psychology by showing where effects are reliable and policy‑relevant.
2025.10.07
100% relevant
Estimate: 'The share of false discoveries among all significant results was 17.7%' from a corpus of 35,515 psychology papers (1975–2017).
2015.10.07
78% relevant
The Open Science Collaboration’s 2015 mass replication (e.g., ~36% significant replications, effect sizes roughly halved) paved the way for later meta‑audits that estimate psychology’s false‑positive share (~17.7%). The OSC paper is the empirical foundation that triggered these field‑level quantifications.