Joe Simmons and Leif Nelson write:
We report our attempt to replicate a study in a recently published Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) article entitled, “Having Control Over and Above Situations: The Influence of Elevated Viewpoints on Risk Taking”. The article’s abstract summarizes the key result: “consumers’ views of scenery from a high physical elevation induce an illusory source of control, which in turn intensifies risk taking.”
Lots of details, of which the most important is that their replication is very close to the original study, but with three times the sample size.
And now the findings, first the exciting statistically significant results from the original published study, then the blah, noisy results from the preregistered replication:
The above graphs pretty much tell the whole story, but I have one point I’d like to pick up on.
But the top graph looked like such strong evidence! Let’s be very very aware and very very afraid of this. It’s soooo easy to get fooled by graphs such as Figure 1 that just seem to slam a point home.
So let’s say this again: Just cos you have statistical significance and a graph that shows a clear and consistent pattern, it doesn’t mean this pattern is real, in the sense of generalizing beyond your sample. This is a big deal.
P.S. I wrote this post last year but it’s appearing now, so I’ll add this special message just for coronavirus studies:
Just cos you have statistical significance and a graph that shows a clear and consistent pattern, it doesn’t mean this pattern is real, in the sense of generalizing beyond your sample. This is a big deal.
Also, thanks to Zad for the above foto which he captions, “When you get arrested by the feds for not social distancing.”