Correction to: Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy Articles uri icon

authors

  • Cova, Florian
  • Strickland, Brent
  • Abatista, Angela
  • Allard, Aurélien
  • Andow, James
  • Attie, Mario
  • Beebe, James
  • Berniunas, Renatas
  • Boudesseul, Jordane
  • Colombo, Matteo
  • Cushman, Fiery
  • Diaz, Rodrigo
  • van Dongen, Noah N'Djaye Nikolai
  • Dranseika, Vilius
  • Earp, Brian D.
  • GAITAN TORRES, ANTONIO
  • 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

publication date

  • March 2021

start page

  • 45

end page

  • 48

issue

  • 1

volume

  • 12

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1878-5158

abstract

  • 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.