Predicting the replicability of social science lab experiments

被引:52
作者
Altmejd, Adam [1 ,2 ]
Dreber, Anna [1 ,3 ]
Forsell, Eskil [1 ]
Huber, Juergen [3 ]
Imai, Taisuke [4 ]
Johannesson, Magnus [1 ]
Kirchler, Michael [3 ]
Nave, Gideon [5 ]
Camerer, Colin [6 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Sch Econ, Dept Econ, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Stockholm Univ, SOFI, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Univ Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
[4] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Munich, Germany
[5] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] CALTECH, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2019年 / 14卷 / 12期
基金
奥地利科学基金会;
关键词
REPLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; PUBLICATION; PSYCHOLOGY;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0225826
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
We measure how accurately replication of experimental results can be predicted by black-box statistical models. With data from four large-scale replication projects in experimental psychology and economics, and techniques from machine learning, we train predictive models and study which variables drive predictable replication. The models predicts binary replication with a cross-validated accuracy rate of 70% (AUC of 0.77) and estimates of relative effect sizes with a Spearman rho of 0.38. The accuracy level is similar to market-aggregated beliefs of peer scientists [1, 2]. The predictive power is validated in a pre-registered out of sample test of the outcome of [3], where 71% (AUC of 0.73) of replications are predicted correctly and effect size correlations amount to rho = 0.25. Basic features such as the sample and effect sizes in original papers, and whether reported effects are single-variable main effects or two-variable interactions, are predictive of successful replication. The models presented in this paper are simple tools to produce cheap, prognostic replicability metrics. These models could be useful in institutionalizing the process of evaluation of new findings and guiding resources to those direct replications that are likely to be most informative.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Disclosure Standards for Social Media and Generative Artificial Intelligence Research: Toward Transparency and Replicability
    Kostygina, Ganna
    Kim, Yoonsang
    Seeskin, Zachary
    Leclere, Felicia
    Emery, Sherry
    SOCIAL MEDIA + SOCIETY, 2023, 9 (04):
  • [42] Best practices for replicability, reproducibility and reusability of computer-based experiments exemplified by model reduction software
    Fehr, Joerg
    Heiland, Jan
    Himpe, Christian
    Saak, Jens
    AIMS MATHEMATICS, 2016, 1 (03): : 261 - 281
  • [43] Putting the social in social science
    Camacho, Tissyana C.
    NATURE REVIEWS PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 1 (08): : 435 - 436
  • [44] Assessing Replicability of Machine Learning Results: An Introduction to Methods on Predictive Accuracy in Social Sciences
    Vijayakumar, Ranjith
    Cheung, Mike W-L
    SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 2021, 39 (05) : 768 - 801
  • [45] Separating Social Science Research on Activism from Social Science as Activism
    Kende, Anna
    JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 2016, 72 (02) : 399 - 412
  • [46] Administrative social science data: The challenge of reproducible research
    Playford, Christopher J.
    Gayle, Vernon
    Connelly, Roxanne
    Gray, Alasdair J. G.
    BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2016, 3 (02):
  • [47] Build your own social network laboratory with Social Lab: A tool for research in social media
    Garaizar, Pablo
    Reips, Ulf-Dietrich
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2014, 46 (02) : 430 - 438
  • [48] Replication in Social Science
    Freese, Jeremy
    Peterson, David
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, VOL 43, 2017, 43 : 147 - 165
  • [49] Greater attention to socioeconomic status in developmental research can improve the external validity, generalizability, and replicability of developmental science
    Singh, Leher
    Rajendra, Sarah J.
    DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2024, 27 (05)
  • [50] Economic experiments versus physical science experiments: an ontology-based approach
    Caamano-Alegre, Maria
    Caamano-Alegre, Jose
    JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL ECONOMICS, 2019, 12 (02): : 1 - 30