The New York Times has been covering the recent attempt to replicate a number of well-known psychology studies. See here for details (and here for the original report). Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of findings failed to replicate (which is a general problem in social psychology that has been gathering steam during the past few years). One study that failed to be replicated that is especially relevant to the readers of this blog is the Vohs & Schooler (2008) piece that purported to show a connecting between disbelief and free will. Because the original paper has been cited more than any of the other studies that were part of the recent attempts to replicate, The New York Times just published a new piece on three of the more popular studies that didn't replicate (see here for details). So much for my rival explanation of the original findings!
A failure of replication is not great evidence that the original effect is not real (see John Quiggin's discussion, here: http://johnquiggin.com/2015/09/03/the-great-replication-crisis/#more-13466). Philosophers need to stop placing much weight on any one finding, positive or negative (I am as guilty of this as anyone). In this particular case, I think we can be confident that the effect is real. We can also be confident that it is fragile: it certainly isn't the case that anyone has shown that shaking belief in free will leads to cheating.
Posted by: Neil | 09/03/2015 at 09:49 PM
Neil, why should we be confident that this particular effect is real?
Posted by: Tamler Sommers | 09/04/2015 at 05:24 PM