Selection effects and long-term group processes are often ignored in psychology and we also provide some methodological recommendations. We have other papers that try to take self-selection seriously in studies of cheating. But the idea can be extended to other topics.

Some commonly proposed interventions might not work in a real-world organization context because of the processes described in the paper.

The proposed model includes a positive feedback loop, meaning that even a slight tendency for, e.g., (self-)selection of dishonest people in an organization can result in fully corrupt organization after some time.

I argue that the time is right for widespread adoption of open review platforms like PREreview (prereview.org) and Review Commons (www.reviewcommons.org) and reject the arbitrary administrative overhead imposed on us by the publication industry.

🧌This "bestiary" can be a vital resource for researchers, educators, and reviewers to recognize, understand, and mitigate QRPs, ultimately raising the standard of psychological research. Read the full article here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

We show that cheaters are willing to pay to be able to cheat even when cheating leads to a loss for a charity.

Honest participants do not overbid the cheaters to prevent the them from harming the charity.

The payment also seems to lead the cheaters to cheat even more to compensate for the costs.

> However, the new study directly tested this explanation and did not find support for it. It does not explain the null effects in other studies well too.

At this point, more replications of fluency effect would be useful to find out on which effects it is possible to build.

> I do not follow the literature closely anymore, but it does not seem to me that there is an accepted explanation why some effects replicate and others do not. One explanation was that the effect requires a comparison of fluency levels. That is, it would work only in within-subject designs. >

> That does not mean that fluency research is all false. In the paper from the previous post, we for example replicated the association between pronounceability and judgment of novelty. In another paper of mine, more difficult-to-pronounce pseudowords were liked less: bahniks.com/files/disflu... >

> In our paper, we found that an effect of pronounceability on judgment of harmfulness replicates only with the stimuli used in the original study, but not with newly created stimuli (a blog post about this study: bahniks.com/if-its-easy-... ):
bahniks.com/files/fluenc... >

> A famous effect of font legibility on deliberate processing failed to replicate in Many Labs 2: >

If you were interested in reading more about it, I have two relevant review papers: bahniks.com/files/anchor... and osf.io/preprints/ps...

There are multiple explanations for the anchoring effect. Research suggesting operation of numeric priming largely does not replicate. Selective accessibility model postulates a two-stage process, the second of which is akin to a priming effect and there the evidence is more equivocal.

We wrote about this 10 years ago: bahniks.com/good-things-...