Blog Coordinator

Knobe's X-Phi Page

X-Phi Grad Programs

« New Papers on Moral Cognition | Main | Post-Doc Opportunity in Brazil! »

09/18/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Geoff Holtzman

Hi Adam, I think it's great that you two are doing this, and I had just a few questions.

First, am I correct in assuming that you've completed your literature search, and are now looking for unpublished studies in large part to combat publication bias? If so, it might make sense to highlight the fact that you're looking for BOTH significant and non-significant results. I think it's easy for all of us to forget about non-significant results we've found in the past, or to assume that no one wants to see them. A little reminder that you actually care equally about the risk of Type I and Type II errors might encourage people to share non-significant results.

Second, what interest do you two have in results from papers that are currently under review? I know that a finding I published earlier this year has since been replicated once, and failed to be replicated twice. But all three results are in manuscripts intended for publication, and the authors might be discouraged from sharing those data since you ask specifically for unpublished studies. Clarification of whether you could use this data, and how you would use it, might get you at least these three sets of data. One of the non-significant tests had a power of something like 0.95, so it's a really solid failure of replication.

Third, have you seen the call for data on consequentialist/deontological judgments on the SPSP board? I think it's Paul Conway who's doing a meta-analysis of that stuff. He may be worth contacting in case people have sent him compatibilism data he couldn't use. Plus, it might be worth cross-posting your call for data on that board. I suspect social psychologists like Baumeister and Schooler are more likely to follow those boards than these, and they might have very useful data for you.

Fourth, the Reproducibility Project spreadsheet is accessible online, and might put you in touch with researchers trying to replicate compatibilism results. I don't actually know if any of the eligible articles is on compatibilism though.

Adam Feltz

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your comment! I'll see if I can address those questions.

Yes, we are interested in both significant and non-significant results. Actually, all data relevant to the meta-analyses would be great. We've done the the literature review, so sending us stuff that is already in print is unnecessary. But people can contact us to check and see if we've included their data in the meta-analysis just to be safe.

Yes, we would be interested in data from papers currently under review.

And thanks for the tips on the other resources!

The comments to this entry are closed.

3QD Prize 2012: Wesley Buckwalter