52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Carney, Cuddy, and Yap (2010) found that --compared to participants who adopted constrictive body postures--participants who adopted expansive body postures reported feeling more powerful, showed an increase in testosterone and a decrease in cortisol, and displayed an increased tolerance for risk. However, these power pose effects have recently come under considerable scrutiny. Here we present a Bayesian meta-analysis of six preregistered studies from this special issue, focusing on the effect of power posing on felt power. Our analysis improves on standard classical meta-analyses in several ways. First and foremost, we considered only preregistered studies, eliminating concerns about publication bias. Second, the Bayesian approach enables us to quantify evidence for both the alternative and the null hypothesis. Third, we use Bayesian model-averaging to account for the uncertainty with respect to the choice for a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model. Fourth, based on a literature review we obtained an empirically informed prior distribution for the between-study heterogeneity of effect sizes. This empirically informed prior can serve as a default choice not only for the investigation of the power pose effect, but for effects in the field of psychology more generally. For effect size, we considered a default and an informed prior. Our meta-analysis yields very strong evidence for an effect of power posing on felt power. However, when the analysis is restricted to participants unfamiliar with the effect, the meta-analysis yields evidence that is only moderate.

The current research applied the regulatory fit hypothesis (E. T. Higgins, 2000) to the evaluation of groups, suggesting that individuals' group appraisal depends on how well the groups fit their regulatory needs. Specifically, it was predicted that higher power groups would fit and be more valued by those individuals with a promotion focus because these groups provide a better opportunity to sustain nurturance and achievement needs. Alternatively, lower power groups were predicted to fit and be more valued by those individuals with a prevention focus because these groups necessitate (and thus sustain) a focus on safety and security. Five studies found support for these predictions by both assessing and manipulating regulatory focus and group power and by using explicit and implicit measures of group attraction. Moreover, these regulatory fit effects occurred specifically for group power and not for general differences in group status.

We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports in social and behavioural research. An accompanying online application allows users to complete the form and generate a report that they can submit with their manuscript or post to a public repository.

Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.A cross multiple indicators of reproducibility, the Open Science Collaboration (1) (OSC2015) observed that the original result was replicated in~40 of 100 studies sampled from three journals. Gilbert et al. (2) conclude that the reproducibility rate is, in fact, as high as could be expected, given the study methodology. We agree with them that both methodological differences between original and replication studies and statistical power affect reproducibility, but their very optimistic assessment is based on statistical misconceptions and selective interpretation of correlational data.Gilbert et al. focused on a variation of one of OSC2015's five measures of reproducibility: how often the confidence interval (CI) of the original study contains the effect size estimate of the replication study. They misstated that the expected replication rate assuming only sampling error is 95%, which is true only if both studies estimate the same population effect size and the replication has infinite sample size (3, 4). OSC2015 replications did not have infinite sample size. In fact, the expected replication rate was 78.5% using OSC2015's CI measure (see OSC2015's supplementary information, pp. 56 and 76; https://osf.io/k9rnd). By this measure, the actual replication rate was only 47.4%, suggesting the influence of factors other than sampling error alone.Within another large replication study, "Many Labs" (5) (ML2014), Gilbert et al. found that 65.5% of ML2014 studies would be within the CIs of other ML2014 studies of the same phenomenon and concluded that this reflects the maximum reproducibility rate for OSC2015. Their analysis using ML2014 is misleading and does not apply to estimating reproducibility with OSC2015's data for a number of reasons.First, Gilbert et al.'s estimates are based on pairwise comparisons between all of the replications within ML2014. As such, for roughly half of their failures to replicate, "replications" had larger effect sizes than "original studies," whereas just 5% of OSC2015 replications had replication CIs exceeding the original study effect sizes.Second, Gilbert et al. apply the by-site variability in ML2014 to OSC2015's findings, thereby arriving at higher estimates of reproducibility. However, ML2014's primary finding was that by-site variability was highest for the largest (replicable) effects and lowest for the smallest (nonreplicable) effects. If ML2014's primary finding is generalizable, then Gilbert et al.'s analysis may leverage by-site variability in ML2014's larger effects to exaggerate the effect of by-sit...