Responding to recent concerns about the reliability of the published literature in psychology and other disciplines, we formed the X-Phi Replicability Project (XRP) to estimate the reproducibility of experimental philosophy (osf.io/dvkpr). Drawing on a representative sample of 40 x-phi studies published between 2003 and 2015, we enlisted 20 research teams across 8 countries to conduct a high-quality replication of each study in order to compare the results to the original published findings. We found that x-phi studiesas represented in our samplesuccessfully replicated about 70% of the time. We discuss possible reasons for this relatively high replication rate in the field of experimental philosophy and offer suggestions for best research practices going forward.

Presenting affective pictures as a work of art could change perceivers' judgment and strength in emotional reactions. Aesthetic theory states that perceivers of art emotionally distance themselves, allowing them to appreciate works of art depicting gruesome events. To examine whether implicit emotion regulation is induced by an art context, we assessed whether presenting pleasant and unpleasant IAPS pictures as either "works of art comprising paintings, digital renderings, and photographs of staged scenes" or "photographs depicting real events" modulated perceivers' Late Positive Potentials (LPP) and likability ratings. In line with previous research and aesthetic theory, participants evaluated the IAPS pictures as more likable when they were presented as works of art than when they were presented as photographs. Moreover, participants' late LPP amplitudes (600-900ms post picture onset) in response to the pictures were attenuated in the art context condition. These results provide evidence for an implicit emotion regulation induced by the art context.

When data analysts operate within different statistical frameworks (e.g., frequentist versus Bayesian, emphasis on estimation versus emphasis on testing), how does this impact the qualitative conclusions that are drawn for real data? To study this question empirically we selected from the literature two simple scenarios-involving a comparison of two proportions and a Pearson correlation-and asked four teams of statisticians to provide a concise analysis and a qualitative interpretation of the outcome. The results showed considerable overall agreement; nevertheless, this agreement did not appear to diminish the intensity of the subsequent debate over which statistical framework is more appropriate to address the questions at hand.

Visual contrast appears to be an important factor in the appreciation of paintings. However, it has not been determined whether and how the effect of contrast differs between painting characteristics and whether and how it differs between people. We investigated whether the effect of contrast generalizes across cultures, variations in initial contrast levels (i.e., the amount of contrast in the digital reproductions of an original painting) between paintings, painting types (i.e., representational or abstract), and social and cognitive–aesthetic factors (e.g., age, education, art expertise). Our results indicated that people consistently favor high-contrast versions of paintings over their low-contrast counterparts; this effect is stronger for abstract paintings and paintings with a low or moderate initial contrast level; this effect is not influenced by culture, social factors, or cognitive–aesthetic factors; and surprisingly, the aesthetic value of digitized original paintings can be increased by increasing their contrast value. In short, we found empirical support against the universal importance of contrast in relation to painting characteristics but in favor of the universal importance of contrast in relation to people characteristics.

No abstract