Do external threats increase American bipartisanship? We subject this question to an experimental test. Leveraging the Biden and Trump administrations’ similar characterization of the China threat, we exposed American respondents to real-world primes about security threats from China, while randomizing the messenger of such primes. We find that the threat primes—regardless of the partisan identity of their messenger—boosted Democrats’ and Republicans’ support for assertive foreign policy in a largely parallel manner, thereby failing to reduce preference polarization. Importantly, there were no measurable changes across multiple indicators of affective polarization. These findings clarify the limits of external threats in uniting Americans, while also challenging recent perspectives that external threats—often colored by elite rhetoric—will further polarize the American public.

We replicate Meissner (Exp Econ 19:281–298, 2016), where debt aversion was reported for the first time in an intertemporal consumption and saving problem. While Meissner (2016) uses a German sample, our participants are US undergraduate students. All of the original study’s main findings replicate with similar effect sizes. Additionally, we extend the original analysis by introducing a new individual index of debt aversion, which we use to compare debt aversion across countries. Interestingly, we find no significant differences in debt aversion between the original German and the new US sample. We then test whether debt aversion correlates with individual characteristics such as gender, cognitive reflection ability, and risk aversion. Overall, this paper confirms the importance of debt aversion in intertemporal consumption and saving problems and validates the approach of Meissner (2016).

This study is a conceptual replication of Kelley & Schmeichel (PLOS ONE 10: e0144228, 2015), which found that thinking about death reduces delay discounting. Unlike the original study, the current study was conducted in an environment where there was a real and tangible mortality threat across the world, that is, COVID-19. Contrary to the findings of the original study, results of the current study revealed that thinking about death increases delay discounting, such that participants who were primed with death thoughts traded “₺200 now” for “₺342.35 three months later,” whereas those in the control condition traded “₺200 now” for “₺319.27 three months later”. The current study also explored the moderating roles of goal orientation and self-esteem in the effect of mortality salience on delay discounting; however, it failed to provide evidence for the moderating roles of these variables.

We test whether anchoring affects people’s elicited valuations for a bottle of wine in individual decision-making and in markets. We anchor subjects by asking them if they are willing to sell a bottle of wine for a transparently uninformative random price. We elicit subjects’ Willingness-To-Accept for the bottle before and after the market. Subjects participate in a double auction market either in a small or a large trading group. The variance in subjects’ Willingness-To-Accept shrinks within trading groups. Our evidence supports the idea that markets have the potential to diminish anchoring effects. However, the market is not needed: our anchoring manipulation failed in a large sample. In a concise meta-analysis, we identify the circumstances under which anchoring effects of preferences can be expected.

We develop a formal framework for accumulating evidence across studies and apply it to develop theoretical foundations for replication. Our primary contribution is to characterize the relationship between replication and distinct formulations of external validity. Whereas conventional wisdom holds that replication facilitates learning about external validity, we show that this is not, in general, the case. Our results show how comparisons of the magnitude or sign of empirical findings link to distinct concepts of external validity. However, without careful attention to the research design of constituent studies, replication can mislead efforts to assess external validity. We show that two studies must have essentially the same research designs, i.e., be harmonized, in order for their estimates to provide information about any kind of external validity. This result shows that even minor differences in research design between a study and its replication can introduce a discrepancy that is typically overlooked, a problem that becomes more pronounced as the number of studies increases. We conclude by outlining a design-driven approach to replication, which responds to the issues our framework identifies and details how a research agenda can manage them productively.

We provide evidence on the extent to which survey items in the Preference Survey Module and the resulting Global Preference Survey measuring social preferences—trust, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity—predict behavior in corresponding experimental games outside the original participant sample of Falk et al. (Manag Sci, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4455). Our results, which are based on a replication study with university students in Tehran, Iran, are mixed. While quantitative items considering hypothetical versions of the experimental games correlate significantly and economically meaningfully with individual behavior, none of the qualitative items show significant correlations. The only exception is altruism where results correspond more closely to the original findings.

This paper reports data from three subject pools (n = 717 subjects) using techniques based on those of Loewenstein et al. (J Personal Soc Psychol 57:426–441, 1989) and Blanco et al. (Games Econ Behav 72:321–338, 2011) to obtain parameters, respectively, of stated and revealed inequality aversion. We provide a replication opportunity for those papers, with two innovations: (1) a design which allows stated and revealed preferences to be compared at the individual level; (2) assessment of robustness of findings across subjects from a UK university, a Turkish university and Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our findings on stated aversion to inequality are qualitatively similar to those of Loewenstein et al. in each of our subject pools, whereas there are notable differences between some of our findings on revealed preference and those of Blanco et al. We find that revealed advantageous inequality aversion is often stronger than revealed dis-advantageous inequality aversion. In most subject pools, we find some (weak) correlation between corresponding parameters of stated and revealed inequality aversion.

The replication crisis across several disciplines raises challenges for behavioural sciences in general. In this report, we review the lessons for experimental economists of these developments. We present the new research methods and practices which are being proposed to improve the replicability of scientific studies. We discuss how these methods and practices can have a positive impact in experimental economics and the extent to which they should be encouraged.

This paper investigates risk preferences using an artefactual field experiment conducted with a non-standard subject pool of farmers in Ghana. I introduce an alternative methodology for studying preferences following replication of a seminal risk elicitation procedure by Binswanger (Am J Agric Econ 62(3):395407, 1980). An important feature of both approaches is that they are easy to understand and, hence, are particularly suitable for eliciting preferences among subjects with low levels of formal education. I successfully replicate Binswanger's study, documenting how his original result of the moderate level of risk aversion for an average farmer can be generalized to a different country. However, using my alternative approach, whereby lotteries are presented in the loss domain, I find that half of my experimental subjects violated expected utility theory. This approach is of relevance to the current literature on studying risk preferences among subjects with poor literacy skills.

Over the past decades, bilingualism researchers have come to a consensus around a fairly strong view of nonselectivity in bilingual speakers, often citing Van Hell and Dijkstra (2002) as a critical piece of support for this position. Given the study’s continuing relevance to bilingualism and its strong test of the influence of a bilingual’s second language on their first language, we conducted an approximate replication of the lexical decision experiments in the original study (Experiments 2 and 3) using the same tasks and—to the extent possible—the same stimuli. Unlike the original study, our replication was conducted online with Dutch–English bilinguals (rather than in a lab with Dutch–English–French trilinguals). Despite these differences, results overall closely replicated the pattern of cognate facilitation effects observed in the original study. We discuss the replication of outcomes and possible interpretations of subtle differences in outcomes and make recommendations for future extensions of this line of research.

This study aimed to closely replicate Wiseheart et al. (Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 141–146, 2016) by investigating the transferability of language-switching skills to nonlinguistic task switching. Current evidence is mixed and there is a need to conduct robust replications in this area. Bilingual (n = 31) and monolingual (n = 47) young adults characterized stimuli by either colour or shape based on a given cue. Modifications include online data collection (as opposed to in-person) and adapting the nonverbal intelligence test used. All other aspects of the study mirror those by Wiseheart et al. Results indicate that the bilinguals exhibited better cognitive flexibility in task switching, as evidenced by a reduced global switch cost compared with monolinguals. In contrast, mixed evidence was found for local switch costs. Findings mirror those reported by Wiseheart et al. and suggest that by employing comparable task-switch paradigms and recruiting samples matched on several key variables, including age, gender, variety of languages spoken, and use of English, bilingualism does seem to confer broader executive function advantages. Findings are discussed in relation to theoretical implications to inform future replication studies and advance the bilingual advantage in the switching debate.