ArticleNature human behaviour2025
Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Here we test the feasibility of using decision markets to select studies for replication and provide evidence about the replicability of online experiments. Social scientists (n = 162) traded on the outcome of close replications of 41 systematically selected MTurk social science experiments published in PNAS 2015-2018, knowing that the 12 studies with the lowest and the 12 with the highest final market prices would be selected for replication, along with 2 randomly selected studies. The replication rate, based on the statistical significance indicator, was 83% for the top-12 and 33% for the bottom-12 group. Overall, 54% of the studies were successfully replicated, with replication effect size estimates averaging 45% of the original effect size estimates. The replication rate varied between 54% and 62% for alternative replication indicators. The observed replicability of MTurk experiments is comparable to that of previous systematic replication projects involving laboratory experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.