Did the Findings Replicate? You Can Bet on It, plus more weekly links

thepsychlist_green

A selection of recent behavioral science news, articles, and resources of note:

  • A great deal of psychology research doesn’t replicate, but that doesn’t mean researchers don’t  have a good sense for good science. When researchers at the Reproducibility Project brought together scientists to bet on which studies they thought would replicate, they did so with incredible accuracy. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
  • Is the United States in the dumps? Or should we count our blessings? The 2016 Presidential candidates’ half-full or half-empty (not to say half-brained) views of how our country is doing matter. Which led Sonja Lyubomirsky to ask “Will an optimist or a pessimist win in 2016?” (Los Angeles Times)
  • Banking is about dollars and cents. That doesn’t mean current banking practices make psychological sense, particularly for those with lower incomes. ideas42, in partnership with consulting firm Oliver Wyman, is rethinking the ways in which banking can work for those with lower incomes and often volatile financial lives, as well as for the banks who serve them. (ideas42)
  • Meditation came to the West as a fad decades ago but was soon forgotten by most Americans. Now it’s making a distinctly secular resurgence. Jennie Rothenberg Gritz looks at how meditation is becoming a mainstay in our schools. (The Atlantic)
  • Have human languages adapted to climate and terrain? In a recent study of over 633 languages worldwide, researchers suggest that environmental factors such as heat, humidity, and forestry have shaped the acoustic differences between vowel-heavy languages in the tropics and consonant-heavy languages in colder, less-humid regions. (Science)
    1. “He tried to lie and actually did lie.”
    2. “He tried to lie but only thinks he lied.”

    In a recent study published in Cognition, researchers used prompts like these to better understand what makes people consider a lie, a lie—the teller’s intent, or inconsistency with reality. According to researchers, the answer is both. (NPR)

  • For decades the conversation about manipulating genes to make our children smarter, healthier, and taller was limited by the science—it just wasn’t possible. Now, scientists are saying it’s time to have a discussion about the ethics of enhancing genomes as medical advances have made it a conceivable reality. (Aeon)

Featured image courtesy of slgckgc

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,