As pre-registration becomes more popular, I've always wondered - if we can pre-register our hypotheses and analytical plan, then why don't we include our code? Today I decided to be as open as possible in my pre-registration and did just this. It's super easy, so here's how: 1/n I started by drafting up the typical pre-reg (I personally like the aspredicted form on OSF). I filled it in as usual, including a detailed description of my analyses (Q5 on the AP form). I put a note indicating that an INITIAL draft of the code will be in the project folder. 2/n

So, a few months ago I submitted my first paper with open data. A couple of weeks ago, the paper got rejected because of the data I shared. Let me tell you, this experience has been quite a rollercoaster ride. Thread 1/n When preparing the data, I scrutinized the hell out of the files. I wanted to make sure the variable names made sense to anyone who stumbled across the data, I quadruple checked all of the analyses. I posted the r script. Surely, there was nothing that I missed, right? 2/n

What is the future of well-being research? Looking forward to this exciting symposium organized by Maike Luhmann #ecp2018 Felix Cheung: assessing changes is life satisfaction and hope during the Syrian war

LS: 1.1 SD drop
Hope: 0.5 SD drop
PA: 0.6 SD drop
NA: 1.0 SD increase

So, basically, it's Zimbardo's words against the participants' and, despite there being evidence against Z's recounts, he is SO SURE that he is right. Because, you know, it's not like he has anything riding on this experiment or whatever 🙄 This guy is ridiculous and a total sham

https://twitter.com/B_resnick/status/1012303762713710593

In fact, Z goes on to say the Ps weren't acting (despite one explicitly saying he did) because what would they get from that? I wish the reporter would have asked him the same question: well, you have a lot of motive here, so what could YOU possibly get (or lose) from all this?