The Replication Crisis Christmas Quiz w/ Mickey Inzlicht & Dave Pizarro

<p>In this festive descent into methodological despair, Chris and Matt convene a secret cabal of elite psychology podcasters within the Decoding Cloister, operating under the distant yet reassuring gaze of Arch-Wizard Paul Bloom, whose role is largely ceremonial but nonetheless morally binding.</p><p>Joining them are Dave Pizarro (<em>Very Bad Wizards</em>) and Michael Inzlicht (<em>Two Psychologists Four Beers</em>, emeritus), for what can only be described as an end-of-year audit of social psychology’s moral character.</p><p>What follows is a mixture of intense hubris, disciplinary self-loathing, and revolutionary insights, delivered via one of the most sadistic Christmas quizzes ever devised. The quiz format allows the episode to do what psychology does best: create the feeling of measurement while hovering dangerously close to intuition.</p><p>Alongside the quiz, we engage in some meta-commentary and sensemaking reflections on audience capture and the state of psychology-themed podcasts in 2025. In other words, it’s Christmas, so naturally everyone is discussing perverse incentives, damaged reputations, and the slow moral corrosion of institutions.</p><p>So join us, won’t you? For the first International Congress on Psychology-Themed Podcasting and Gurus…</p><p><strong>Links</strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://www.speakandregret.michaelinzlicht.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mickey's Substack</a></li><li><a href="https://michaelinzlicht.com/#lab-view" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mickey's Work and Play Lab</a></li><li><a href="https://www.fourbeers.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Two Psychologists Four Beers</a></li><li><a href="https://verybadwizards.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Very Bad Wizards</a></li><li><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614556679?casa_token=R9RkPu2LA_EAAAAA:YdCBxU7E-fh1TSF5vVcsT5ZrdSh0wwv9p-lIYB4bmYn1two5BIcppgrz5ZHDhlB_2p7cq4p-98EuSQ" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., &amp; Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment.&nbsp;<em>Perspectives on Psychological Science</em>,&nbsp;<em>10</em>(1), 72-81.</a></li><li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00182-6" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., &amp; Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans.&nbsp;<em>Communications Psychology</em>,&nbsp;<em>3</em>(1), 4.</a></li></ul><br /><p><strong>References</strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., &amp; Eyre, R. N. (2007). <em>Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.</em> <em>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136</em>(4), 569–576.</a></li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Aarts, H., &amp; Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). <em>The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior.</em> <em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84</em>(1), 18–28.</a></li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90014-5" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). <em>On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment.</em> <em>Cognition, 2</em>(2), 243–256.</a></li><li><a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/13/17449150/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Resnick, B. (2018, June 13). <em>The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud.</em> <em>Vox.</em></a></li><li>Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., &amp; Schachter, S. (1956). <em>When prophecy fails.</em> University of Minnesota Press.</li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Bem, D. J. (2011). <em>Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.</em> <em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100</em>(3), 407–425.</a></li><li><a href="https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/20/bemcorrespondence/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Schimmack, U. (2018, January 20). <em>My email correspondence with Daryl J. Bem about the data for his “Feeling the Future”.</em> <em>Replicability Index.</em></a></li><li>Merton, R. K. (1973). <em>The normative structure of science.</em> In <em>The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations</em> (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942).</li><li>Hauser, M. (2012). <em>Evilicious: Why we evolved a taste for being bad.</em> Basic Books.</li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.003" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Kay, A. C., Wheeler, S. C., Bargh, J. A., &amp; Ross, L. (2004). <em>Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice.</em> <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95</em>(1), 83–96.</a></li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Macfarlane, B. (2024). <em>The decay of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos.</em> <em>Oxford Review of Education, 50</em>(4), 468–483.</a></li><li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231213375" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Vaidis, D. C., Sleegers, W. W. A., van Leeuwen, F., et al. (2024). <em>A multilab replication of the induced-compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance.</em> <em>Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7</em>(1).</a></li><li><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jhbs.70043?campaign=woletoc" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Kelly, T. (2026). Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”.&nbsp;<em>Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences</em>,&nbsp;<em>62</em>(1), e70043.</a></li></ul><br />