{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03341288782816229, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013126491646778043, 'mean_word_length': 5.356060606060606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cautious Thoughts on “A Social Priming Data Set With Troubling Oddities”

ABSTRACT Pashler, Rohrer, Abramson, Wolfson, and Harris (2016/this issue) identify a number of features of the data in Chatterjee, Rose, and Sinha (2013), particularly in Study 3, that cause them to question the scientific validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. Based on the critics’ analyses and my own investigation, I concur that Study 3 data are likely unreliable. However, Pashler et al. question the scientific validity of all three studies while providing support for their skepticism only for Study 3, clearly an overgeneralization. The processes leading to the original publication and the critics’ challenge to the original work highlight some crucial questions regarding trust, loyalty, mentorship, and oversight in multiple authored articles.