From https://metaculus.com/questions/17293/replication-social-portfolios-and-well-being/

Transparent Replications by Clearer Thinking aims to replicate studies from randomly-selected, newly-published papers in prestigious psychology journals, as well as any psychology papers recently published in Nature or Science involving online participants. “Relational diversity in social portfolios predicts well-being” is one of the most recent psychology papers involving online participants published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Study 1 from that paper met our criteria for replication.

Context: How often have social science studies replicated in the past?

In one historical project that attempted to replicate 100 experimental and correlation studies from 2008 in three important psychology journals, analysis indicated that they successfully replicated 40%, failed to replicate 30%, and the remaining 30% were inconclusive. (To put it another way, of the replications that were not inconclusive, 57% were successful replications.)

In another project, researchers attempted to replicate all experimental social science science papers (that met basic inclusion criteria) published in Nature or Science (the two most prestigious general science journals) between 2010 and 2015. They found a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 62% (i.e., 13 out of 21) studies, and the effect sizes of the replications were, on average, about 50% of the original effect sizes. Replicability varied between 57% and 67% depending on the replicability indicator used.

The replication described here was run as part of Transparent Replications by Clearer Thinking, which has not run enough replications yet for us to give any base replication rates. Having said that, if you’re interested in reading more about the project, you can read more here. And here is where you can find write-ups for the previous replications we’ve completed.