This post isn't a replication update per se. However, this blog post by Daniel Lakens (2017, July 3) challenges an interrupted time series design featured in Chapter 13 (Figure 13.2). The original study, by Danziger et al. (2011), found that judges were more likely to grant parole at the beginning of the day or after a snack break.
Lakens's reasoning is that the effect is so large (d = 2.0) as to be impossible. Keep in mind that this is a blog post, and thus not formally peer-reviewed. However, the point is compelling.
One peer reviewed critique of the original paper appeared, by Glockner (2016) in Judgment and Decision Making. Another critique is by Margel and Shapard (2011) in the form of a published letter to PNAS, the journal where the original article appeard.
I wish to thank Dr. Stephen Lindsay for bringing this example to my attention!
