Why do you think that some studies are replicable while others are not? Make specific references to the findings discussed in the Replication Quiz above. When you correctly guessed a finding that was replicated, what made you think it was replicable? When you correctly guessed that a finding was not replicated, what tipped you off? If you were a journal editor, what changes might you make to your decision-making due to the replication crisis?

Here is a reference from the quiz I had to take, and I have to say why I think its replicated, and I'm not sure how to find out who it was replicated but on the quiz it said it was replicated so I'm lost.

Engaging in an outward-focussed activity from a list (e.g. watching television or reading a book) for 12 minutes is rated as being more enjoyable than a 12 minute 'thinking period' in which people just entertain themselves with their thoughts.

Original Study:p-value = 0.000044,standardised effect size (r) = 0.674,sample size (n) = 30.

"Would participants enjoy themselves more if they had something to do? In study 8, we randomly assigned 30 participants to entertain themselves with their own thoughts or to engage in external activities (such as reading a book, listening to music, or surfing the Web). We asked the latter participants not to communicate with others (e.g., via texting or emailing), so that we could compare nonsocial external activities (such as reading) with a nonsocial internal activity (thinking). As seen in Table 1, participants enjoyed the external activities much more than just thinking [t(28) = 4.83, P < 0.001], found it easier to concentrate [t(28) = 4.16, P < 0.001], and reported that their minds wandered less [t(28) = 3.61, P = 0.001]."