The surrounding environment has a profound impact on human behaviour. Historically, studies have shown that highertemperatures are associated with increases in antisocial behaviours (aggression, violence). More recently, studies havelinked higher temperature experiences to increases in prosocial behaviours (altruism, co-operation). Such contrastingpatterns leave the status of temperature-behaviour links unclear. Here we conduct a series of meta-analyses of laboratory-based empirical studies that measure either prosocial (monetary reward, gift giving, helping) or antisocial (retaliation,horn honking, sabotage) outcomes, with temperature as an independent variable. Overall, we found that there was noreliable effect of temperature on the behavioural outcomes measured. In follow-up analyses, there was no reliable effectof temperature on prosocial or antisocial outcomes when analysed separately. We consider why the evidence to supporttemperature-behaviour links from laboratory-based studies is weak, assess potential moderators, and examine how futurestudies can attempt to reconcile seemingly contradictory patterns in the literature.

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing credibility revolution in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our fields practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeisters (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychologys disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p <.05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr =.002 or.014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r =.05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r =.04) and the original RP:P replications (r =.11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r =.37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r =.07, range =.00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r =.37, range =.19–.50).