The most likely explanation is random noise, and that this experiment will not be repeatable. Sadly almost all psychology studies are like this, an odd result thata is most likely statistical noise.
You mean that the most likely explanation for us hearing about this study is publication bias, right?
But we're talking p<.01 here, so most likely you're wrong. You'd have to believe that 100 similar studies have been performed and we only heard about the one winner.
They did two experiments that conceptually replicate research in the area. I agree that results like these need to be replicated by other researchers, but chalking this up to measurement or design error is not the most likely explanation.
