http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
If you don't believe the research is solid, please post some convincing counter studies.
It sounds like you don't understand the reproducibility crisis: It's not up to me to produce counter studies, it's up to you to produce replications of the already published work, using the exact same methods and techniques.
So far, the reproducibility in the psychological sciences has been pretty poor. Nature summarized the original test a couple of years ago: 61 out of 100 replications failed in the test.
https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-...
Not quite right: Meta-analyses combine several studies to improve the statistical power of a given topic. They do not address reproducibility, because the individual papers forming the basis for the meta-analyses make no attempt at reproducing prior results before introducing new ones. I'd go so far as to say part of the necessity for the original reproducibility study of 100 seminal psychology papers was because meta-analyses fail to address reproducibility.
The repercussions of 61/100 papers failing to reproduce are still not as widely understood as they should be.