Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/
One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.
On the other hand it is a priming study that would probably not have been published if the result went the other way, and it's a newsworthy result. All indicators of non-replication.
I got 88% accuracy on the replication quiz and if this was on the quiz I would have marked it as unsure. I don't think it's obviously bogus, but also I'm not totally convinced.
Wasn’t the original study which claimed to “discover” priming recently debunked as not replicable?
I have my own thoughts, it's due to the siloed nature of science today, given publish of perish forces us to keep our head down and keep publishing whilst ignoring the big picture problems with the hope someone with more funding in a more prestiguous position will do something. It's more problematic in Psych though, because people and their quality of life are at stake which is not a situation in theoretical physics.
> This page is not set up to run this program.