What misconception, exactly? I understand that reproducibility is not the only factor in evaluating a study's weight, but it's still important, and still problematic in psychology.
>Bad evidence may be perfectly reproducible.
That was part of my point, namely that a weakly supported interpretation of subjective reports is probably a lot easier to reproduce than more empiric studies, but it does nothing to further the art.
>finding out what people say when you ask them to remember X is a perfectly legitimate thing to collect data on, as long you recognize its limitations.
I'm actually not arguing that subjective reports aren't legitimate data though. I think this study's methodology was also flawed due to the way it was structured. Group A was asked to describe an act of self-promotion of their choosing, and in a separate survey, Group B was asked to describe an instance of their choosing when someone had self-promoted to them. It's disjointed and lacking context.
There is a distinct possibility that people in Group A chose to report a time when they felt that their bragging was socially acceptable and perhaps the people they bragged to were actually happy for them (e.g. health of their child). Likewise, I think the people in Group B were more likely to report a particularly obnoxious brag simply because that would be more memorable.
A better (albeit admittedly more difficult to execute) study would involve investigating real-world and online instances of humblebragging, where there is direct relationship between promoter and recipient, and the subjects don't get to decide which experience they describe.