That was sarcasm, my friends, since it has already been replicated in economics n + 1 times:
Researchers are encouraged by newly released results of a project that successfully replicated 10 of 13 psychological studies. The project, conducted by a large international consortium, was set up in response to findings in recent years that many psychological studies, including classic experiments, were flawed.
And isn't loss aversion one of the fatal flaws of the contingent valuation method? From "Hopeless to Curious" (p. 8, 2014):
Since the onset of stated value elicitation surveys, researchers have been troubled by the seemingly simple finding, perhaps obvious to some, that compensation demanded (WTA) regularly exceeds compensation paid (WTP). Based on this common WTA/WTP gap, researchers have split along two lines in their conclusions. Some dismiss contingent valuation based on the naïve premise that the gap represents a violation of basic economic theory and thus invalidates value elicitation surveys. Others remain curious about the cause of the disparity and wonder whether the gap can be explained, either within the neoclassical framework, or by necessary extensions to this framework that draw upon psychological insights from behavioral economics. In dismissing contingent valuation, Hausman (2012) claims that “Basic economic theory suggests that [questions phrased to elicit willingness to pay to avoid a negative outcome and questions phrased to elicit willingness to accept the negative outcome] should give (approximately) the same answer …”