https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335312555_Not_lost_in_translation_Successfully_replicating_Prospect_Theory_in_19_countries

Kahneman is rare example of a scientist critical to his own ideas,trying to falsify them rather than p-hack his way to fame. I recommend M. Lewis's book about his and Tversky's work.

I read the book post-replication crisis, but had to put it down because it seemed like half its content was the type that I wouldn't expect to pass replication. I still think that the message I've gotten from this community around:

• The difference between intuitive vs explicit/analytical reasoning
• There are knowable, common and correctable biases in intuitive reasoning

have stood the test of time, at least in principle, albeit with less of a central role in my worldview.

I don't know how well the studies on which is based replicate, but 'Predictably irrational' from Dan Ariely is also in the Behavioural Economics field, and Dan seems to put a lot of effort into preparing valid experiments.

Try books by Gerd Gigerenzer (search on Amazon). I particularly like his Empire of Chance, about different schools of probability analysis.  Bounded Rationality is pretty good, too. The difference between Gigerenzer's and Tversky's attitudes is not particularly impressive (they apparently hate each other, even though one is dead). One is decision making when in a hurry (Gigerenzer) and the other is decision-making with insufficient data (Tversky) (or maybe it's the other way around, tedious stuff). Discussions of biases is fascinating by both authors.

I agree with jp's comment in the sense that the true value of Thinking Fast & Slow may not be the specific examples but the cautionary message it gives about relying too much on our decisions and overcoming the "homo-economicus

However, I'm also interested now to see the replicability of those studies quoted by the book.."