Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:51:06.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holding replication studies to mainstream standards of evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Duane T. Wegener  and
Leandre R. Fabrigar
Duane T. Wegener
Affiliation:
OSU Psychology Department, Columbus, OH 43210. [email protected]://psychology.osu.edu/people/wegener.1
Leandre R. Fabrigar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. [email protected]://www.queensu.ca/psychology/people/faculty/lee-fabrigar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Replications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ebersole, C. R., Alaei, R., Atherton, O. E., Bernstein, M. J., Brown, M., Chartier, C. R., Chung, L. Y., Hermann, A. D., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Line, M. J., Rule, N. O., Sacco, D. F., Vaughn, L. A. & Nosek, B. A. (2017) Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat: Luttrell, Petty & Xu (2017) demonstrate good science. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 69:184–86.Google Scholar
Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bofiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., Brown, E. R., Budima, N. I., Cairo, A. H., Capaldi, C. A., Chartier, C. R., Chung, J. M., Cicero, D. C., Coleman, J. A., Conway, J. G., Davis, W. E., Devos, T., Fletcher, M. M., German, K., Grahe, J. E., Hermann, A. D., Hicks, J. A., Honeycutt, N., Humphrey, B., Janus, M., Johnson, D. J., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Juzeler, H., Keres, A., Kinney, D., Kirschenbaum, J., Klein, R. A., Lucas, R. E., Lustgraff, C. J. N., Martin, D., Menon, M., Metzger, M., Moloney, J. M., Morse, P. J., Prislin, R., Razza, T., Re, D. E., Rule, N. O., Sacco, D. F., Sauerberger, K., Shrider, E., Shultz, M., Siesman, C., Sobocko, K., Sternglanz, R. W., Summerville, A., Tskhay, K. O., van Allen, Z., Vaughn, L. A., Walker, R. J., Weinberg, A., Wilson, J. P., Wirth, J. H., Wortman, J. & Nosek, B. A. (2016a) Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 67:68–82. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R. & Wegener, D. T. (2016) Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66:68–80.Google Scholar
Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E. & Xu, M. (2017) Replicating and fixing failed replications: The case of need for cognition and argument quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 69:178–83.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2016) Methodological choices have predictable consequences in replicating studies on motivation to think: Commentary on Ebersole et al. (2016). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 67:86–87.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W. & Strack, F. (2014) The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9:59–71. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450.Google Scholar