Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

What have we learned? What can we learn?

  • Fritz Strack (a1) and Wolfgang Stroebe (a2)

Abstract

We advocate that replications should be an integral part of the scientific discourse and provide insights about the conditions under which an effect occurs. By themselves, mere nonreplications are not informative about the “truth” of an effect. As a consequence, the mechanistic continuation of multilab replications should be replaced by diagnostic studies providing insights about the underlying causes and mechanisms.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Baker, M. (2015, August 27) Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature News. Available at: https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248.
Blakeley, B., McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C. & Tackett, J. L. (2018) Abandon statistical significance. Preprint. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07588.
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2017) Die Replizierbarkeit von Forschungsergebnissen (The replicability of research findings). Available at: www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2017/170425_stellungnahme_replizierbarkeit_forschungsergebnisse_en.pdf.
Strack, F. (2017) From data to truth in psychological science. A personal perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 8:702. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5432643/.
Stroebe, W. & Strack, F. (2014) The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9:5971. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed