Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T20:09:28.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strong scientific theorizing is needed to improve replicability in psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Timothy Carsel ,
Alexander P. Demos  and
Matt Motyl
Timothy Carsel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. timothy.carsel@gmail.comademos@uic.edumatt.motyl@gmail.comwww.timcarsel.wordpress.comwww.alexanderdemos.org/www.mattmotyl.com
Alexander P. Demos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. timothy.carsel@gmail.comademos@uic.edumatt.motyl@gmail.comwww.timcarsel.wordpress.comwww.alexanderdemos.org/www.mattmotyl.com
Matt Motyl
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. timothy.carsel@gmail.comademos@uic.edumatt.motyl@gmail.comwww.timcarsel.wordpress.comwww.alexanderdemos.org/www.mattmotyl.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article makes the important case for making replicability mainstream. Yet, their proposal targets a symptom, rather than the underlying cause of low replication rates. We argue that psychological scientists need to devise stronger theories that are more clearly falsifiable. Without strong, falsifiable theories in the original research, attempts to replicate the original research are nigh uninterpretable.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e123
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cohen, J. (1994) The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist 49:997–1003.Google Scholar
Gray, K. (2017) How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12(5):731–41.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990a) Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports 66(1):195–244. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990b) Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry 1:108–41. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1.Google Scholar
Motyl, M., Demos, A. P., Carsel, T. S., Hanson, B. E., Melton, Z. J., Mueller, A. B., Prims, J. P., Sun, J., Washburn, A. N., Wong, K., Yantis, C. A. & Skitka, L. J. (2017) The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(1):34.Google Scholar
Washburn, A. N., Hanson, B. E., Motyl, M., Skitka, L., Yantis, C., Wong, K., Sun, J., Prims, J., Mueller, A. B., Melton, Z. J. & Carsel, T. S. (2018) Why do some psychology researchers resist using proposed reforms to research practices? A description of researchers' rationales. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. Published online March 7, 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757427.Google Scholar