Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T00:58:35.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three ways to make replication mainstream

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Morton Ann Gernsbacher
Morton Ann Gernsbacher*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. MAGernsb@wisc.eduwww.GernsbacherLab.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Zwaan et al. argue convincingly that replication needs to be more mainstream. Here, I suggest three practices for achieving that goal: Incremental Replications, which are built into each experiment in a series of experiments; Reciprocal Replications, which are reciprocal arrangements of co-replications across labs; and Didactic Replications, which are replications used for training.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e129
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

Chawla, D. S. (2017, April 7) Online platform aims to facilitate replication studies. The Scientist. Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49161/title/Online-Platform-Aims-to-Facilitate-Replication-Studies/.Google Scholar
Foss, D. J. & Blank, M. A. (1980) Identifying the speech codes. Cognitive Psychology 12(1):1–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90002-X.Google Scholar
Foss, D. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1983) Cracking the dual code: Toward a unitary model of phoneme identification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22:609–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90365-1.Google Scholar
Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996) The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 35:517–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0028.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989) Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition 32:99–156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90001-2.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988) Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27:699–717.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W. & Werner, N. K. (2001a) The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45:433–50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R. W. & Werner, N. K. (2001b) The costs and benefits of meaning. In: On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, ed. Gorfein, D. S., pp. 119–37. APA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-007.Google Scholar
Grahe, J., Brandt, M., IJzerman, H. & Cohoon, J. (2014, February 28) Replication education. Association for Psychological Science: Observer. Available at: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replication-education.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1992) Improving written communication through minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Processes 7:1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969208409378.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993) Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language and Cognitive Processes 8:311–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406958.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2017, May 8) Concurrent replication. Blog post. Available at: https://rolfzwaan.blogspot.nl/2017/05/concurrent-replication.html.Google Scholar