Advertisement

Reproducibility in Psychology: Theoretical Distinction of Different Types of Replications

  • Aleksandar BaucalEmail author
  • Alex Gillespie
  • Ksenija Krstić
  • Tania Zittoun
Original Article

Abstract

Debates about replication in psychology have focused on methodological issues and how to strengthen the replication culture. In most cases, these discussions have tended to assume that the phenomena being investigated are universal. In this paper, we are going to propose a theoretical distinction of different types of replication. The distinction is based on the assumption that besides of universal psychological phenomena there are also phenomena, especially in social and cultural psychology, that are expected to vary between socio-cultural contexts and across history. Taking this insight to its logical conclusion it implies that the main purpose of a replication and interpretation of its results depends on the phenomenon being studied. In the case of the universal phenomena, the replication serves to validation purpose, while in the case of the socio-cultural phenomenon it serves to advance our theoretical understanding of how the given phenomenon is formatted by the socio-cultural-historical context.

Keywords

Replication in psychology Reproducibility in psychology Socio-cultural-historical psychology 

Notes

References

  1. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, V., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., Isaksson, S., Manfredi, D., Rose, J., Wagenmakers, E. J., & Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 637–644.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology. PLoS One, 11, e0149794.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149794.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman-Barrett, L. (2015). Psychology is not in crisis. New York times (Sept. 1, 2015):A23 (2015). Available at www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/opinion/psychology-is-not-in-crisis.html?_r=1. Accessed 25 Aug 2018.
  6. Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 351, aad7243.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hartgerink, C. H. J., Wicherts, J. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2017). Too good to be false: Nonsignificant results revisited. Collabra: Psychology, 3(9).  https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hüffmeier, J., Mazeia, J., & Schultze, T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D. (2014). A new etiquette for replication. Social Psychology, 45, 310–311.Google Scholar
  10. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., Ishiyama, J., Karlan, D., Kraut, A., Lupia, A., Mabry, P., Madon, T., Malhotra, N., Mayo-Wilson, E., McNutt, M., Miguel, E., Levy Paluck, E., Simonsohn, U., Soderberg, C., Spellman, B. A., Turitto, J., Van den Bos, G., Vazire, S., Wagenmakers, E. J., Wilson, R., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  13. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Intelligence and culture: how culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1427–1434.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Touhey, J. C. (1981). Replication failures in personality and social psychology: Negative findings or mistaken assumptions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 593–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (2015). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. PNAS, 113, 6454–6459.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Vygotsky, L. (1934/2012). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wertsch, J. (1993). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson, B. M., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). The prior odds of testing a true effect in cognitive and social psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 186–197.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918767122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Department of Psychological and Behavioural ScienceLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  3. 3.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations