Skip to main content

Reproducibility in Psychology: Theoretical Distinction of Different Types of Replications

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vygotsky, L. (1934/2012). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandar Baucal.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baucal, A., Gillespie, A., Krstić, K. et al. Reproducibility in Psychology: Theoretical Distinction of Different Types of Replications. Integr. psych. behav. 54, 152–157 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09499-y

Download citation

Keywords

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