Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 19 May 2015
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 6, 621
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
Abstract
The (latest) “crisis in confidence” in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how such replication should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. What does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”—does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified? And how should “failed” replications affect our belief in the validity of the original research? In this paper, we consider the “replication” debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion. Along the way, we introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in purported findings.Keywords
This publication has 66 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth TellingPsychological Science, 2012
- Irreproducible Experimental ResultsCirculation, 2012
- Behavioral Priming: It's All in the Mind, but Whose Mind?PLOS ONE, 2012
- Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011
- On Making Assumptions about Auxiliary AssumptionsTheory & Psychology, 2010
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Replicability, Reproducibility, and Robustness: Comments on Harry CollinsHistory of Political Economy, 1991
- Significance tests and the duplicity of binary decisions.Psychological Bulletin, 1989
- Official and unofficial dataNew Ideas in Psychology, 1988
- The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 1979