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, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kahneman, D. (2014). A new etiquette for replication. Social Psychology, 45, 310–311.
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.
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do. Paris: OECD.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Touhey, J. C. (1981). Replication failures in personality and social psychology: Negative findings or mistaken assumptions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 593–595.
Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. London: SAGE.
Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (2015). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/2012). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J. (1993). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09499-y