Each Reader Decides If a Replication Counts; Reply to Schwarz and Clore (2016)

Psychological Science, Forthcoming

8 Pages Posted: 12 Aug 2016

See all articles by Uri Simonsohn

Uri Simonsohn

ESADE Business School; Ramon Llull University - ESADE Business School; ESADE Business School

Date Written: August 11, 2016

Abstract

I agree with Schwarz & Clore on the importance of considering differences between original and replication studies when interpreting replication failures. I disagree on the proposition that without manipulation checks replications cannot be statistically analyzed as such, and disagree on their approach to considering hypotheses for why a replication failed. They stop after generating hypotheses, I show the benefits of also testing them. I propose a heuristic for deciding which design differences replicators should highlight in their articles. A unifying theme is that replicators are communicating with all readers, not just the original authors; the goal is informing the former rather than persuading the latter.

Keywords: Replication, Small Telescopes, Weather, Life-satisfaction

Suggested Citation

Simonsohn, Uri, Each Reader Decides If a Replication Counts; Reply to Schwarz and Clore (2016) (August 11, 2016). Psychological Science, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2821440

Uri Simonsohn (Contact Author)

ESADE Business School ( email )

Av. de Pedralbes, 60-62
Barcelona, 08034
Spain

Ramon Llull University - ESADE Business School ( email )

Avinguda de la Torre Blanca, 59
Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08172
Spain

HOME PAGE: http://urisohn.com

ESADE Business School ( email )

Av. de Pedralbes, 60-62
Barcelona, 08034
Spain

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
208
Abstract Views
1,195
Rank
265,230
PlumX Metrics