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

Psychological Science, Forthcoming

8 Pages Posted: 12 Aug 2016  

Uri Simonsohn

Ramon Llull University - 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)

Ramon Llull University - ESADE Business School ( email )

Avinguda de la Torre Blanca, 59
Sant Cugat del Vall├Ęs, 08172
Spain

HOME PAGE: http://urisohn.com

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
187
rank
150,211
Abstract Views
807
PlumX