Hi Is replication that uncommon in psychology? Just a couple of observations
1. the recently cited paper noting that effects get weaker in subsequent studies would require replications even to conduct the analysis 2. meta-analysis requires multiple replications of some effect (e.g., gender differences); otherwise again not possible to do a meta-analysis 3. I can think of many, many areas where there are repeated demonstrations of certain effects (e.g., serial position curve, DRM false memory effect, caregiver-infant attachment, ...). No matter what the domain, natural science or psychology, there will always be some lag between the first report of some phenomenon and replications by other people. The problem is that initial reports may get more publicity and credence than they deserve. Indeed, researchers (via their public relations people in the administration) are probably culpable in a lot of the hype that goes on nowadays. Ironically, perhaps the somewhat crude efforts to encourage funding for research and science (i.e., publicity of "interesting" findings) might have the unintended consequence of further undermining people's (already?) weak acceptance of science. People are told one thing one week only to learn later that the effect does not hold up, perhaps even being contradicted in later studies, or was fraudulent. Probably not the best image of science to be projecting to the public? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> Joan Warmbold <[email protected]> 05-Nov-11 5:20:15 PM >>> This is fascinating Allen and I, for one, would appreciate knowing where to locate resources that discuss this requirement of physical sciences re: important experimental claims need to be replicated before they are published. Sounds like such a logical and crucial requirement. I also would be interested in who conducts these replication studies and what type of relationship they have with the researchers involved in the initial important experimental claim. Also, how common is it for these replication studies to be published and are the researchers who conduct them given their due as having provided a crucial contribution to the field of scientific endeavor? I realize that I have mentioned the Wakefield study before but it does seem especially relevant to our discussion. No reputable medical researcher could replicate Wakefield's data for more than a decade after his study was published in Lancet medical journal. Imagine all the havoc in the autism community that could have been avoided if only Lancet had had the same requirement of replication of Wakefield's experimental claim BEFORE they published his bogus research data. In reality, it seems that all journals who claim to be sources of scientifically valid research need to require that crucial replication of new experimental claims. If this step is ignored/skipped, then compromises in the reporting of data will continue to occur and the public-at-large will continue to be skeptical of the scientific research published in journals reported, and rightly so. And to add something new to the mix, how much do the biases of the review committees for journals contribute to determining which studies are worth of being published or not? Of course, that's a whole different prickly area to ponder but certainly one worth exploring. Joan [email protected] Allen Esterson wrote: > Though there are certainly known cases of scientists making their > results conform to theoretical expectations more closely than their > experiments justify (e.g., by the choice of relative outliers that are > chosen to be ignored as anomalous), there seems to be one difference > compared to psychology. In physical science any important experimental > claim requires independent replication before being accepted by peers. > My impression is that this is frequently not the case in psychology, > with results of studies sometimes being widely cited regardless of > whether they have been replicated. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > [email protected] > http://www.esterson.org > > ---------------------------------------------------- > From: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:32:09 PM > Subject: [tips] Stapel's faking of social psychology data > This story has been going on for a couple of days. Embarrassing: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21118-psychologist-admits-faking-data-in-dozens-of-studies.html > > > Beth Benoit > Granite State College > Plymouth State University > New Hampshire > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=13884 > > or send a blank email to > leave-13884-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=13920 or send a blank email to leave-13920-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13921 or send a blank email to leave-13921-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
