Week 2 Response

Hello, all!

I cannot speak for everyone, but I know that replication of experiments was mentioned only as an afterthought in my undergraduate psychology courses. When writing papers, we were told to construct our "Methods" section so precisely so that anyone could follow our instructions and carry out the same experiment. After reading these articles, I see that I was essentially instructed to write my "Methods" section so that anyone could carry out a direct replication. Looking at it now, why would anyone want to conduct a direct replication? It seems too obvious and too simple in most situations. If I wanted to ensure I was certain of my results, it seems as though I would always want to conduct a conceptual replication. If I could achieve the same results in a different situation with different participants etc., I would be thoroughly pleased!

Both articles made the point that publications often shy away from publishing direct replications of previously conducted studies. I cannot say I blame them. In some ways, that is like reinventing the wheel. In no way am I trying to discount the importance of both types of replications, but conducting a direct replication shows only a few things.... First, it shows that the original experimenter wrote solid instructions! Similarly, it shows that the new experimenter can follow instructions. If successful, a direct replication shows that the original experimenter correctly interpreted his or her results, which is important to eliminate any doubt in the significance of results.

Back to what I first said. This is my first semester of graduate school. It seems so bizarre to me that I am in a course focusing entirely on a subject that was barely mentioned in undergraduate.  I had the initial urge to email these articles to my previous professors and beg that they point out the importance of replication in psychology (or all sciences, for that matter).

All in all, I found these articles very interesting. Some of the points were common sense, but in a way that I had never thought of them. Similar to what Ed mentioned, I see a flaw in replication in that a faulty experiment will continue to be a faulty experiment as long as it is replicated. Looking forward to this discussion.