Replicability and other features of a high-quality science: Toward a balanced and empirical approach

Eli J. Finkel*, Paul W. Eastwick, Harry T. Reis

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

21 Scopus citations

Abstract

Finkel, Eastwick, and Reis (2015; FER2015) argued that psychological science is better served by responding to apprehensions about replicability rates with contextualized solutions than with one-sizefits- all solutions. Here, we extend FER2015's analysis to suggest that much of the discussion of best research practices since 2011 has focused on a single feature of high-quality science-replicability-with insufficient sensitivity to the implications of recommended practices for other features, like discovery, internal validity, external validity, construct validity, consequentiality, and cumulativeness. Thus, although recommendations for bolstering replicability have been innovative, compelling, and abundant, it is difficult to evaluate their impact on our science as a whole, especially because many research practices that are beneficial for some features of scientific quality are harmful for others. For example, FER2015 argued that bigger samples are generally better, but also noted that very large samples ("those larger than required for effect sizes to stabilize"; p. 291) could have the downside of commandeering resources that would have been better invested in other studies. In their critique of FER2015, LeBel, Campbell, and Loving (2016) concluded, based on simulated data, that ever-larger samples are better for the efficiency of scientific discovery (i.e., that there are no tradeoffs). As demonstrated here, however, this conclusion holds only when the replicator's resources are considered in isolation. If we widen the assumptions to include the original researcher's resources as well, which is necessary if the goal is to consider resource investment for the field as a whole, the conclusion changes radically-and strongly supports a tradeoffbased analysis. In general, as psychologists seek to strengthen our science, we must complement our much-needed work on increasing replicability with careful attention to the other features of a high-quality science.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)244-253
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of personality and social psychology
Volume113
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2017

Keywords

  • Best practices
  • Replicability
  • Research methods
  • Scientific desiderata

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Replicability and other features of a high-quality science: Toward a balanced and empirical approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this