Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

TLDR

In psychology, replication—once rare and misunderstood—has become increasingly valued as a means to ensure progress, with non‑replicable findings stifling theory and replicable ones enabling deeper inquiry and innovation. Systematic, multi‑site replication projects assessed current understanding and revealed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts exposed sociocultural barriers such as disincentives and framing of replication as a personal attack, yet they also spurred innovation in replication, reproducibility, and robustness, positioning psychology to improve practices and accelerate progress.

Abstract

Replication, an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice, is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understanding to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understanding and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges, such as disincentives to conduct replications, framing of replication as personal attack rather than healthy scientific practice, and headwinds for replication contributing to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication, and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, have positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.