Zwaan Rolf A, Etz Alexander, Lucas Richard E, Donnellan M Brent
Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-5100.
Behav Brain Sci. 2017 Oct 25;41:e120. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001972.
Many philosophers of science and methodologists have argued that the ability to repeat studies and obtain similar results is an essential component of science. A finding is elevated from single observation to scientific evidence when the procedures that were used to obtain it can be reproduced and the finding itself can be replicated. Recent replication attempts show that some high profile results - most notably in psychology, but in many other disciplines as well - cannot be replicated consistently. These replication attempts have generated a considerable amount of controversy, and the issue of whether direct replications have value has, in particular, proven to be contentious. However, much of this discussion has occurred in published commentaries and social media outlets, resulting in a fragmented discourse. To address the need for an integrative summary, we review various types of replication studies and then discuss the most commonly voiced concerns about direct replication. We provide detailed responses to these concerns and consider different statistical ways to evaluate replications. We conclude there are no theoretical or statistical obstacles to making direct replication a routine aspect of psychological science.
许多科学哲学家和方法论学者认为，重复研究并获得相似结果的能力是科学的一个基本组成部分。当用于获得某一发现的程序能够被重现且该发现本身能够被复制时，这一发现就从单一观察提升为科学证据。最近的重复尝试表明，一些备受瞩目的结果——最显著的是在心理学领域，但在许多其他学科也是如此——无法被一致地复制。这些重复尝试引发了大量争议，尤其是直接重复是否有价值这一问题已被证明颇具争议。然而，大部分此类讨论都出现在已发表的评论和社交媒体平台上，导致了一种碎片化的论述。为满足对综合总结的需求，我们回顾了各类重复研究，然后讨论了关于直接重复最常表达的担忧。我们对这些担忧提供了详细回应，并考虑了评估重复的不同统计方法。我们得出结论，将直接重复作为心理科学的常规方面不存在理论或统计障碍。
