Suchergebnisse

Johnson, Cheung, and Donnellan (2014a) reported a failure to replicate Schnall, Benton, and Harvey (2008) 's effect of cleanliness on moral judgment. However, inspection of the replication data shows that participants provided high numbers of severe moral judgments – a ceiling effect. In the original data percentage of extreme responses per moral dilemma correlated negatively with the effect of the manipulation. In contrast, this correlation was absent in the replications, due to almost all items showing a high percentage of extreme responses. Therefore the parametric statistics reported by Johnson et al. (2014a) are inconclusive regarding the reproducibility of the original effect. Direct replications are prone to error when reviewers only judge similarity of methods, but not resulting data and conclusions. It is my conclusion that preventable problems can arise if publication decisions are made without independent post-data peer evaluation.

AbstractIn the past 10 years, the field of relationship science—like many other fields—has been exposed to dramatic changes in how scientists approach the research process. Relationship science has been at the forefront of many recent changes in the field, whether it be high profile replication attempts or broader discussions about how to increase rigor and reproducibility. A major goal of this special issue was to provide an opportunity for relationship scientists to engage with these issues and reforms. The first four articles in this special issue represent a sampling of different approaches relationship researchers have used to enhance the credibility of their work.