When replication fails: what to conclude and not to conclude?

Willem W. A. Sleegers; Florian van Leeuwen; Robert M. Ross; Kenneth G. DeMarree; Ilja van Beest; Daniel Priolo; Marie-Amélie Martinie; Coby Morvinski; Bruno Verschuere; David C. Vaidis

doi:10.1177/25152459241268197

When replication fails: what to conclude and not to conclude?

Willem W. A. Sleegers, Florian van Leeuwen, Robert M. Ross, Kenneth G. DeMarree, Ilja van Beest, Daniel Priolo, Marie-Amélie Martinie, Coby Morvinski, Bruno Verschuere, David C. Vaidis

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this commentary, we examine the implications of the failed replication reported by Vaidis et al., which represents the largest multilab attempt to replicate the induced-compliance paradigm in cognitive-dissonance theory. We respond to commentaries on this study and discuss potential explanations for the null findings, including issues with the perceived choice manipulation and various post hoc explanations. Our commentary includes an assessment of the broader landscape of cognitive-dissonance research, revealing pervasive methodological limitations, such as underpowered studies and a lack of open-science practices. We conclude that our replication study and our examination of the literature raise substantial concerns about the reliability of the induced-compliance paradigm and highlight the need for more rigorous research practices in the field of cognitive dissonance.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-12
Number of pages	12
Journal	Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Volume	7
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241268197
Publication status	Published - Oct 2024

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

attitudes
cognition
social cognition

Access to Document

10.1177/25152459241268197

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 480 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{86297e08956c4ec4ab272112ab364da6,

title = "When replication fails: what to conclude and not to conclude?",

abstract = "In this commentary, we examine the implications of the failed replication reported by Vaidis et al., which represents the largest multilab attempt to replicate the induced-compliance paradigm in cognitive-dissonance theory. We respond to commentaries on this study and discuss potential explanations for the null findings, including issues with the perceived choice manipulation and various post hoc explanations. Our commentary includes an assessment of the broader landscape of cognitive-dissonance research, revealing pervasive methodological limitations, such as underpowered studies and a lack of open-science practices. We conclude that our replication study and our examination of the literature raise substantial concerns about the reliability of the induced-compliance paradigm and highlight the need for more rigorous research practices in the field of cognitive dissonance.",

keywords = "attitudes, cognition, social cognition",

author = "Sleegers, {Willem W. A.} and Leeuwen, {Florian van} and Ross, {Robert M.} and DeMarree, {Kenneth G.} and Beest, {Ilja van} and Daniel Priolo and Marie-Am{\'e}lie Martinie and Coby Morvinski and Bruno Verschuere and Vaidis, {David C.}",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2024",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1177/25152459241268197",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "1--12",

journal = "Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science",

issn = "2515-2459",

publisher = "SAGE Publications",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When replication fails

T2 - what to conclude and not to conclude?

AU - Sleegers, Willem W. A.

AU - Leeuwen, Florian van

AU - Ross, Robert M.

AU - DeMarree, Kenneth G.

AU - Beest, Ilja van

AU - Priolo, Daniel

AU - Martinie, Marie-Amélie

AU - Morvinski, Coby

AU - Verschuere, Bruno

AU - Vaidis, David C.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2024/10

Y1 - 2024/10

N2 - In this commentary, we examine the implications of the failed replication reported by Vaidis et al., which represents the largest multilab attempt to replicate the induced-compliance paradigm in cognitive-dissonance theory. We respond to commentaries on this study and discuss potential explanations for the null findings, including issues with the perceived choice manipulation and various post hoc explanations. Our commentary includes an assessment of the broader landscape of cognitive-dissonance research, revealing pervasive methodological limitations, such as underpowered studies and a lack of open-science practices. We conclude that our replication study and our examination of the literature raise substantial concerns about the reliability of the induced-compliance paradigm and highlight the need for more rigorous research practices in the field of cognitive dissonance.

AB - In this commentary, we examine the implications of the failed replication reported by Vaidis et al., which represents the largest multilab attempt to replicate the induced-compliance paradigm in cognitive-dissonance theory. We respond to commentaries on this study and discuss potential explanations for the null findings, including issues with the perceived choice manipulation and various post hoc explanations. Our commentary includes an assessment of the broader landscape of cognitive-dissonance research, revealing pervasive methodological limitations, such as underpowered studies and a lack of open-science practices. We conclude that our replication study and our examination of the literature raise substantial concerns about the reliability of the induced-compliance paradigm and highlight the need for more rigorous research practices in the field of cognitive dissonance.

KW - attitudes

KW - cognition

KW - social cognition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209894842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/25152459241268197

DO - 10.1177/25152459241268197

M3 - Article

SN - 2515-2459

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

JF - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

IS - 4

ER -

When replication fails: what to conclude and not to conclude?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this