If psychology was acting like a real science, and the rate of replication failures was low, we would not consider non-replication as a failure. We would consider the author of the original study to be a good, hard working member of the field, and the person who did the replication a good, hard working member of the field. We would also appreciate it if, assuming the issue was deemed important, a third researcher did a more comprehensive study to settle the matter. If the third party had more than enough power for the non-replication to be conclusive, that wouldn’t be a failure either.

This is what drives the ‘file drawer effect’ and is why replications (or non-replications) are hard to publish.

So non-replication is a success for science (because we have more data about the world) even if it is a failure for the original theory.

Unfortunately, these two aspects are not considered sufficiently separately at the moment.

Regardless of whether people are happy I think we have to do it… I know it’s hard but researchers must be less attached to the outcome of their work as they are to the process. Put all your effort and pride in the process and let the chips fall where they may.

This is clearly nonsense and checking the original finding is equally as valuable if the new data agree with, or disagree with, the original study.”

Would you please expand on this point? My that reproducibility is a foundation of science, so I don’t understand the ‘unfortunately’ in the first paragraph, nor the ‘this is clearly nonsense’ in the second.

Also, if you don’t think this is going to cause a stir check out the recent Bargh affair.

Almost all the “hard” science types I have ever met consider all social sciences a joke. There has been a lot of progress in the last 15 years, especially in new technologies to aid in cognitive research. This is GOOD news.