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^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Social Psychology

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

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	Undefined/Unknown
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

Keywords

attitudes
cognition
social cognition

Access to Document

10.1177/25152459241268197Licence: CC BY-NC

When replication fails what to conclude and not to concludeFinal published version, 480 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{2e716029283743e0a1d5af0855cd3d39,

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

year = "2024",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1177/25152459241268197",

language = "Undefined/Unknown",

volume = "7",

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

issn = "2515-2459",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When replication fails

T2 - What to conclude and not to conclude?

AU - Sleegers, Willem W. A.

AU - van Leeuwen, Florian

AU - Ross, Robert M.

AU - DeMarree, Kenneth G.

AU - van Beest, Ilja

AU - Priolo, Daniel

AU - Martinie, Marie-Amélie

AU - Morvinski, Coby

AU - Verschuere, Bruno

AU - Vaidis, David C.

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

U2 - 10.1177/25152459241268197

DO - 10.1177/25152459241268197

M3 - Article

SN - 2515-2459

VL - 7

JO - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

JF - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

IS - 4

ER -