Search

Your search keyword '"Conceptual replication"' showing total 7 results
Start Over Descriptor "Conceptual replication" Topic replication
7 results on '"Conceptual replication"'

1. Taking the Full Measure: Integrating Replication into Research Practice to Assess Generalizability.

Author

Urminsky, Oleg and Dietvorst, Berkeley J

Subjects
REPRODUCIBLE research, RESEARCH methodology, META-analysis, EXPERIMENTAL design, CONSUMER research
Abstract

In this article, we review the ways in which replication has been and could be featured in consumer behavior, using Journal of Consumer Research as a specific setting. We present a framework for thinking about the generalizability of research findings and differentiate various potential benefits that replication can have for understanding variability in consumer research findings. We then define four different types of replications, describe how researchers can use these approaches to produce distinct benefits, and give guidance regarding conducting, interpreting, and the potential contributions of these different types of replications. We conclude with a discussion of various ways in which replication could be more fully integrated into different phases of the scientific research process, taking into account the contribution necessary for publication. In particular, we identify opportunities to incorporate independent replication into original papers, to increase the replication-based contribution in papers that build on prior work, and to use systematic replication in conjunction with meta-analysis to synthesize and confirm conclusions from a mature research literature. More fully integrating replication into scientific practice can yield a new equilibrium, in which replication is routine, typically consistent with previous results, and recognized as necessary for establishing an empirical generalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Direct Replication in Experimental Communication Science: A Conceptual and Practical Exploration

Author

Ivar Vermeulen, Philipp K. Masur, Camiel J. Beukeboom, and Benjamin K. Johnson

Subjects
communication science, conceptual replication, direct replication, replication, stimulus development, Communication. Mass media, P87-96
Abstract

Replication is generally considered a keystone of the scientific enterprise. Unfortunately, in communication science, there is a lack of clarity on what a replication actually entails, and to what extent replicators may deviate from original studies. In order to support researchers in conducting, evaluating, and justifying the setup of replications of communication science experiments, we provide a taxonomy of replication types. We argue that researchers almost always need to adapt some elements of an original communication study to meaningfully replicate it. The extent to which deviations—ranging from mere updates to deliberate deviations and additions—are permissible, however, depends on the motivation behind conducting a replication study. We distinguish three basic motivations: verification of an original study’s findings, testing the generalizability of an original study (which we further differentiate into the generalizability of study outcomes vs. theoretical claims), and extending an original study beyond the original goals. We argue that these motivations dictate what types of deviations are permissible and thereby determine the type of replication (i.e., direct, modified, and conceptual). We end with concrete recommendations for replicators: to specify the motivation to conduct a replication study and clearly label and justify any deviations from the original study for all study elements.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Research Replication

Author

Abbuhl, Rebekha, Phakiti, Aek, editor, De Costa, Peter, editor, Plonsky, Luke, editor, and Starfield, Sue, editor

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Creative destruction in science

Author

Warren, Tierney, Jay, Hardy, Ebersole, Charles R., Keith, Leavitt, Domenico, Viganola, Elena Giulia Clemente, Michael, Gordon, Anna, Dreber, Magnus, Johannesson, Thomas, Pfeiffer, Eric Luis Uhlmann, Abraham, Ajay T., Matus, Adamkovic, Jais, Adam-Troian, Rahul, Anand, Arbeau, Kelly J., Awtrey, Eli C., Azar, Ofer H., Štěpán, Bahník, Gabriel, Baník, Ana Barbosa Mendes, Barger, Michael M., Ernest, Baskin, Jozef, Bavolar, Berkers, Ruud M. W. J., Randy, Besco, Michał, Białek, Bishop, Michael M., Helena, Bonache, Sabah, Boufkhed, Brandt, Mark J., Butterfield, Max E., Nick, Byrd, Caton, Neil R., Ceynar, Michelle L., Mike, Corcoran, Costello, Thomas H., Cramblet Alvarez, Leslie D., Jamie, Cummins, Curry, Oliver S., Daniels, David P., Daskalo, Lea L., Liora, Daum-Avital, Day, Martin V., Deeg, Matthew D., Dennehy, Tara C., Erik, Dietl, Eugen, Dimant, Artur, Domurat, Christilene du Plessis, Dmitrii, Dubrov, Elsherif, Mahmoud M., Yuval, Engel, Fellenz, Martin R., Field, Sarahanne M., Mustafa, Firat, Freitag, Raquel M. K., Enav, Friedmann, Omid, Ghasemi, Goldberg, Matthew H., Amélie, Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Lorenz, Graf-Vlachy, Griffith, Jennifer A., Dmitry, Grigoryev, Sebastian, Hafenbrädl, David, Hagmann, Hales, Andrew H., Hyemin, Han, Harman, Jason L., Andree, Hartanto, Holding, Benjamin C., Astrid, Hopfensitz, Joachim, Hüffmeier, Huntsinger, Jeffrey R., Katarzyna, Idzikowska, Innes-Ker, Åse H., Bastian, Jaeger, Kristin, Jankowsky, Jarvis, Shoshana N., Nilotpal, Jha, David, Jimenez-Gomez, Daniel, Jolles, Bibiana, Jozefiakova, Pavol, Kačmár, Mariska, Kappmeier, Matthias, Kasper, Lucas, Keller, Viktorija, Knapic, Mikael, Knutsson, Olga, Kombeiz, Marta, Kowal, Goedele, Krekels, Tei, Laine, Daniel, Lakens, Bingjie, Li, Ronda F., Lo, Jonas, Ludwig, Marcus, James C., Marsh, Melvin S., Martinoli, Mario, Marcel, Martončik, Allison, Master, Masters-Waage, Theodore C., Lewend, Mayiwar, Jens, Mazei, Mccarthy, Randy J., Mccarthy, Gemma S., Stephanie, Mertens, Leticia, Micheli, Marta, Miklikowska, Talya, Miron-Shatz, Andres, Montealegre, David, Moreau, Carmen, Moret-Tatay, Marcello, Negrini, Newall, Philip W. S., Gustav, Nilsonne, Paweł, Niszczota, Nurit, Nobel, Aoife, O'Mahony, Orhan, Mehmet A., Deirdre, O'Shea, Oswald, Flora E., Miriam, Panning, Pantelis, Peter C., Mariola, Paruzel-Czachura, Mogens Jin Pedersen, Gordon, Pennycook, Ori, Plonsky, Vince, Polito, Price, Paul C., Primbs, Maximilian A., John, Protzko, Michael, Quayle, Rima-Maria, Rahal, Shahinoor Rahman, Md., Liz, Redford, Niv, Reggev, Reynolds, Caleb J., Marta, Roczniewska, Ivan, Ropovik, Ross, Robert M., Roulet, Thomas J., Andrea May Rowe, Silvia, Saccardo, Margaret, Samahita, Michael, Schaerer, Joyce Elena Schleu, Schuetze, Brendan A., Ulrike, Senftleben, Seri, Raffaello, Zeev, Shtudiner, Jack, Shuai, Ray, Sin, Varsha, Singh, Aneeha, Singh, Tatiana, Sokolova, Victoria, Song, Tom, Stafford, Natalia, Stanulewicz, Stevens, Samantha M., Eirik, Strømland, Samantha, Stronge, Sweeney, Kevin P., David, Tannenbaum, Tepper, Stephanie J., Kian Siong Tey, Hsuchi, Ting, Tingen, Ian W., Ana, Todorovic, Tse, Hannah M. Y., Tybur, Joshua M., Vineyard, Gerald H., Alisa, Voslinsky, Vranka, Marek A., Jonathan, Wai, Walker, Alexander C., Wallace, Laura E., Tianlin, Wang, Werz, Johanna M., Woike, Jan K., Wollbrant, Conny E., Wright, Joshua D., Sherry J., Wu, Qinyu, Xiao, Paolo Barretto Yaranon, Siu Kit Yeung, Sangsuk, Yoon, Karen, Yu, Meltem, Yucel, Psychometrics and Statistics, Human Technology Interaction, Department of Social Psychology, Entrepreneurship & Innovation (ABS, FEB), Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Social Psychology, and IBBA

Subjects
Open science, Creative destruction, Theory testing, Transparency (market), SELF-ESTEEM, 050109 social psychology, Conceptual replication, Direct replication, MEASURING SOCIAL PREFERENCES, STATISTICAL POWER, Cultural diversity, Work-family conflict, Falsification, Gender discrimination, Applied Psychology, Work, Health and Performance, media_common, HYPOTHESIS, SDG 5 - Gender Equality, 05 social sciences, SDG 10 - Reduced Inequalities, Justice and Strong Institutions, Scholarship, Theory pruning Theory testing Direct replication Conceptual replication Falsification Hiring decisions Gender discrimination Work-family conflict Cultural differences Work values Protestant work ethic, Psychology, Theory pruning, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, SDG 16 - Peace, Work values, media_common.quotation_subject, Best practice, SDG 5 – Gendergelijkheid, BF, Replication, 0502 economics and business, 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences, ATTITUDES, Positive economics, MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, Hiring decisions, Protestant work ethic, SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, PUBLICATION, Morality, Cultural differences, REPLICABILITY, Explanatory power, 050203 business & management
Abstract

Contains fulltext : 228242.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void - reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article. 19 p.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results