The replication crisis is the ongoing methodological reckoning in psychology and other empirical sciences over widespread failures to reproduce published findings, including many influential ones, which has driven reforms such as pre-registration and open data sharing. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Disputed
Origin YearThe term entered wide use in the early 2010s; scholars date the crisis's effective beginning differently (the 2011 Bem ESP controversy and the Diederik Stapel fraud case are both cited flashpoints, ahead of the 2015 Reproducibility Project that gave it its clearest measurement). Core ClaimPublished significant findings, especially from small, underpowered or exploratory studies, often overstate true effect sizes and fail to replicate at the original rate when independently retested; psychology's own 2015 Reproducibility Project replicated only 36 percent of 97 originally significant findings, with replicated effect sizes averaging about half the original magnitude. 1 Connections
Associated With
Why this is disputed. Classic mid-century social psychology findings, including some cognitive dissonance results, are among the studies whose robustness the replication-crisis literature has re-examined.
Source Wikipedia: Replication crisis
His large-scale data fabrication, exposed in 2011, became one of the highest-profile cases fueling psychology's replication crisis.
Source Wikipedia: Replication crisis
One of the field's own examples of a widely cited effect whose original size is now disputed.
In Branch
Source Wikipedia: Replication crisis
Open Questions
Source Wikipedia: Replication crisis
Sources
1. Wikipedia: Replication crisis
WikipediaLead section
also known as the reproducibility or replicability crisis
Key 2015 Psychology Study
Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05), with effect sizes averaging half the original magnitude.
In Branch: Quantitative Psychology, Publication bias section
Publication bias-the tendency to publish only positive, significant results-creates the "file drawer effect", where negative results remain unpublished.
View the Source Open Questions (1 open question)
How much of psychology's published literature will ultimately replicate, and which reforms actually fix the underlying incentives?
The 2015 Reproducibility Project measured a 36 percent replication rate for one sample of 97 findings, but researchers still debate how representative that sample is, how to interpret a "failed" replication, and whether reforms such as pre-registration are sufficient to change publication incentives.
What would resolve this Sustained tracking of replication rates across psychology's subfields after widespread adoption of pre-registration and open data, compared against pre-reform baselines.
Psychology (Methodology / Meta-Science)Wikipedia: Replication crisis
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.