When Replication Fails: What to Conclude and Not to Conclude?

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241268197
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Social and Intergroup Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When Replication Fails: What to Conclude and Not to Conclude?

Coby Morvinski, Kenneth G. DeMarree, Willem W. A. Sleegers, Daniel Priolo et al.
1 citations
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Social and Intergroup Psychology
1.13
article

When Replication Fails: What to Conclude and Not to Conclude?

Coby Morvinski, Kenneth G. DeMarree, Willem W. A. Sleegers, Daniel Priolo, Ilja van Beest, Florian van Leeuwen, Bruno Verschuère, Robert M. Ross, Marie‐Amélie Martinie, David C. Vaidis
article en
1 citations

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.

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological ScienceVol. 7(4)
Buffalo State University (US), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL), Université Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR), Tilburg University (NL), Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier (FR), Université de Poitiers (FR), Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage (FR), Laboratoire Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie (FR), Dynamique des Capacités Humaines et des Conduites de Santé (FR), University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US), University of Amsterdam (NL), Macquarie University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Social and Intergroup Psychology
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.