As per my understanding, there can be multiple reasons. For instance, maybe there was low internal validity the first time the research was conducted.
It can also be due to extraneous variables that are beyond control. It means that if a participant is taking a test in a chilly room, the temperature would be considered an extraneous variable. Some participants may not be affected by the cold, but others might be distracted or annoyed by the temperature of the room.
That's a great question. I think the unsatisfying answer is "it depends." If you give me some specific examples I might be able to give you more details. I will say that many studies are replicated well and shown to have great reliability and support. For those that do not, this may depend on a multitude of factors. Was the same sample used? Was the study replicated decades later? Was the methodology, statistical analysis, setting, participants, or other aspects in any way altered? If so, this could all impact the results. There is also something known as regression toward the mean. If a study gets strong or startling results, it may be something of a statistical anomaly for which later studies will find weaker support for.
@mbakmer63 I agree with @Benjamin Silber, Ph.D., ABPP. It can certainly depend and I think we have to look at it on a case by case basis. I agree with you though that there are many cases in which this has occurred. I would add that this is not specific only to psychology, however. It occurs in other fields of scientific study as well.
Scientific method, control and quantifying research always increases its internal validity. Internal validity reflects that a given study makes it possible to eliminate alternative explanations for a finding.
Thank you Julianna for your reply, my concern centres around the way in which the content of psychological research is simplified and distorted to fit the requirements of scientific methodology. For example, how do we accurately measure"affection" of one human to another in a truly meaningful way? For the sake of science do we have to measure this concept in terms of observation and quantifiable behaviour that can be observed and recorded during the research process. Does this treatment do justice to complex and higher forms of interaction.
@Julianna Kirschner I would also be interested in this. Outside of behavior and observations, we could have standardized measures for self-report and the report of others. Ultimately, however, we are attempting to measure something which typically cannot be directly observed. The impact of empathy, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and hopelessness can absolutely be observed, but it would be impossible to directly observe these concepts themselves because they do not have a physical form. @mbakmer63, something like affection would require an operational definition in order to be studied. Even just developing such a definition might result in some distortion of how some conceptualize affection. However, I think this is where we see psychology and philosophy diverge. In order to use the scientific method, tools must be used which may not always fully capture the concept.
Hi! There are ethical standards in place for those looking to conduct research in psychology. The discipline has a large history of unethical studies that have led to a code of ethics that must be followed. That being said, the scientific method is the basis for sound and appropriate research as well!
As per my understanding, there can be multiple reasons. For instance, maybe there was low internal validity the first time the research was conducted.
It can also be due to extraneous variables that are beyond control. It means that if a participant is taking a test in a chilly room, the temperature would be considered an extraneous variable. Some participants may not be affected by the cold, but others might be distracted or annoyed by the temperature of the room.
Thank you for your comments my only response is why the duplication issue that repeated research does not replicate the same findings ?
Scientific method, control and quantifying research always increases its internal validity. Internal validity reflects that a given study makes it possible to eliminate alternative explanations for a finding.
Thank you Julianna for your reply, my concern centres around the way in which the content of psychological research is simplified and distorted to fit the requirements of scientific methodology. For example, how do we accurately measure"affection" of one human to another in a truly meaningful way? For the sake of science do we have to measure this concept in terms of observation and quantifiable behaviour that can be observed and recorded during the research process. Does this treatment do justice to complex and higher forms of interaction.
Hi! There are ethical standards in place for those looking to conduct research in psychology. The discipline has a large history of unethical studies that have led to a code of ethics that must be followed. That being said, the scientific method is the basis for sound and appropriate research as well!