How does operational definition affect replication

In order to write an operational definition you must write exactly how you plan on measuring these variables. Imagine I was conducting an experiment that was trialling the effectiveness of a drug treatment on PTSD symptoms. The drug therapy is my independent variable and PTSD symptoms is my dependent variable.

In order to write an operational definition of the IV I must describe the two conditions of my experiment. It might look something like this:.

Remember, we want our studies to be easily replicated, so others have to be able to follow our methodology. It could look like this:. My research hypothesis with operational definitions might look something like this: Taking 20mg of paroxetine as a pill every morning for 7 days has a greater reduction of PTSD symptoms measured the CAPS scale than taking a placebo pill every morning for 7 days. Our teacher support pack has everything students and teachers need to get top marks in the IA.

In my study, I wanted to see if watching a video that shows beautiful people can affect body image. The Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman has suggested that because published studies are often too vague in describing methods used, replications should involve the authors of the original studies in order to more carefully mirror the methods and procedures used in the original research.

While some might be tempted to look at the results of such replication projects and assume that psychology is rubbish, many suggest that such findings actually help make psychology a stronger science.

Human thought and behavior is a remarkably subtle and ever-changing subject to study, so variations are to be expected when observing diverse populations and participants. Some research findings might be wrong, but digging deeper, pointing out the flaws, and designing better experiments helps strengthen the field.

Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Kahneman D. A new etiquette for replication. Social Psychology. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for VerywellMind.

At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes. The replicated results were a false negative. Both studies were correct but differed due to unknown differences in experimental conditions or methodologies.

Was this page helpful? Thanks for your feedback! Scientists know any important result will be subjected to attempts at replication. This provides a powerful incentive for honesty among researchers. Students are taught that a research report should include all necessary details to permit replication. However, it is often impossible to find all relevant details about how research is conducted in a published report of research.

Sometimes, to carry out an exact replication, one must contact earlier researchers to learn details of a procedure. Gasparikova-Krasnec and Ging found that researchers were generally cooperative in providing information needed for replications.

A month's wait was normally all that was required. Researchers typically realize that double-checking surprising results is important to science. A failed replication may have a stimulating effect on a field of research. Replication failures inspire new studies to figure out why an attempt to use the "same" procedures led to different results.

A fine-grained analysis of the experimental procedures may reveal some key details that were different, when comparing the original study to the replication. If a replication fails, but the original researchers believe their original finding is correct, they will suggest ways to tighten up controls or other procedures to improve the chances of a successful replication. They hope the results will come back if another replication is attempted with improved techniques.

On some occasions, replication failures continue. False claims—including those that start as honest mistakes—produce a distinctive pattern during successive attempts at replication: the effects get smaller and smaller as more replications are conducted. This happened, for example, in the case of cold fusion: a desktop apparatus was said to produce fusion energy.

In psychology, it happened with cardiac conditioning : claims that heart rates could be altered directly through conditioning procedures. Diminishing effects with repeated replications occur not because an actual effect is disappearing, but because scientists are eliminating errors with better controls, as they make additional attempts at replication.

A solid, scientific finding will gain more support as people continue to test it. A false lead or quack science claim will become less solid as people continue to test it. Gasparikova-Krasnec, M. Experimental replication and professional cooperation. American Psychologist, 41 , Prev page Page top Chapter Contents Next page. Don't see what you need? Psych Web has over 1, pages, so it may be elsewhere on the site. Do a site-specific Google search using the box below.