Determining the status of replication studies in South African psychology research

Abstract

Psychology as a science has come under increased scrutiny due to a lack of replication studies and the low success rates thereof, termed the replication crisis. For any discipline to be considered scientific, it must be able to reproduce or replicate previous research studies to establish the validity of findings or results. Therefore, replication studies create confidence that conclusions are trustworthy and assists the discipline in self-correction driven by a critical and questioning attitude. Although the cause of the replication crisis within psychology research has received increased attention, there is a lack of research regarding the status or the extent of the replication crisis within South African psychology research. A scoping literature review can be used to identify the scope of available literature of a research activity and the extent and nature thereof. Therefore, a scoping literature review has been conducted to determine the nature and extent of replication studies within South African psychology research. The data for the scoping literature review were obtained from English literature from the year 2000 to the year 2022 and included peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed published research studies, PhD theses, and Masters' dissertations or mini-dissertations. Once the search and manual appraisal of the literature was conducted, eight research studies were included in the final pool for analysis. Charting and summarising the data of both the replication studies and the original research studies they were based upon, indicated that most South African replication research studies reported replication success and were conceptual and quantitative in nature. Moreover, sample sizes tended to be smaller than the sample sizes of the original research studies, while university students were the preferred sample type. Furthermore, South African replication studies show cumulative knowledge development through multiple replications; however, these were focused mainly within the domains of cognitive and social psychology. Overall, replication studies lacked transparency with regard to the research approach, design, and the type of replication being conducted. In addition, research practices within the field were reflected upon and indicating that there is a need for the use of various methodological approaches to replication and the inclusion of a wider variety of psychology research domains. This research study furthermore lays the foundation for future avenues of research regarding conceptual clarity of the types of replication studies within psychology research. Finally, the recommendations made regarding clear criteria for replication success, transparent research practices, and the justification of sample sizes can be utilised by future replication studies within South African psychology research.