But what happens to investigators whose studies fails to replicate? The answer is complicated by the growing use of social media by scientists and the tenor of the original investigators’ responses to the replicators. Alternative case studies are presented including John Bargh’s vitriolic outburst following a failure of his classic word priming study to replicate, Amy Cuddy’s unfortunate experience with power posing, and Matthew Vees’s low-keyed response in which he declined to aggressively disparage his replicators, complemented the replicators’ interpretation of their replication, and neither defended his original study or even suggested that its findings might be wrong. In addition to such case studies, surveys on the subject suggest that there are normally no long-term deleterious career or reputational effects on investigators for a failure of a study to replicate and that a reasoned (or no) response to a failed replication is the superior professional and affective solution.
Are individual levels of pain anxiety related to negative interpretation bias? An examination using an ambiguous word priming task
