Replication and Reproducibility in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Abstract

Replication is the scientific gold standard that enables the confirmation of research findings. Concerns related to publication bias, flexibility in data analysis, and high-profile cases of academic misconduct have led to recent calls for more replication and systematic accumulation of scientific knowledge in psychological science. This renewed emphasis on replication may pose specific challenges to cross-cultural research due to inherent practical difficulties in emulating an original study in other cultural groups. The purpose of the present article is to discuss how the core concepts of this replication debate apply to cross-cultural psychology. Distinct to replications in cross-cultural research are examinations of bias and equivalence in manipulations and procedures, and that targeted research populations may differ in meaningful ways. We identify issues in current psychological research (analytic flexibility, low power) and possible solutions (preregistration, power analysis), and discuss ways to implement best practices in cross-cultural replication attempts.

Work engagement and task performance within a global Dutch ICT-consulting firm: The mediating role of innovative work behaviors

“…Research has shown that assets connecting work engagement and performance differs between contexts and populations (Halbesleben 2010;Shuck 2011). Specifically, the same asset which mediates or moderates a relationship in one context may not do so in another (Chan 1998;Fischer and Poortinga 2018;Milfont and Klein 2018). This phenomenon is clearly visible in contexts that are known to be highly volatile, extremely dynamic, exceedingly competitive, and subjected to continuous, rapid change (Milfont and Klein 2018;Smith and Haslam 2017), such as the ICT sector.…”

“…Various behavioral conditions and psychological assets connecting work engagement and performance is present in the literature (e.g. proactive behaviors, commitment, citizenship behaviors etc), however these are usually context specific (Milfont and Klein 2018). Where one asset might mediate or moderate the relationship within the ICT sector, the same might not be applicable within another context (Chan 1998;Fischer and Poortinga 2018;Milfont and Klein 2018).…”

“…proactive behaviors, commitment, citizenship behaviors etc), however these are usually context specific (Milfont and Klein 2018). Where one asset might mediate or moderate the relationship within the ICT sector, the same might not be applicable within another context (Chan 1998;Fischer and Poortinga 2018;Milfont and Klein 2018). The nature of the industry is therefore an imperative factor to consider when determining which factor would be necessary to translate work engagement into performance.…”

“…Given that employees within the ICT sector need to be at the forefront of their respective disciplines, being innovative is the only way in which to maintain a competitive edge in the market (Lehner 2018). Within the highly volatile, extremely dynamic, competitive, and rapidly changing nature of the ICT environment (Milfont and Klein 2018;Smith and Haslam 2017), highly engaged ICT professionals may undertake intentional efforts to generate, develop, implement and apply new ideas, processes, products or procedures to enhance organizational efficiency, functioning, effectiveness and competitiveness (De Spiegelaere et al 2014) which could improve their task related performance (Koopmans et al 2011). Engaged employees may actively seek out ways in which to improve systems, manage costs, or develop new services/products in attempts to optimize workflow and to create new business opportunities for the company (Newton et al 2008).…”

Design and psychometric properties of BAtSS: A new tool to assess human attitudes towards bats.

“…Its adequate psychometric properties make it a good candidate for adaptation to other cultural contexts. Extension of its use would facilitate the replication, scienti c gold standard for the con rmation of results (Milfont & Klein, 2018). This framework pushes forward practical understandings of conservation con ict interventions by offering a novel, transdisciplinary, diagnostic tool for better understanding their complex, multifaceted variables (Harrison & Loring, 2020).…”