On the process and value of direct close replications: A rejoinder to Shafir and Cheek’s (2024) commentary on Chandrashekar et al. (2021)

The studies in Shafir (1993, Memory & Cognition 21, 546–556) examined the impact of decision frames (choosing vs. rejecting) on decision-making. Our replication—Chandrashekar et al. (2021, Judgment and Decision Making 16, 36–56)—revealed mixed results with only partial support for the original findings, concluding a successful replication of only 2 out of 8 scenarios. Our data from an exploratory extension suggested a pattern in support of an alternative theoretical mechanism aligning with Wedell’s (1997, Memory & Cognition 25, 873–887) accentuation hypothesis. Shafir and Cheek’s (2024) commentary criticized our approach to replications, and the value and importance of direct close replications overall, and shared their views regarding the theory and scope of the phenomenon, with new information about what they consider to be needed steps to empirically test the phenomenon. In our response, we clarify misunderstandings and address empirical findings shared in the commentary. We discuss and defend the value and importance of direct replications and the necessity for full transparency regarding the theoretical assumptions and the process of empirical investigations. Finally, we call for the implementation of open science more broadly, in conducting more direct close replications, sharing of all protocols, materials, data, and code, and implementing outcome-blind reviewing and Registered Reports. These would allow for stronger theoretical and empirical foundations, and a more credible and robust psychological science.