Replication in music psychology

Frieler, K.; Müllensiefen, Daniel; Fischinger, T.; Schlemmer, K.; Jakubowski, Kelly and Lothwesen, K.. 2013. Replication in music psychology. Musicae Scientiae, 17(3), pp. 265-276. ISSN 1029-8649 [Article]

No full text available

Abstract or Description

In this article, we address the current state and general role of replication in empirical sciences in general and music psychology in particular. We argue that replication should be an integral part of the quality management of science because it helps to improve and maintain the general benefit of empirical sciences by enhancing the confidence in scientific phenomena and theories. Replicating empirical experiments has two major benefits: (1) It increases the sheer number of observations and (2) it provides independent evidence which works as a safety net against methodological fallacies, causally influential but unknown (i.e., random) factors, researcher degrees of freedom, and outright fraud. Furthermore, we argue that for low-gain/low-cost sciences such as music psychology, measures to ensure quality standards, in particular the amount of replication experiments conducted, can be expected to be lower than in high gain/high cost sciences. These lower expectations stem from the general acknowledgments that in low-gain/low-cost sciences (1) research resources are normally scarce and (2) the consequences of inadequate theories are relatively harmless. We argue that the view of music psychology as a low-cost/low-gain science can explain the striking lack of replication studies and meta-analyses. We also discuss possible counter-measures to enhance the reliability of music-psychological knowledge.

Item Type:


Identification Number (DOI):


belief system decline effect music psychology publication bias reliability replication quality management

Departments, Centres and Research Units:



September 2013Published

Item ID:


Date Deposited:

13 May 2014 12:42

Last Modified:

04 Jul 2017 10:16

Peer Reviewed:

Yes, this version has been peer-reviewed.


Edit Record Edit Record (login required)