| Course | PSY-3220 Research in Experimental Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 9 |
| Paper type | Research methods paper: generalization and replication |
| Length | About 1,002 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Arts in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 3220 Module 9
Would It Hold Up? Replication, Generalization and the Brain Drain Effect
Student Name
Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Thomas Edison State University
PSY-3220: Research in Experimental Psychology
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Would It Hold Up? Replication, Generalization and the Brain Drain Effect
Introduction
My study was inspired by Ward and colleagues' finding that a phone's presence reduces cognitive capacity. When I first read it, I took the effect as established. This module asked me to consider two harder questions: would the effect appear again if the study were repeated, and would it apply to people unlike those in the original sample?
Replication in Psychology
A team of 270 researchers set out to repeat 100 studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) published in three major psychology journals, using the original materials where possible and consulting original authors. Nearly all the originals, 97 percent, had reported significant results, but only about 36 percent of the replications did. On average, the effects in the replications were about half the size of the original effects. Effects that were larger and had stronger evidence in the original studies were more likely to replicate. The project did not show that the original findings were false, but it showed that published results, taken one at a time, are less certain than they appear.
Who Is Studied
Henrich et al. (2010) pointed out that most psychology research draws on participants, especially American undergraduates, from a group of societies the authors nicknamed WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. These societies represent a small fraction of the world's population. Drawing on research about how people see illusions, share resources, reason and think about themselves, they showed that WEIRD participants are often unusual compared with people in other societies, sometimes at the extreme of the human range. They concluded that findings from WEIRD samples should not be assumed to describe human beings in general and called for more diverse samples.
Does Brain Drain Replicate?
Ruiz Pardo and Minda (2022) conducted a replication of Ward and colleagues' study with undergraduates, using the same tasks and phone locations as Ward and colleagues' second experiment. Neither the working memory task nor the attention task showed any difference across phone locations. The authors suggested that the original effect may be smaller than first reported or may depend on conditions not yet understood, and they called for further replications with larger samples.
| Source | Key finding | Implication for my study |
|---|---|---|
| Open Science Collaboration (2015) | About 36 percent of replications were significant; effects about half as large | Expect smaller effects than the original |
| Henrich et al. (2010) | WEIRD samples are unusual, not representative of humans | Adult learners are a step beyond undergraduates, not a final answer |
| Ruiz Pardo and Minda (2022) | Brain drain did not replicate on main measures | Treat the effect as uncertain |
External Validity
External validity is the extent to which results generalize to other people, settings, times and measures. My study extends the brain drain question from undergraduates to adult online learners, which improves generalization in one direction. But my sample will still come from one American university's online programs, a WEIRD population, and the laboratory reading task differs from studying course material at home.
What the Replication Means for My Hypothesis
If the original effect is smaller than reported, my planned sample of 50 per condition may be too small to detect it, a problem the previous module raised. A null result in my study would not prove that phones have no effect, but it would add evidence that the effect is small or inconsistent. I will report my results regardless of outcome, consistent with my preregistration, which helps reduce the bias that occurs when only significant results are published.
A Multisite Extension
A stronger test would combine several sites. I propose a multisite study with partner instructors at three institutions, including a community college and an international online program, using identical materials and a shared preregistration. Pooling data would increase power, and comparing sites would show whether the effect varies across populations.
Conceptual Replication
Beyond direct replication, conceptual replications test the same idea with different methods, for example measuring real course grades over a semester rather than a laboratory comprehension test. Converging evidence from direct and conceptual replications, as Stanovich's principle of converging evidence from the first module suggests, would give the strongest answer.
Generalizing Across Settings and Time
Generalization concerns settings and time as well as people. Phones, apps and study habits change quickly; an effect found in 2017 may not hold for phones designed differently or for students who have adapted to constant connectivity. Testing the question in home settings, where learners actually study, would show whether a laboratory effect survives everyday distractions.
Publication Bias
When journals favor significant results, the published record overstates effects, which helps explain why replications often find smaller ones. Preregistration and commitment to report all results, as in my plan, counter this bias.
What Would Change My Mind
If a large multisite study found no effect of phone presence on comprehension, I would accept that, for adult learners at least, the effect is too small to matter. If it found a consistent effect, I would recommend that online programs advise students to study with phones out of the room, and I would want to know whether the benefit lasts across a full semester of coursework and exams.
Sharing Materials for Replication
Making my passages, questions, instructions and analysis code available will let others repeat the study exactly. Replication depends on such openness, and the reproducibility project relied heavily on original authors sharing their materials.
Limits
The reproducibility project sampled studies from three journals in one year. One replication of brain drain does not settle the question, and my own study will add only a single, modest sample.
Conclusion
The Open Science Collaboration showed that many published effects shrink or vanish when repeated, Henrich and colleagues showed that the people psychologists usually study are unusual and Ruiz Pardo and Minda's replication raised doubts about the brain drain effect itself. My study will be one more piece of evidence, reported honestly whatever it shows, and a multisite extension offers a way to learn whether the effect is real and for whom.
References
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Ruiz Pardo, A. C., & Minda, J. P. (2022). Reexamining the "brain drain" effect: A replication of Ward et al. (2017). Acta Psychologica, 230, Article 103717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103717
What the PSY 3220 Module 9 instructions ask for
TESU's public syllabus for PSY-3220 ends with Generalization as Module 9. Explain external validity and the difference between direct and conceptual replication, then report evidence on how often psychology findings replicate and on the limits of typical research samples. Find at least one replication of a study related to your research question and explain what it means for your hypothesis. Evaluate how far your own results could generalize and propose a design, such as a multisite or conceptual replication, that would test generalization more strongly. Some sections ask students to evaluate generalization in a published study instead. Check whether your final research report should include a generalization section of its own.
Inside the PSY 3220 Module 9 example
Kendra Lopez, the invented TESU psychology student, asks whether her phone study's results could generalize and whether the effect is reliable. The Open Science Collaboration's replication of 100 studies, Henrich and colleagues' critique of WEIRD samples and Ruiz Pardo and Minda's failed replication of the brain drain effect are summarized and linked to her plans in a table. Sections address external validity, what the replication means for her hypothesis and power, a proposed multisite extension and conceptual replication, then limits and a conclusion. Generalization across settings and time, and the role of publication bias, are also addressed. A closing section states what results would change her conclusion.
Where the marks sit in the PSY 3220 Module 9 rubric
Generalization papers earn high marks when external validity and the types of replication are defined accurately and applied to the student's own study. Readers look for correct details of large-scale replication efforts, for an understanding of why WEIRD samples limit generalization and for a specific replication related to the student's topic. Interpreting a possible null result carefully, committing to report results regardless of outcome and proposing a design that tests generalization across sites or methods show scientific maturity. Acknowledging that one replication does not settle a question shows balance. Recognizing that generalization concerns settings and time as well as people, and linking publication bias to shrinking effects, shows depth. Committing to share materials shows support for replication.
PSY 3220 Module 9 help from the desk
Generalization papers often mention the replication crisis without connecting it to the student's own work. Define external validity and replication types, report evidence on replication rates and sample diversity and find a replication related to your topic. Explain what it means for your hypothesis and sample size, how far your results could generalize and what design would test that more strongly. Pass along the generalization prompt and your topic to receive a free first draft of that section. Consider whether your findings would hold in other settings and how selective publication shapes the literature. Say what result would change your conclusion. Naming the result that would change the conclusion shows openness to evidence.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 3220 and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology sample papers
- PSY 3220 Module 1: Scientific Understanding of Behavior Paper: Turning a Hunch About Phones Into a Testable Question
- PSY 3220 Module 2: Psychological Measurement Paper: Reliability, Construct Validity and Measuring Distraction
- PSY 3220 Module 3: Research Ethics Paper: Milgram, Baumrind and Ethical Design for a Low-Risk Study
- PSY 3220 Module 4: Observational and Survey Research Paper: Satisficing, Common Method Bias and Self-Reported Phone Use
- PSY 3220 Module 5: Experimental Research Paper: Designing a Randomized Experiment and Preregistering It
- PSY 3220 Module 6: Single-Subject, Quasi-Experimental and Developmental Research Paper: Designs Beyond the Randomized Experiment
- PSY 3220 Module 7: Understanding Research Results Paper: Effect Sizes, Power and What a p-Value Means
- PSY 3220 Module 8: Reporting Research Paper: APA Style, Reporting Standards and Clear Scientific Writing
- PSY 3470 Module 4: Types of Offenders Paper: Mental Illness and Violence, Mental Disorder in Prisons and Sexual Offender Recidivism
- PSY 3790 Module 4: Social Influence and Group Psychology Paper: Conformity, Culture and Social Loafing
- PSY 4000 Module 3: Functionalism Paper: Dewey's Reflex Arc, Angell's Functional Psychology and the Influence of Darwin
- PSY 3520 Module 4: Humanistic Theories Paper: Maslow's Needs, Rogers's Conditions of Worth and Modern Evidence
PSY 3220 Module 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PSY 3220 Module 9 sample paper?
The generalization paper, from the reproducibility project to the brain drain replication, is posted here.
How many psychology studies replicated in the reproducibility project?
Only about a third of the repeat studies reached significance, and their effects averaged roughly half the original size.
What does WEIRD mean in psychology?
An acronym from Henrich and colleagues for people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic societies, who dominate psychology samples.
Did the brain drain effect replicate?
No; Ruiz Pardo and Minda found no difference between phone locations on the working memory or attention tasks.
What is the difference between direct and conceptual replication?
Direct replication repeats a study's methods; conceptual replication tests the same idea with different methods.