Priming, Replication, and the Hardest Science
Cesario's paper is a defence of priming research against the way failed replications were being interpreted, and it is worth reading precisely because it concedes a great deal. His argument is that expecting a priming effect to appear in any population and any context misunderstands what the brain is doing: if primes work by preparing a response that suits the situation, then the same prime should produce different effects in different circumstances, and sensitivity to context is a prediction rather than an embarrassment. The problem, he accepts, is that the field has no theories precise enough to say in advance which contexts matter, and without those, a failed replication cannot be distinguished from a legitimate difference in conditions. His conclusion is unusually direct about where responsibility lies: priming researchers have not replicated their own effects as they should have, and that failure is what produced the confusion. This vault cites it as the most serious statement of the case for the defence.
Cesario's paper is a defence of priming research against the way failed replications were being interpreted, and it is worth reading precisely because it concedes a great deal. His argument is that expecting a priming effect to appear in any population and any context misunderstands what the brain is doing: if primes work by preparing a response that suits the situation, then the same prime should produce different effects in different circumstances, and sensitivity to context is a prediction rather than an embarrassment. The problem, he accepts, is that the field has no theories precise enough to say in advance which contexts matter, and without those, a failed replication cannot be distinguished from a legitimate difference in conditions. His conclusion is unusually direct about where responsibility lies: priming researchers have not replicated their own effects as they should have, and that failure is what produced the confusion. This vault cites it as the most serious statement of the case for the defence.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
Cesario, J. (2014). "Priming, replication, and the hardest science." Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 40-48. Argues variation by population and procedure is predicted by theory, concedes no theory of the moderators exists and that priming researchers have been deficient in replicating their own effects.
Where we use it
- What Forty-One Participants Buys, Why We Look
Reliability of this reference
The link below was matched against the publisher's record on title, first author and year, and all three agree.
The source
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470
DOI: 10.1177/1745691613513470