Deliberate and explicit replication attempts are becoming more common across the behavioral sciences. Whilst replicability has been recognized as a core feature of science for decades (if not centuries), the directness of today's replication work requires us to consider carefully how we communicate our research and how we conceptualize our theories in light of differing findings.

This paper uses a concrete example to make a number of suggestions for how we, as a scientific community, ought to engage with replication attempts. Within Relational Frame Theory (RFT) there is a growing body of applied research on the effective use of metaphors to increase tolerance of aversive states. We conducted a replication of an earlier experimental analogue study (2020, this journal) and failed to find the specified effect. Ruiz et al. (2020, also this journal) have recently published a critical response in which they list a number of differences between our two studies which might account for the negative findings. We will use this series of three papers as our exemplum. We also take the opportunity to acknowledge some points of critique provided by Ruiz et al., and to set the record straight with respect to the differences between the original study and our replication attempt. We hope this discussion might help the CBS community to develop a coherent approach to the very current issue of replication.

故意和明确的复制尝试在行为科学中变得越来越普遍。尽管可复制性已经被公认为科学的核心特征数十年（即使不是几个世纪），但当今复制工作的直接性要求我们认真考虑如何交流研究成果以及如何根据不同的发现对理论进行概念化。

本文使用一个具体示例为我们作为科学界应如何进行复制尝试提出了一些建议。在关系框架理论（RFT）中，关于有效使用隐喻来提高厌恶状态容忍度的应用研究越来越多。我们进行了一项较早的实验模拟研究（2020年，本期刊）的复制品，但未找到指定的效果。Ruiz等。（2020年，也是该杂志）最近发表了一个重要的回应，其中列出了我们两项研究之间的许多差异，这可能是负面发现的原因。我们将使用这一系列三篇论文作为示例。我们还借此机会承认Ruiz等人提出的一些批评意见，并就原始研究与我们的复制尝试之间的差异做出记录。我们希望这一讨论可以帮助CBS社区针对当前的复制问题开发出一致的方法。