I guess it's debatable. You could consider a single experimental design, administered by many different labs across many different countries, to be "many replic

I guess it's debatable. You could consider a single experimental design, administered by many different labs across many different countries, to be "many replications", or you could argue that by using the exact same questionnaire and keeping other conditions as comparable as possible, it's just one big geographically dispersed replication. (If you look at http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/manylabsresults.png http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ma... you see that the results for the 3 "failed" experiments did see some effect at some labs. It's only when tallying up all the results that they had to conclude that replication had failed for these three.) This isn't just semantics, though. For example, if one question on the questionnaire influences how survey takers answered subsequent questions, then we might well fail to replicate the results of an older study. You might then conclude that the older study isn't as generalizable as you thought it would be and that you need more research to figure out when exactly the effect occurs or not. You might even say that it's likely that the original study was just a fluke. But it doesn't mean the original hypothesis has been definitely and unequivocally refuted.