The Replication Crisis in Psychology

Five Reasons why the Replication Crisis is not Only About Methods

Authors

Klaus Nielsen Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7287-8400

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/irtp.v3i1.167376

Keywords:

replication crisis, psychology, theory, history

Abstract

The replication crisis in psychology is often framed as a methodological failure—an issue of flawed statistical practices, publication bias, and poor experimental design. While these factors undoubtedly play a role, this article argues that the replication crisis is much more than a methodological problem. Psychology’s struggle with replication is not merely a consequence of weak methodologies but a reflection of deeper epistemological, theoretical, historical, political, and institutional challenges within the discipline. In this article, I present five reasons why the replication crisis should be understood as more than just a crisis of methods.

Author Biography

Klaus Nielsen, Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus

Klaus Nielsen, Ph.D, is a Professor of Educational Psychology at Aarhus University, Denmark. His research interests encompass various fields, including the challenges associated with modernity, educational practice, and psychology, as well as learning in practice and apprenticeship.

References

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230

Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Blackwell.

Feldman, G. (2020). HKU PSYC2020 Fundamentals of Social Psychology. The Diener Education Fund. https://nobaproject.com/textbooks/gilad-feldman-introduction-to-psychology-the-full-noba-collection

Brailas, A. (2025). Replication crisis in psychology, second-order cybernetics, and transactional causality: From experimental psychology to applied psychological practice. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 59(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09867-3

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt17kk9p8

Cesario, J. (2014). Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470

Chivers, T. (2019). The AI does not hate you: Superintelligence, rationality, and the race to save the world. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524059

Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE, 7(1), Article e29081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), Article e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654458

Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310378184

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company.

Green, C. D. (2021). Perhaps psychology’s replication crisis is a theoretical crisis that is only masquerading as a statistical one. International Review of Theoretical Psychologies, 1(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.7146/irtp.v1i2.127764

Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0058-5

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), Article e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Kvale, S. (1976). The psychology of learning as ideology and technology. Behaviorism, 4(1), 97–116.

Kvale, S. (1992) Psychology and postmodernism. Sage.

Kvale, S. (2003). The church, the factory and the market: Scenarios for psychology in a postmodern age. Theory & Psychology, 13(5), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543030135005

Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629. https://doi.org/10.1086/664553

MacIntyre, A. (1985) After Virtue – a study in moral theory. Duckworth

Maier, W. (2022). Replication crisis – Just another instance of the replication of crises in psychology? Historical retrospections and theoretical-psychological assessments. Review of General Psychology, 26(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211033915

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-Mart: Privatizing American science. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061132

Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315736174

Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752179

Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology, 23(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12098

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), Article 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125

Wiggins, B.J. & Christopherson, C.D. (2019). The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(4), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000137

Yong, E. (2012). Bad Copy. Nature, 485(7398), 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

Wundt, W. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie [Principles of Physiological Psychology]. Wilhelm Engelmann.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-08

How to Cite

Nielsen, K. (2026). The Replication Crisis in Psychology: Five Reasons why the Replication Crisis is not Only About Methods. International Review of Theoretical Psychologies, 3(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.7146/irtp.v3i1.167376

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): Theory as Engagement

Section

Reclaiming Theoretical Foundations in Psychology

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

IRTP operates based on a non-exclusive publishing agreement, according to which the journal retains the right of first publication, but authors are free to subsequently publish their work. The copyright of all work rests with the author(s).

All content published in IRTP is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This license allows authors and readers to share and adapt content for non-commercial purposes, provided that they abide by the following terms:

- Give credit to the original author(s)/creator(s) and attribution parties (i.e., IRTP);

- Provide a link to the original source, to the extent practicable;

- Include the copyright notice and/or indicate the corresponding Creative Commons license;

- Indicate what, if any, adaptations were made to the original; and

- Share adapted content under the same license as the original.

Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the various Creative Commons licenses. Readers are advised to consult the licensing information embedded in each published work to ensure that they are familiar with the terms of use that apply.