The Replication Crisis in Psychology: Causes, Consequences, and Strategies for Overcoming It
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2026.01.083Keywords:
reliability, epistemology, methodologyAbstract
The article is dedicated to the issue of the replication crisis in psychology as a multilevel phenomenon encompassing technical, institutional, and epistemological factors. It is argued that the epistemological limitations of psychological cognition, the contextual dependence of effects, and the heterogeneity of research practices form a complex system of causes, which complicates the stable reproducibility of results. Key methodological problems are highlighted, including insufficient statistical power, questionable transparency of research, and the need for systemic academic changes. Contemporary approaches to enhancing the reliability of empirical findings are described, such as increasing sample sizes, standardizing procedures, preregistration of studies, and open access to data, which reduce the influence of «researcher degrees of freedom» and false-positive results. A multilevel model integrating methodological, institutional, and epistemological levels is constructed, allowing the identification of technical-methodological, institutional-normative, and epistemological approaches as mutually complementary. The principles of conceptual modeling are outlined, which necessitate the development of a researcher’s reflective stance, methodological rigor, and support for open forms of scientific practising. It is emphasized that the integration of different levels and approaches forms a systemic foundation for enhancing the reliability of psychological knowledge, fosters critical reflection, and supports the sustainable development of science. The article argues that a scientific culture that recognizes the value of replications and negative results, and promotes openness in data and methods, constitutes a cornerstone for the stable advancement of psychological science amid contemporary challenges. The proposed approaches may serve as a basis for further research on developing tools that account for the contextuality and dynamism of psychological effects, as well as for improving methodological thought-activity and existing institutional practices in psychological research.
References
Huseltseva, M. (2018). Metodolohiyi onovlennya psykholohichnoyi nauky [Methodologies of updating psychological science]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1-2, 27-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2018.01.027 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2018.01.027
Furman, A. V. (2020). Avtorska prohrama dystsypliny «Metodolohiya naukovykh doslidzhen» [Author's program of the discipline "Methodology of scientific research"]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 4, 106-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2020.04.106 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2020.04.106
Furman, A. V. (2022). Arkhitektonika teoriyi diyalnosti: refleksyvno vchynkovyy stsenariy metametodolohuvannya [Architectonics of activity theory: a reflexive-action scenario of metamethodologizing]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 7-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.007 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.007
Furman, A. V. (2023). Katehoriyna matrytsya vitakulturnoyi metodolohiyi: vid myslevchynennya do kanonu [Categorical matrix of vitacultural methodology: from thought-action to canon]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 2, 6-50 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2023.02.006
Furman, A. V. (2021). Metodolohichna rekonstruktsiya systemomyslediyalnisnoho pidkhodu do rozuminnya svidomosti [Methodological reconstruction of the systems-thinking approach to understanding consciousness]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 5-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.005 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.005
Furman, A. V. (2023). Osvitolohiya yak polidystsyplinarnyy napryam: fundamentaliyi i metodolohemy [Educational science as a multidisciplinary direction: fundamentals and methodology]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 36-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2023.01.036 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2023.01.036
Shchedrovytskyy, H. (2021). Psykholohiya i metodolohiya: perspektyvy spivorhanizatsiyi [Psychology and methodology: prospects for co-organization]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 2, 122-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.02.122 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.02.122
Shchedrovytskyy, H. (2005). Skhema myslediyalnosti - systemnostrukturna budova, znachennya i zmist [Scheme of thinking activity - system-structural structure, meaning and content]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 4, 29-39. URL: https://pis.wunu.edu.ua/index.php/uapis/article/view/220 [in Ukrainian].
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 452-454 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543-554 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060
Cobey, K. et al. (2024). Survey highlights publish-or-perish culture and reproducibility issues. PLoS Biology. URL: https://phys.org/news/2024-11-survey-highlights-publish-perish-culture.html [in English].
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587-606 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033
Hanson, B. et al. (2023). The strain on scientific publishing: Implications for reproducibility. arXiv [in English].
Hendriks, F. (2025). Trust in science amid a replication crisis. Current Opinion in Psychology, 68, Article 102250 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102250
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70 (3), 151-159.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026141
Martin, G. N., & Clarke, R. M. (2017). Are psychology journals anti-replication? A snapshot of editorial practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 523 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., … & Van der Laan, M. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30-31 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317
Munafт, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., … & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., … & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719-748 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596-1618 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2
Open Science Collaboration (2023). Assessing reproducibility in psychological research: Meta-analytic updates. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1012-1023 [in English].
Parsons, S., Smith, J., & Lee, R. (2024). The Replication Database: Tracking reproducibility in psychological research. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 12(1), 1-15 [in English].
Renkewitz, F., & Heene, M. (2019). The replication crisis and open science in psychology: Methodological challenges and developments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 741-757 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000389
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Udesky, L. (2025). The reproducibility crisis and the publish-or-perish culture. Nature. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39833523 [in English].
Vowels, M. J. (2021). Misspecification and unreliable interpretations in psychology and social science. Psychological Methods, 28(3), 507-526 [in English].
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000429
Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e120 [in English].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
1. PROPOSED POLICY FOR JOURNALS THAT OFFER OPEN ACCESS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
2. PROPOSED POLICY FOR JOURNALS THAT OFFER DELAYED OPEN ACCESS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [SPECIFY PERIOD OF TIME] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
