Replicating Psychology's Original Sin

Source: Paul Kapischka/Unsplash

The vibrations of the “replication crisis” continue to be felt throughout the social sciences, and particularly within psychology. Being able to replicate findings is among the most fundamental principles of science, and the inability to replicate a high volume of published research represents an ongoing challenge to the field.

Numerous theories have been suggested as to why this is the case within psychology, from the maleficent, such as factors centering around the moral choices of researchers, to the more benign, in the form of ideas such as the complexities of the human being rendering replication less reliable. Through the work of psychologist and historian Brian Hughes, I am putting forward another aspect to the story that could explain how we got here. This part of the story begins in the early days of the emergence of "University Psychology," with the man many label as the first psychologist, Dr. Wilhelm Wundt.

The short of it is, psychology’s replication crisis is partly due to the science being founded upon unreadily replicable experiments. Rather than effectively scrutinize this foundation, it has been more convenient for stakeholders in the field to push the narrative that it was founded on scientific rigor.

Wundt's Lab

Wundt emerged as one of the founders of modern psychology. While Freud might enjoy more mainstream recognition as the pioneer of the field, amongst many psychologists and academics at large, Wundt is the leading name. Indeed, a study from 1991 found that Wundt rated as the most influential psychologist of all time, when rated by historians. (It is worth noting that B. F. Skinner was rated as the most influential by psychologists.)

To borrow a Freudian term, if asked to freely associate with the name Wundt, I am sure that most would, like me, reply with “lab” — such is its legendary standing within psychology. From Wundt's lab, some of the earliest scientific psychological experiments emerged. But another feature of this lab and its output became clear to me when reading Hughes’ history of psychology: “[Wundt] left no influential theory or scientific discovery. He wrote several textbooks, but even most of his own students, although revering him as a mentor, rejected many of his psychological ideas.”

Hughes cites another historian of psychology, Graham Richards, and his idea that Wundt’s legend grew because psychologists were searching for a figure to be christened as the pioneer of the field and were, in particular, looking for someone with scientific credentials. Furthermore, and of most relevance to the theory being put forward here, Hughes also notes that many of Wundt’s peers challenged the experimental output of his lab, and reported being unable to replicate his experiments: "These criticisms centered on the fact that many scientists, especially, those outside Germany, found themselves unable to replicate his findings in their own laboratories” (Hughes, 2022).

This could partly be explained by Wundt’s deep reliance on self-report and participant introspection.

Source: Kiwihug/Unsplash

Technology and Traffic

Rather than scientific prowess or intellectual primacy, Hughes instead roots Wundt’s rise in two factors: traffic and technology. By traffic, Hughes means Wundt’s location in Germany, and more specifically in Leipzig, with many national and international students visiting his lab (which was initially nothing more than a converted storage space). In terms of technology, Hughes means the lab equipment that Wundt gathered and used for his experiments, which allowed him to create something of a spectacle, and provided something that spoke to the aspirations of the time by appearing to strengthen the emerging field of psychology to the material sciences. In fact, Hughes suggests that much of Wundt’s experiments were closer to physiology than psychology. Hughes also mentions the centrality of attaining university funding as a driver within Wundt’s work (and that of other scientists of the day).

Wundt rose to be of great influence — again, in part due to circumstance. Hughes notes the development of Germany’s Ph.D. system which pioneered the three-year, all-research method. According to Hughes, this drove many American students to Germany within the later decades of the 19th century. By 1900, an impressive 12 out of 43 of the psychology departments within the U.S. at that time were led by students of Wundt.

Why Wundt’s influence might have been more detrimental than Freud’s on this measure lies in his claims towards scientific rigor. Wundt fed a hunger that was burning at the time. But alas, it seems that much of his output was scientifically questionable. While it would be excessively harsh and narrow to lay the blame of the replication crisis at Wundt's feet, perhaps similar factors that contributed to the undermining of scientific validity within psychological experimentation, both in Wundt’s time and today.

Replication Crisis Essential Reads

Revisiting the Self-Refilling Bowl of Soup

Is Psychology Research Unreliable?

While material scientists would scoff at the idea of an "original sin" continuing to burden the field, psychologists might instead entertain psychological theories that could explain such intergenerational influence, such as Social Learning Theory. The need to create a spectacle, attain funding, and establish one’s name within the field — and the unending drive to be accepted as a “hard” science — are factors arguably just as relevant today as they were in the 19th century.