Abstract

The replication crisis shook the discipline of psychology and has led to reforms such as open science and large-scale replication projects. Yet, it is not psychology’s first crisis, and it is likely not the last. In this paper, we look at three major crisis discussions in the history of psychology: discussions in the early 20th century about the possibility of psychology as a natural-scientific discipline; discussions in the 1960s–70s about the methods, relevance and scientific status of the discipline; and discussions in the 2010s about replication. We compare these crises to determine what generates crisis discussions in psychology and how they tend to unfold and be resolved. We argue that, despite differences across these crisis discussions, some fundamental questions about the object of research and proper methods of psychology recur, as do considerations related to epistemology, ontology, ethics and politics. Our analysis indicates that the current responses to the replication crisis, although valuable, are not ultimate solutions because they deflect fundamental questions and postpone the reconsideration of the ideals of psychology as a science.