This article outlines what we call the “narrative of psychology exceptionalism” in commentaries on the replication crisis: many thoughtful commentaries link the current crisis to the specificity of psychology’s history, methods, and subject matter, but explorations of the similarities between psychology and other fields are comparatively thin. Historical analyses of the replication crisis in psychology further contribute to this exceptionalism by creating a genealogy of events and personalities that shares little in common with other fields. We aim to rebalance this narrative by examining the emergence and evolution of replication discussions in psychology alongside their emergence and evolution in biomedicine. Through a mixed-methods analysis of commentaries on replication in psychology and the biomedical sciences, we find that these conversations have, from the early years of the crisis, shared a common core that centers on concerns about the effectiveness of traditional peer review, the need for greater transparency in methods and data, and the perverse incentive structure of academia. Drawing on Robert Merton’s framework for analyzing multiple discovery in science, we argue that the nearly simultaneous emergence of this narrative across fields suggests that there are shared historical, cultural, or institutional factors driving disillusionment with established scientific practices.

本文概述了我们所说的复制危机评论中的“心理学例外论叙事”：许多深思熟虑的评论将当前的危机与心理学的历史、方法和主题的特殊性联系起来，但探索心理学与其他领域的相似之处比较瘦。通过创建与其他领域几乎没有共同点的事件和个性的谱系，对心理学中复制危机的历史分析进一步促进了这种例外论。我们旨在通过检查心理学中复制讨论的出现和演变以及它们在生物医学中的出现和演变来重新平衡这种叙述。通过对心理学和生物医学科学中复制评论的混合方法分析，我们发现，从危机初期开始，这些对话就有一个共同的核心，即对传统同行评审的有效性、方法和数据透明度的需求以及学术界不正当的激励结构的担忧。借鉴罗伯特默顿分析科学中多项发现的框架，我们认为这种跨领域的叙述几乎同时出现表明存在共同的历史、文化或制度因素，导致对既定科学实践的幻灭。