Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T03:21:56.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Growth From Uncertainty: Understanding the Replication ‘Crisis’ in Infant Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2023

Jane Suilin Lavelle*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract

Psychology is a discipline that has a high number of failed replications, which has been characterized as a “crisis” on the assumption that failed replications are indicative of untrustworthy research. This article uses Chang’s concept of epistemic iteration to show how a research program can advance epistemic goals despite many failed replications. It illustrates this by analyzing an ongoing large-scale replication attempt of Southgate et al.’s work exploring infants’ understanding of false beliefs. It concludes that epistemic iteration offers a way of understanding the value of replications—both failed and successful—that contradicts the narrative centered around distrust.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adetula, Adeyemi, Forscher, Patrick S., Basnight-Brown, Dana, Azouaghe, Soufian, and IJzerman, Hans. 2022. “Psychology Should Generalize from—Not Just to—Africa.” Nature Reviews Psychology 1 (7):370–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00070-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apperly, Ian A., and Butterfill, Stephen A.. 2009. “Do Humans Have Two Systems to Track Beliefs and Belief-Like States?Psychological Review 116 (4):953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asendorpf, Jens B., Conner, Mark, De Fruyt, Filip, De Houwer, Jan, Denissen, Jaap J. A., Fiedler, Klaus, Fiedler, Susann, Funder, David C., Kliegl, Reinhold, Nosek, Brian A., Perugini, Marco, Roberts, Brent W., Schmitt, Manfred, Van Aken, Marcel A. G., Weber, Hannelore, and Wicherts, Jelte M.. 2013. “Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology.” European Journal of Personality 27 (2):108–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, Renée, Buttelmann, David, and Southgate, Victoria. 2018. “Invited Commentary: Interpreting Failed Replications of Early False-Belief Findings: Methodological and Theoretical Considerations.” Cognitive Development 46:112–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Monya. 2015. “Over Half of Psychology Studies Fail Reproducibility Test.” Nature 27:13. https://doi.org/10.1038/NATURE.2015.18248.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2021. “Understanding the Replication Crisis as a Base Rate Fallacy.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (4):965–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bringmann, Laura F., Elmer, Timon, and Eronen, Markus I.. 2022. “Back to Basics: The Importance of Conceptual Clarification in Psychological Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 31 (4):340–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221096485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttelmann, David, Carpenter, Malinda, and Tomasello, Michael. 2009. “Eighteen-Month-Old Infants Show False Belief Understanding in an Active Helping Paradigm.” Cognition 112 (2):337–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfill, Stephen A., and Apperly, Ian A.. 2013. “How to Construct a Minimal Theory of Mind.” Mind & Language 28 (5):606–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, Krista, Bergmann, Christina, Davies, Catherine, Frank, Michael C., Kiley Hamlin, J., Kline, Melissa, Kominsky, Jonathan, Kosie, Jessica E., Lew-Williams, Casey, and Liu, Liquan. 2020. “Building a Collaborative Psychological Science: Lessons Learned from ManyBabies 1.” Canadian Psychology 61 (4):349–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, Peter. 2013. “Mindreading in Infancy.” Mind and Language 28 (2):141–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. 2018. “Young Children Flexibly Attribute Mental States to Others.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (45):11351–53. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816255115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, Peter. 2020. “Representing the Mind as Such in Infancy.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11 (4):765–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00491-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195171276.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2012. Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
D¨orrenberg, Sebastian, Rakoczy, Hannes, and Liszkowski, Ulf. 2018. “How (Not) to Measure Infant Theory of Mind: Testing the Replicability and Validity of Four Non-Verbal Measures.” Cognitive Development 46:1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feest, Uljana. 2016. “The Experimenters’ Regress Reconsidered: Replication, Tacit Knowledge, and the Dynamics of Knowledge Generation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 58:3445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feest, Uljana. 2019. “Why Replication Is Overrated.” Philosophy of Science 86 (5):895905. https://doi.org/10.1086/705451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feest, Uljana. 2022. “Data Quality, Experimental Artifacts, and the Reactivity of the Psychological Subject Matter.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12 (1):125. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13194-021-00443-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Samuel C. 2021. “The Role of Replication in Psychological Science.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (1):119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00329-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Michael C., Bergelson, Elika, Bergmann, Christina, Cristia, Alejandrina, Floccia, Caroline, Judit Gervain, J. Kiley Hamlin, Erin E. Hannon, Melissa Kline, Claartje Levelt, Casey Lew-Williams, Thierry Nazzi, Robin Panneton, Hugh Rabagliati, Melanie Soderstrom, Jessica Sullivan, Sandra Waxman, and Daniel Yurovsky. 2017. “A Collaborative Approach to Infant Research: Promoting Reproducibility, Best Practices, and Theory-Building.” Infancy 22 (4):421–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/INFA.12182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, Brian D. 2013. “Detecting Psychological Phenomena: Taking Bottom-Up Research Seriously.” American Journal of Psychology 126 (2):135–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heider, Fritz, and Simmel, Marianne. 1944. “An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior.” American Journal of Psychology 57 (2):243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyes, Cecilia. 2014a. “False Belief in Infancy: A Fresh Look.” Developmental Science 17 (5):647–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, Cecilia. 2014b. “Submentalizing: I Am Not Really Reading Your Mind.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (2):131–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irvine, Elizabeth. 2021. “The Role of Replication Studies in Theory Building.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 16 (4):844–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, Kenneth S. 2012. “Epistemic Iteration as a Historical Model for Psychiatric Nosology: Promises and Limitations.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: Nosology, edited by Kenneth, S. Kendler, and Parnas, Josef, 305–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kominsky, Jonathan F., Lucca, Kelsey, Thomas, Ashley J., Frank, Michael C., and Hamlin, J. Kiley. 2022. “Simplicity and Validity in Infant Research.” Cognitive Development 63:113. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6j9p3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulke, Louisa, and Rakoczy, Hannes. 2018. “Implicit Theory of Mind—An Overview of Current Replications and Non-Replications.” Data in Brief 16:101–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavelle, Jane Suilin. 2019. The Social Mind: A Philosophical Introduction. Abington, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lavelle, Jane Suilin. 2022. “When a Crisis Becomes an Opportunity: The Role of Replications in Making Better Theories.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (4):965–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina 2018. “Rethinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality.” In Including a Symposium on Mary Morgan: Curiosity, Imagination, and Surprise, edited by Fiorito, Luca, Scheall, Scott, and Suprinya, Carlos Eduardo, 129–46. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0743-41542018000036B009.Google Scholar
Loscalzo, Joseph. 2012. “Irreproducible Experimental Results: Causes, (Mis)interpretations, and Consequences.” Circulation 125 (10):1211–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, Jason, Apperly, Ian A., Butterfill, Stephen A., and Rakoczy, Hannes. 2016. “Cognitive Architecture of Belief Reasoning in Children and Adults: A Primer on the Two-Systems Account.” Child Development Perspectives 10 (3):184–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Yuyan. 2011. “Three-Month-Old Infants Attribute Goals to a Non-Human Agent.” Developmental Science 14 (2):453–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2010.00995.X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makumbi, Jennifer Nansubuga. 2020. The First Woman. London: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
McNutt, Marcia. 2014. “Reproducibility.” Science 343 (6168):229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merton, Robert. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science (1942).” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Norman, W. Storer, 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, Michael, and Henrich, Joseph. 2019. “A Problem in Theory.” Nature Human Behaviour 3 (3):221–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, Brian A., Hardwicke, Tom E., Moshontz, Hannah, Allard, Aur´elien, Corker, Katherine S., Dreber, Anna, Fidler, Fiona, Hilgard, Joe, Kline Struhl, Melissa, Nuijten, Michele B., Rohrer, Julia M., Romero, Felipe, Scheel, Anne M., Scherer, Laura D., Sch¨onbrodt, Felix D., and Vazire, Simine. 2022. “Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science.” Annual Review of Psychology 73 (1):719–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onishi, Kristine, and Baillargeon, Renée. 2005. “Do 15-Month-Old Infants Understand False Beliefs?Science 308 (5719):255–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251):aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, Martin J., and Moreno-Dulcey, Fernando. 2013. “This Puppet Will Play a Game with You: Is It Time to Take Child Psychology out of the Laboratory?Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 53 (9):1689–99.Google Scholar
Peterson, David. 2016. “The Baby Factory: Difficult Research Objects, Disciplinary Standards, and the Production of Statistical Significance.” Socius 2:110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Poulin-Dubois, Diane, Rakoczy, Hannes, Burnside, Kimberly, Crivello, Cristina, Dorrenberg, Sebastian, Edwards, Katheryn, Krist, Horst, Kulke, Louisa, Liszkowski, Ulf, Low, Jason, Perner, Josef, Powell, Lindsey, Priewasser, Beate, Rafetseder, Eva, and Ruffman, Ted. 2018. “Do Infants Understand False Beliefs? We Don’t Know Yet—A Commentary on Baillargeon, Buttelmann and Southgate’s Commentary.” Cognitive Development 48:302–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakoczy, Hannes. 2017. “In Defense of a Developmental Dogma: Children Acquire Propositional Attitude Folk Psychology around Age 4.” Synthese 194 (3):689707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0860-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakoczy, Hannes. 2022. “The Development of Implicit Theory of Mind.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Implicit Cognition, edited by Robert, J. Thompson, 336–50. Abington, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roessler, Johannes, and Perner, Josef. 2015. “Pro-Social Cognition: Helping, Practical Reasons, and ‘Theory of Mind.’Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (4):755–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozin, Paul. 2001. “Social Psychology and Science: Some Lessons from Solomon Asch.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (1):214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio-Fern´andez, Paula 2019. “Publication Standards in Infancy Research: Three Ways to Make Violation-of-Expectation Studies More Reliable.” Infant Behavior and Development 54:177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2018.09.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santiesteban, Idalmis, Catmur, Caroline, Hopkins, Senan Coughlan, Bird, Geoffrey, and Heyes, Cecilia. 2014. “Avatars and Arrows: Implicit Mentalizing or Domain-General Processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 40 (3):929.Google ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, Kenneth. 2012. “Coherentist Approaches to Scientific Progress in Psychiatry: Comments on Kendler.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: Nosology, edited by Kendler, Kenneth S. and Parnas, Josef, 323–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2011. “The Significance of Re-Doing Experiments: A Contribution to Historically Informed Methodology.” Erkenntnis 75 (3):325–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9332-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 (2):90100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuwerk, Tobias, Kampis, Dora, Bohn, Manuel, Fisher, Cynthia, Wiesmann, Charlotte Grosse, Hyde, Daniel C., Kulke Friedrich-Alexander, Louisa, Mahowald, Kyle, Mascaro, Olivier, Prein, Julia, Raz, Gal, Rebecca Saxe Dana Schneider Friedrich-Schiller, Victoria Southgate, Francis Yuen, Amanda Rose Yuile, Lucie Zimmer, and Michael C. Frank. 2022. “In-Principle Acceptance of Registered Report: Action Anticipation Based on an Agent’s Epistemic State in Toddlers and Adults.” Child Development. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x4jbm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuwerk, Tobias, Priewasser, Beate, Sodian, Beate, and Perner, Josef. 2018. “The Robustness and Generalizability of Findings on Spontaneous False Belief Sensitivity: A Replication Attempt.” Royal Society Open Science 5 (5):172273. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, Rose M., and Baillargeon, Renée. 2009. “Which Penguin Is This? Attributing False Beliefs about Object Identity at 18 Months.” Child Development 80 (4):1172–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01324.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, Rose M., and Baillargeon, Renée. 2017. “Early False-Belief Understanding.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21 (4):237–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, Rose M., Roby, Erin, and Baillargeon, Renée. 2022. “How Sophisticated Is Infants’ Theory of Mind?” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Development, edited by Olivier Houd´e and Ren´ee Baillargeon, 242–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399838.015.Google Scholar
Sikorski, Micha-l, and Andreoletti, Mattia. 2023. “Epistemic Functions of Replicability in Experimental Sciences: Defending the Orthodox View.” Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09901-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Daniel J. 2014. “The Value of Direct Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1):7680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southgate, Victoria, Senju, Atsushi, and Csibra, Gergely. 2007. “Action Anticipation through Attribution of False Belief by 2-Year-Olds.” Psychological Science 18 (7):587–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01944.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Bavel, Jay J., Mende-Siedlecki, Peter, Brady, William J., and Reinero, Diego A.. 2016. “Contextual Sensitivity in Scientific Reproducibility.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (23):6454–59. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113.Google Scholar
Van Dongen, Noah, Van Bork, Riet, Finnemann, Adam, Haslbeck, Jonas M. B., Van Der Maas, Han L. J., Robinaugh, Donald, De Ron, Jill, Sprenger, Jan, Borsboom, Denny, Machery, Edouard, Chase, Henry, Makovec, Dejan, Koberinski, Adam, Hui Choi, Hong, Elber, Lotem, Krempel, Raquel, and Blanken, Tessa 2022. “Productive Explanation: A Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Psychological Science.” arXiv preprint.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Henry M. 1990. The Child’s Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Henry M. 2014. Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Henry M., Cross, David, and Watson, Julanne. 2001. “Meta-Analysis of Theory-of-Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief.” Child Development 72 (3):655–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimmer, Heinz, and Perner, Josef. 1983. “Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Function of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children’s Understanding of Deception.” Cognition 13 (1):103–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodruff, Guy, and Premack, David. 1978. “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?Brain and Behavior Sciences 1 (4):515–26.Google Scholar
Yarkoni, Tal. 2020. “The Generalizability Crisis.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 45:137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed