SIPS 2026 Online

Psychology's replicability crisis reflects methodological failures andt fundamental fragmentation rooted in the discipline's history. Unlike physics or biology, psychology never unified its three incompatible foundational programs maintaining isolated research communities throughout 150 years. Successive theoretical schisms from behaviorism-cognitivism conflicts to neuroscientific reductionism during the Decade of the Brain deepened this fragmentation, creating conditions where weak theories, divergent methodological standards, and insufficient cross-disciplinary dialogue enabled questionable practices to proliferate. Large-scale replication attempts confirmed the consequences as only 36% of findings reproduced. We distinguish fragmentation from legitimate theoretical pluralism and propose programmatic solutions based on interdisciplinary testing through multi-method scrutiny, mathematical formalization constraining predictions, and open science infrastructure enabling collaborative evaluation. These strategies preserve necessary diversity while building integrative bridges between subdisciplines, transforming psychology into a cumulative science where theory guides replication interpretation and predicts boundary conditions.
Keywords: replicability crisis, replication, reproducibility, scientific fragmentation, psychological science

We analyze Brazilian psychology's historical constitution under dual Anglo-American and Continental European influences, arguing their reception produced incomplete scientific implementation characterized by epistemological dependency, institutional fragmentation, and absence of integrated national scientific programs. Anglo-American traditions primarily influenced educational and organizational fields, while Continental traditions dominated clinical training and critical orientations. Examining the period from late-nineteenth-century academic introduction through the mid-1990s demonstrates how uncritical importation produced dual epistemological colonization without national programmatic synthesis. The anti-asylum movement achieved ethical-political gains without robust methodological consolidation. Paradoxically, contemporary anticolonial movements, coinciding with graduate program expansion, distanced Brazilian psychology from international standards, deepening methodological gaps and compromising advanced training. Despite possessing the Americas' largest psychologist contingent, Brazilian psychology faces paradoxes such as minimal global scientific insertion, curricular fragmentation, low remuneration, and high professional precarity, requiring integrated national programs articulating methodological rigor, social responsibility, and strategic international engagement.

The early decades of the 21st century have witnessed an increasingly fragmented landscape within naturalistic psychology, characterized by divergent epistemological commitments and methodological practices across subdisciplines. This theoretical analysis examines how three prominent psychological traditions—psychometrics, evolutionary psychology, and behavior analysis—differentially operationalize the foundational scientific concepts of premises, evidence, and proof. Each tradition is shown to embody distinct assumptions about what constitutes valid scientific inquiry, what counts as acceptable empirical support, and what standards must be met for knowledge claims to be accepted as provisionally true. Despite this fragmentation, all three traditions maintain commitment to naturalism, empiricism, and the self-correcting character of scientific knowledge accumulation. The analysis reveals both the productive diversity and problematic incommensurability that characterize contemporary psychological science, offering implications for interdisciplinary integration, training practices, and the future coherence of the field.