*Questions 1 and 2 Adapted from the practice exam, but questions 3 and 4 are made by myself.
1) Replication crisis
a) Explain the difference between 'direct replication' and 'conceptual replication'.
Direct replication and conceptual replication can be distinguished from one another based on
three dimensions: what they entail, their objective and their value. Direct replication, also termed
‘reproducibility’, or exact replication, entails repeating the original study in the exact same way. This
means, measures are kept the same, operationalizations remain constant. The objective is therefore to
repeat the experiment, because this particular replication focuses on either refuting, replicating, or
strengthening. It furthermore has operationalised value, as operationalised values remain constant.
Zwaan et. al (2018), states that it is particularly useful in that it allows us to view research as either
degenerative or progressive. Using Lakato’s notion of sophisticated falsification: we can state with
certainty that a research is deemed degenerative when an accommodating hypothesis: “auxiliary
hypothesis”, cannot be replicated.
On the other hand, conceptual replication has a theoretical advantage. Conceptual replication
entails deriving a new hypothesis from the same theory, and testing it to extend the theory. Different
methods may be used. This means that the theory is held constant, and thus, if it is accepted, this
means that the theory is deemed sound. The objective is thus to test the theory. Some psychologists
argue that this is necessary for scientific advancement (Van Rooij, 2019). Crandall & Sherman also
state that it is good and psychologists should be concerned with this, rather than falsification (a
Poppernian principle).
b) What do you think the role of each should be in psychological research? Use the lecture
and the texts for your answer.
The roles of direct applicability and conceptual replication differ in psychological research.
Whereas direct replication is useful for well controlled experiments, in that it allows us to easily
make statistical comparisons, the field of social psychology may benefit more from conceptual
research. This is because it relies on differences in measurement, observational research, and other
qualitative research which cannot be replicated. Furthermore, there are often natural disasters or
unique matters which cannot be replicated differently and thus, time and resources would have to be
spent on testing.
Another point is the publication bias. According to Crandall & Sherman, a problem of
conceptual research is its ambiguity. If a study cannot be replicated conceptually, a problem exists in
the attribution of the problem: was a conclusion derived from the method, or the theory? It is tempting
for researchers to blame it on the method, and often results are not published altogether, which is
particularly problematic.
A last role is the extent to which they give theoretical value. Conceptual research is generally
believed to derive more theoretical certainty, since it is what conceptual replication focuses on.
However, Zwaan et. al argue that theoretical value can be derived from an auxiliary hypothesis. That
is, whether the auxiliary hypothesis is refuted or not, can give insight on whether the research is
progressive or degenerative.
2) Feral children and the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
a) In the lecture John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau have been introduced as the two
founding fathers in the history of developmental psychology (and pedagogy), who have
influenced developmental psychologists throughout the twentieth century. What was their
, specific contribution to developmental thinking and how is their position related to the
nature-nurture controversy?
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau can be seen as the founding fathers of pedagogy and
developmental psychology. They pioneered the field through developing two contrasting views of
child development, which have been largely used to contrast nature from nurture.
John Locke, viewed education and child development as nurtured, that is, focusing on
learned developments. He emphasised that a child’s knowledge is derived entirely from external
objects. Reasoning is taught by parents, which to Locke is of great importance to the child. He even
thought that education provided by parents is more efficient than school education. He also stressed
the importance of ‘habits’, in elevating the child from laziness, and forming habitual routines. Locke
did not deny that a child has natural inclinations, although he believed these could be moulded
considerably. Society is also of great importance to Locke: a society should mean something to the
community as a whole, focusing on life, liberty and society. Ultimately, Locke’s goal for a child was
to become useful to society.
On the other hand, Rousseau emphasised a child’s natural inclinations, taking a natural
approach to education. Stating that of importance to education is man, things and nature, Rousseau
believed in the simplicity of a child’s life, led close to nature and in the absence of society. Society
was believed to confront the child with immorality, and hence the child should be kept far away from
cities, and instead put in nature. He also believed a child was autonomous, guided solely by his/her
own intrinsic inclinations. Habits are therefore rendered futile to Rousseau’s perspective; a child, he
argued, would shift back to his natural inclinations anyways. Hence, to Rousseau, a child is guided by
its down senses, and thus, is meant to lead a peaceful life close to nature (Gianoutsos, 2006).
b) How does the work of Itard with Victor fit in (or not) with the theories of Locke and
Rousseau?
Itard’s work can be analysed from both a Lockian and Rousseauian perspective. Itard’s main
objective was to prove Pinel wrong: Victor was not profoundly retarded, rather, he could be molded to
become a moral human being. In this, he took a Lockian perspective: the child was through a set of 5
objectives meant to become moral: attaching the child to social life, awakening his nervous
sensibilities, exercising simple operations of the mind, developing his use of speech, and extending
his sphere of ideas. He used various activities and exercises to help reach his goal, which, to Itard’s
optimism, was lastly reached: Victor bore little resemblance of a feral child after 6 years, and had
become moral, at last. This is visible in a scene in the book where Itard deliberately punishes the child
after the child obeys and is successful in the task. This is his way of testing that Victor did not just do
the activities for utilitiastic reasons, but actually because he had become moral. He was right: after
Victor was put in the closet for correctly taking an exercise problem he began to rebel. Itard was filled
with joy and stated that “if only the child had known how happy I was”. Whilst this demonstrates
success and supports Locke’s ideas, Itards’s pessimism a few years later would demonstrate a shift in
perspectives.
Whilst the child has become socialised and nurtured to be moral, social and ‘normal’, the
child’s natural inclinations would always still be evident. For example, what made Victor happiest was
his attachment to nature, he would sit by the window side and sip on his milk, whilst staring ahead of
the landscapes. To his disappointment, Itard pessimistically states that it was perhaps better to have
left the child in the woods, leading the life that he had desired, away from social communication and
society. This closely resembles Rousseau’s approach.
