Inside the Scandal that Rocked Behavioral Science – and Paved the Way for Revolution
The 2000s and early 2010s were a golden age for behavioral scientists. With the right kind of research, anything seemed possible. Pick an eye-catching topic, gather surprising results, and the world was your playground. A well-trod path led to university tenure, TED talks watched by millions, New York Times bestsellers, and lucrative speaking gigs. Theories from this accessible branch of science made their way into mainstream pop culture via books like Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's "Nudge" (exploring why we make bad decisions based on biases); Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice" (positing that too many options lead to poor decision-making); and Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's "Freakonomics" (an engaging blend of pop culture and economics). A stratum of academics became rockstars thanks to their ability to explain human behavior.
However, beneath the surface, experts reveal that not every success story was rigorously backed up. It was a Wild West period, characterized by slackness in data collection and questionable research practices. "There was a lot of slackness in how researchers collected data," says David Comerford, professor of economics at the University of Stirling. He cites a 2012 survey of 2,000 psychology academics, where the majority openly admitted to engaging in at least one questionable practice during their careers.
"It was a race to get those sorts of cute results," adds Comerford. "The more simplistic your theory, the more fun it was, and the more likely you were to get big rewards." The peer review process didn't help: instead of examining whether findings were true, it focused on whether they were interesting enough or novel enough.
One of the most infamous theories that gained widespread traction was "power posing." Amy Cuddy, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, claimed that adopting dominant body postures for two minutes could increase testosterone and decrease cortisol, leading to improved job interview performance. However, the findings didn't replicate, and the technical term for when an experiment fails to produce consistent results – a "fragile study" – applies here.
With a robust scientific study, you'd expect the results to be roughly the same every time. In the case of power posing, one reason it likely didn't translate was due to Cuddy's minuscule sample size of just 42 participants. After data was called into question, claims about the chemical impacts of power posing were swiftly debunked.
Other questionable research practices abounded during this period. Conducting research without a clear hypothesis and running tests until something notable emerged. This approach is akin to throwing darts at a dartboard and then painting it around the target to make it look more precise. P-hacking, which involves manipulating data to reach a desired p-value threshold of 0.05 or lower.
"Data is like people," says Michael Sanders, professor of public policy at King's College London. "If you torture it for long enough, it'll tell you whatever you want to hear." Other tactics included salami slicing, where a scientist runs one study but passes it off as multiple studies, weakening the strength of any individual tests.
Brian Wansink, the head of Cornell's prestigious food psychology research unit, became a media darling thanks to accessible theories on lifestyle tweaks triggering weight loss. However, his star crashed when he openly encouraged a PhD student to engage in both p-hacking and salami slicing. This lack of integrity led to accusations of malpractice.
In 2015, Sanders was part of a team that received a grant from the World Bank to apply Francesca Gino's findings on honesty and ethical behavior in Guatemala. Their experience suggested that the original study might have been fragile. However, allegations later surfaced that the data had not been fabricated but rather misrepresented.
This scandal led to seismic shifts in the field of behavioral science. Pre-registration, where researchers must declare their hypothesis and expected findings in advance, has become standard practice. Scientists are now more mindful of making their data publicly available when publishing results.
"You have to show that your dartboard is in place before you start throwing darts at it," says Sanders. "Small samples, sexy findings – that gets laughed out of the room now for the most part." The young academics coming up are more on board with tightening up and working to a higher standard.
Experts propose implementing salary caps to de-incentivize bad actors and improving the peer review system. However, even with these changes, there's still more work to be done. "Things are better, and I think they'll just keep getting a little better," says Simmons. The allegations against Gino and co might have temporarily tarnished the discipline of psychology but also ushered in a new era of higher quality and checks and balances.
The Future of Behavioral Science
As the field continues to evolve, it's essential to prioritize rigor, transparency, and accountability. The scandal that rocked behavioral science serves as a wake-up call, reminding us that the pursuit of knowledge must be grounded in truth and integrity.
We can only hope that future generations of researchers will build upon the progress made thus far. By embracing pre-registration, open data, and stricter peer review, we can create an environment where the highest standards of scientific excellence are upheld.