Pop psychology sells well.
But it does not always serve you well.

At least, not if you’re looking for what’s proven, thorough, and effective.

This article analyzes and fact-checks some widespread pop psychology myths.

Intro

We define pop-psychology as:

Pop psychology consists of psychological claims and interpretations presented as scientific or evidence-based, despite being weakly supported, misinterpreted, or of limited effectiveness to achieve relevant goals.

Pop psychology stands for “popular psychology”, and it’s probably far more widespread than more rigorous psychology. While not always and necessarily wrong or harmful, it is characterized by being unscientific and lacking nuance.

Who Are Pop Psychologists: A Profile

Here is a quick way to tell them apart:

• The scientist seeks scientific rigor; his claims are based on science and results. He often talks about “evidence”, “more information needed”, “exceptions”, and “external factors.”
• The pop-psychologist seeks to sound deep and informed, which leads many to believe that what he says makes sense. He speaks with certainties and generalizations

In some cases, the intent may be genuinely helpful, but the execution reflects limited familiarity with scientific methodology and critical thinking.
Here is a quick overview for you:

Pop-psychology and good science are on a continuum, and it’s also possible to be high on both the scientific and pop-psychology scales. For example, Martin Seligman took positive psychology into more mainstream self-help, but while retaining good scientific rigor.

Let’s now analyze some popular pop psychology myths that at one time or another have spread across the mainstream.

We prefer refinement rather than dismissal
Debunking approaches increased in popularity after the replication crisis. They create black-and-white judgments that throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Scientific progress is rarely about completely discarding ideas, but about adding nuance and refinement. Even many flawed studies can still offer valuable insights when interpreted in context. The goal is continuous, critical evaluation of evidence, not sensational dismissal.

#1. Learning Styles

The narrative goes that some people learn more when the material is presented visually, while others learn more when the material is discussed verbally.

Over the years, different training methodologies and quizzes have sprung up, purporting to teach people how to learn more effectively.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

A team of researchers in the field of learning psychology published a long and detailed review of the “learning styles literature”, and you can find the whole research here.

In a nutshell,  the researchers say that in all of the studies that allegedly did find evidence of different learning styles, very few used randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.

Of those that did use proper research designs, some provided evidence that not only failed to support the learning style theory but also found evidence that flatly contradicted the learning style hypothesis.

The researchers conclude:

The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing.
If the classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.

The Truth

The authors of the above study do not deny that some students might learn better when information is presented in a certain way.

They simply deny there is supporting evidence for the “learning style theory” in the current literature. 
And they say that an optimal curriculum probably depends as much (or more) on the discipline than on the student’s preference for learning (i.e., a geometry class could hardly be effective without lots of visual-spatial material).

#2. Mirror Neurons

If you’re into self-development, you’ve probably read about ‘mirror neurons’.

Rizzolatti accidentally discovered them in Parma, and it quickly became popular.
V. S. Ramachandra, author of “Phantoms in The Brain” said that “mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology”.
And for years you could barely read a book on persuasion and self-development without stumbling upon mirror neurons.

Do you want to empathize with people? Mirror neurons will help.
Do you need to make people feel comfortable? Use your mirror neurons to let your body match theirs.
Need to subconsciously persuade someone? Match them first, then start leading… And their mirror neurons will have them follow you like you’re the pied piper.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

After reading so much pop-psychology on mirror neurons in humans you might be surprised to hear that there is no consensus as to whether mirror neurons even exist in humans.

Scientists such as Hickok, Pascolo, and Dinstein, for example, question the idea that mirror neurons form a distinct class of cells (Hickok even wrote a book about the “mirror neurons myth”). 

Where there seems to be more and more consensus instead is that mirror neurons are not the great revolution that early, over-enthusiastic scientists cracked it up to be.

The Truth

It’s probably true that humans have mirror neurons as one study seems to have identified neural activity similar to Rizzolatti’s monkeys.

But as this article from Harvard University points out the consensus seems to be moving towards the following:

1. It’s unlikely that mirror neurons alone explain humans’ ability for imitation
2. It’s unlikely that the mental ability to simulate other people’s actions is at the core of understanding other people’s actions 
3. It’s possible that mirror neurons are part of our human’s ability to empathize, but it’s likely they’re only one element in a larger, more complex system (Rizzolatti, 2010)

#3. The Marshmallow Test

The marshmallow test, first a study and later a book, is one of the earliest, most famous, and most cited experiments in willpower.

If you have been into self-development topics, then chances are very high that you have read about the “marshmallow test”… A few hundred times.

The basic narrative goes like this: children who can delay gratification become more successful in life, as it’s been proven by the marshmallow test.

Some authors then go as far as to teach you -and your children- how to increase your “delaying gratification muscles”.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

1. The marshmallow test failed to replicate
2. There are simply too many variables that the “marshmallow test” did not account for

Some of the variables that the “marshmallow test” did not account for include:

• Different children are likely to have different levels of interest in consuming marshmallows (ie.: the “delaying power” is based not on self-control but on limited interest in marshmallows)
• The sample size was very small
• Children in the sample were from a similar socio-economic background (a subset of self-selection bias: all children of professors or students at Stanford) 

Indeed, when Typer Watts replicated the study he found that:

• The correlation was 50% smaller than the original test
• The correlation almost vanished when taking into account intelligence and family background

Not The Researchers’ Fault

The marshmallow test is actually an interesting and important study, and the authors are good scientists.
Shoda, Mischel, and Peake cautioned readers about the limitations of their findings already in their original study.

They warned about the small sample size, the risk of over-generalizing their results, and the fact that always delaying gratification is also not an effective strategy.

The Truth

The ability to delay gratification, as one aspect of controlling impulses, is an important factor in success in safe and stable environment and when future returns outweigh the wait. But the best strategy can change depending on context and the individual.

In general, a complete lack of impulse control and short-term gratification instead undermines long-term success, and is associated with psychopathy.

#4. Ego Depletion / Finite Willpower

The theory behind ego depletion is that we all have a limited amount of willpower, and the more we use it on any given day, the less we have it.

Based on this theory, plenty of self-development resources claim that “scientifically”, you should avoid “wasting” your willpower.

The theory was also expanded to include decision-making as a finite and limited resource connected to willpower.
That’s why some pundits recommended people do like Steve Jobs and wear the same clothes every day: you save up your mental resources.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

Recent studies have thrown a spanner in the works for the ego depletion theory and challenged the whole theory.

A multi-lab replication experiment found the effects of ego depletion to be extremely small with “zero” included within its confidence interval.
A series of meta-analytic tests found little evidence that willpower is based on a limited physical or psychological resource.

Confirmation Bias

The ego-depletion theory has been a big thing in psychology. 

On trial here was not just a single paper or study, but a whole overarching concept that seemed to have been repeatedly confirmed and was widely accepted.

It has led some scientists and some publications to call into question whether our current scientific system based on publications is not distorting scientific progress.

The Truth

Part of the issue is that, as Baumeister himself noticed in his original paper, there are no direct measures of willpower’s limited resources, and the indirect experiments we must rely on are liable of being “polluted” by other intervening factors. 

For example:

• Participants might arrive with the idea of “owing” the researchers some effort, and then “take it easy” after they feel they’ve given enough
• It’s not always easy to isolate how people’s changing mood impacts their tenacity (ie.: is giving up early a consequence of depression, sagging self-esteem, or is it because willpower is limited?)
• With some tasks giving up might actually be the most rational and smart thing to do

There can be ways to limit each of these factors, but not all studies have successfully done so.

A recent analysis of both sides of the argument finds no compelling evidence for either the ego depletion theory or the negation of willpower as a limited resource.

And of course, there is the good old placebo effect.
This study finds that ego depletion takes place, at least partly, based on whether people believe willpower is limited or not.

Identity may also play a role. Such as, the more willpower you display, the more you create a self-identity of someone who sticks with his commitments. And this “identity approach” could reinforce the “muscle” aspect of willpower.

That said, it’s probably a smart approach to make your difficult but healthy habits as easy as possible (ie.: don’t have colas in your fridge) and your easy but unhealthy habits as difficult as possible.

#5. The Stanford Experiment

The Stanford Experiment is a classic of social-psychology research.

Part of the reason it’s so popular is that the “human darkness” that it purports to lay bare captures people’s imagination like a magnet.
The idea that we’re all a step away from becoming cruel, soulless victimizers makes us all scared and excited at the same time.

In a nutshell, it markets and sells well.
If you need any proof, the “Stanford Experiment” has its own website and it spawned movies, documentaries, and popular YouTube videos that purport to show the “untold truths” of what really happened.

The “Stanford Experiment” is also Zimbardo’s most famous experiment and much of his later work has been inspired by its results, including a TED talk and a book with a catchy name (ie.: “The Lucifer Effect“).

Why It’s Pop Psychology

The Stanford Experiment is pop psychology because the word “experiment” doesn’t even belong there.

It’s not a real experiment and Zimbardo himself admitted so:

From the beginning, I have always said it’s a demonstration.
The only thing that makes it an experiment is the random assignment to prisoners and guards, that’s the independent variable.
There is no control group. There’s no comparison group. So it doesn’t fit the standards of what it means to be “an experiment.”

And then, later on, sounding as if he wanted to defend himself:

Is it a study with flaws? I was the first to admit that many, many years ago.

There is countless valid and legit criticism against the Stanford Prison Experiment though which go well beyond what Zimbardo originally admitted, including:

• “Coaching” for guards’ worst behavior
• Demand characteristics bias (ie.: participants are likely to behave like they believe the researchers want them to behave) 
• Prisoners faking their hysterical crisis

Zimbardo has been very vocal in personally replying to most of the criticism.
His replies rarely constituted a full rebuttal of the criticism, but to me, he often managed to convincingly take some of the sting off of them.

However, in a nutshell: the “Stanford Experiment” is pop psychology because it’s not a real experiment and its results cannot and should not be generalized.

The Truth

There are little doubts that different social settings can elicit wildly different behavior from the exact same persons. And social roles do affect people’s behavior.

The realization that people can act evil and we must learn to cope with that evil is, after all, one of the founding principles of this website.

And that’s the issue with some of the criticism of the “Stanford Experiment”: some criticism seemed motivated by morals and ethics, trying to redeem human nature.
But denying that people -or at least some people- can become abusive in certain contexts and when given enough power is a denial of human nature.

To say it in Zimbardo’s own words:

SPE serves as a cautionary tale of what might happen to any of us if we underestimate the extent to which the power of social roles and external pressures can influence our actions.

And with that, I agree.
To be the wonderful human beings that we can all be, we must all also learn about our darkest drives and channel them into something positive.

#6. The 10.000-Hour Rule

In his book “Outliers” Gladwell popularized the “10.000-hour rule”.

The “rule” says that to reach the pinnacle of any discipline and to become a master of any craft you need to put in 10.000 hours.

Since Gladwell’s best-seller hit the shelves, the “10.000 rule” spread like wildfire.
It was simple and catchy. It removes natural talent from the equation and puts outsized success in everyone’s grasp.

Even reputable publications fell for it. 
The picture below is taken from the National Geographic article:

There is only one little issue: it’s not true.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

There is no 10.000-hour rule.

Malcolm Gladwell is an incredible writer and an intelligent man.
But while his books make for entertaining reads, they’re not always accurate and nuanced representations of reality (see “most overrated books” list).

With the 10.000-hour rule, I am not sure whether Gladwell actually misunderstood the research or gave it a simplified interpretation to make it more appealing to the masses.
And I don’t know which one would be worse.

But Anders Ericsson, the author of Peak and the researcher whom Gladwell misquoted explains why Gladwell got it all wrong:

1. People variable: to achieve mastery some will require less time, some more
2. Field variable: the competitiveness of the field has a strong correlation to how hard you need to train to reach the top
3. Quality variable: time matters, but how you train is equally, if not more, important
4. And finally, there is no “magical” threshold that corresponds to 10.000 hours

The Truth

Albeit Ericsson leans into “nurture” and embraces the idea that training trumps everything, genes and personal predispositions likely play a major role as well.

Hence, to maximize your chances of success and get the biggest bang out of your training, choose a field you enjoy, a field in which you have all the cards to be successful, and then focus not only on how long you train but also on how you train.

#7. (Subliminal) Behavioral Priming

Priming says that exposure to one stimulus will later influence people’s perception, response, or behavior.

It was an exciting discovery for psychology that semantic priming, such as simple words, could prime behavior subliminally.
That opened up a lot of doors to several different kinds of possible behavior manipulation and, of course, drew a lot of attention: the original paper by Bargh et al. has been cited thousands of times.

If you have ever heard about people who moved noticeably more slowly simply because they assembled words related to old age, then you have read about the original priming research.

Bargh’s research has been widely accepted for good and made its way into the work of highly respected authors such as Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow) and Robert Cialdini (Influence and Pre-Suasion).
More psychology popularizers today still propose ‘influence tips’ based on priming and sound ‘scientific’ by quoting various papers.

BBC even made its own video research on priming:

And that’s without even considering the hundreds of other authors who teach how to change people’s minds and actions with “subliminal priming”. All based on science :).

Again, there was just one minor detail: the whole premise was resting on shaky scientific ground.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

There were previous failed confirmation attempts, but it all started in earnest in 2012 when Doyen and colleagues failed to replicate Bargh’s original results.

Bargh pushed back on the initial criticism.
Another article he wrote, which was even fiercer, has now been taken down (but it’s referenced by Ed Yong and Neurobonkers).
In my opinion,  the simple fact that Bargh reacted as if the replication attempt was a personal attack, does not do him honor as a scientist.

But the scientific community was worried.
In that same year Daniel Kahneman, who dedicated an important part of his “Thinking Fast and Slow” to subliminal priming, issued an open letter about the issue calling for more clarity in the priming research. 
In that letter, Kahneman was still overall optimistic about the existence of subliminal social priming effects and, he later admitted, he was hoping that the original researchers would bolster their case with stronger evidence.
But that didn’t happen.

And as time went by, the pendulum started moving more and more toward the skeptics.

And in 2017 Schimmack et al. writes:

Readers of  “Thinking Fast and Slow” should not consider the presented studies as scientific evidence that subtle cues in their environment can have strong effects on their behavior outside their awareness.

In 2017 Kahneman replies and agrees.
He writes:

I placed too much faith in underpowered studies

And he goes on:

I knew, of course, that the results of priming studies were based on small samples, that the effect sizes were perhaps implausibly large, and that no single study was conclusive on its own.
What impressed me was the unanimity and coherence of the results reported by many laboratories. 

And then on the reasons why he fell for it:

However, I now understand that my reasoning was flawed
(…)
Unanimity of underpowered studies provides compelling evidence for the existence of a severe file-drawer problem. 

Basically, Kahneman is saying here that scientific journals have been guilty of confirmation bias and skewed the results towards a major over-representation of social priming.

The Truth

Priming as a general concept is valid.
But subliminal social priming that changes our behavior is much less powerful than originally estimated.

Says Kahneman:

I still believe that actions can be primed, sometimes even by stimuli of which the person is unaware.
There is adequate evidence for all the building blocks: semantic priming, significant processing of stimuli that are not consciously perceived, and ideo-motor activation.
I see no reason to draw a sharp line between the priming of thoughts and the priming of actions.

But that does not change the fact that subliminal priming in the form that Bargh showed in his original study might not exist at all. 

Another issue with lexical priming is that available studies seem to show that it’s only very short-lived.
So it’s unlikely you could subliminally prime someone and visibly change their behavior in either the medium or long term.

#8. Facial Feedback Hypothesis

You probably heard this one from Tony Robbins and similar self-help gurus.

The “facial feedback hypothesis” says that if you force yourself to smile, you will become happier.

The original experiment in 1988 had research subjects hold a pen in their mouth while watching funny cartoons. 
The subjects who held the pen rated the cartoons significantly funnier than the control groups.

From there, a whole host of implications mushroomed, including the idea that to be happy, you just need to force more smiles.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

A much larger study in 2016, failed to replicate the original findings.

The Truth

The fact that the original study failed does not mean that body movement cannot change how we feel.

It’s indeed not only possible but likely that movement (or lack thereof) affects our mood in a multitude of ways.

The indictment here is for the original “facial feedback experiment”, not the whole idea of body movement. 
So if you’re down don’t force yourself to smile, but do consider a walk in the green side of town.

Or, similar to the argument I make in “self-help myths“, asking yourself questions and forcing yourself to come up with positive answers will also work well (Senay et al., 2010).

And of course, as a sociologist, I can highly recommend this simple solution: people. People and positive relationships are the best things you can do for a happy life (Harvard researchers proved with the longest study of humans’ adult life).

#9. Growth Mindset

A growth mindset says that if you believe you can grow, you will seek and enjoy challenges and, as a consequence, you will grow and expand.

It’s a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy and the opposite is also true: if you believe your traits are unchangeable you will avoid challenges and you will never grow and improve.

Neither Dweck’s TedX Talk nor her book “Mindset” were smash hits among the general public, but they led to major investments and training in schools all around the world.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

Dweck suggests in her original paper that a growth mindset can be taught. 
But Li and Bates’ effort failed to replicate Dweck’s initial results.

Carol Dweck replied that these experiments are difficult to run, but Nick Brown makes a good counterpoint saying that if experiments are so difficult to replicate, why does Dweck think pupils can easily learn a growth mindset from school teachers?

Carol Dweck’s woes run even deeper though.
Nick Brown went over the data and found out that:

• 17 out of 50 GRIM check inconsistencies in the means
• Several numbers were entered incorrectly into the report
• One participant was dropped without any mention of it
• Ambiguous scores were considered 0.5 (ie.: a mark between a 4 and 5 was counted as 4.5)

Brown said Dweck was exemplary in sharing her data and owning up to her mistakes, but doubts remain and Brown himself says he remains skeptical.

An equally troubling issue for Carol Dweck as a scientist is a 2016 paper titled: “What Predicts Children’s Fixed and Growth Intelligence Mind-Sets? Not Their Parents’ Views of Intelligence but Their Parents’ Views of Failure)”.

But when Dweck was questioned about the mismatch between the title and the content, she replied:

We can see how the paper’s title could have been misleading. The paper itself never claims to compare the effect of parents’ attitudes to intelligence with their attitudes to failure and, most important, none of the key findings rest on this.

Dweck said she’s “seriously considering changing the title”, but it raises some question marks. Why mistitling it in the first place?

The Truth

A strategic, well-applied growth mindset is an important building block of personal power.
However, it must be calibrated to the situation and, sometimes, you may also want to hide it when you must instead display authority.

Read more:

• Growth mindset strategies

#10. The 3:1 Happiness Ratio

Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada are popular psychologists in the emerging -or shall we say “exploding”- field of positive psychology.

Martin Seligman, former APA president and best-selling author of “Flourish” went as far as to call her “the genius of the positive psychology movement”.

Of course, that does not say much to me from the moment I noticed how much Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, and Fredrickson enjoy cross-referencing each other.

Why It’s Pop Psychology

The math behind it doesn’t add up, as Brown’s paper shows.

They write:

The lack of relevance of these equations and their incorrect application lead us to conclude that Fredrickson and Losada’s claim to have demonstrated the existence of a critical minimum positivity ratio of 2.9013 is entirely unfounded.

Losada declined to reply while Frederickson’s reply felt like defending the concept while conceding the math might have been wrong.

The Truth

Tipping points beyond which “flourishing” happens are highly unlikely, as Frederickson himself states.

And if there is a tipping point, how could one even generalize to a simple ratio?
How can you generalize without accounting for the severity of thoughts, for example?
Sure the negativity of “I want to kill myself to stop the pain” can’t be the same as “shoot, I didn’t get 1st place this time”, right?

However, the jury is still out on whether the positives need to far outweigh the negatives to be truly happy.
If Gottman’s work is of any help, then that may be the case (Gottman found out that the ratio of positive to negative for a happy relationship is 5:1) 

#11. Grit

This is Angela Duckworth’s “achievement equation”, as taken by her best-selling book “Grit“:

Talent x Effort = Skill 
→
Skill x Effort = Achievement

An “achievement equation” where effort plays the lion’s share was bound to draw attention in the self-help industry that loves a positive ‘can-do’ message (something we agree with).
Duckworth collected awards and delivered a popular TED talk:

Duckworth: (17 million views explaining ‘Grit’)

Why It’s Pop Psychology

Much of Angela Duckworth’s material for her concept of “grit” is based on her research at West Point, where she found out that the “grittiest” cadets were the most likely to get through the course.

How much more likely?

98% of the grittiest cadets made it through the extremely physically and mentally demanding tests (Duckworth stressed how tough it is).
And the rest?
95% of all cadets made it through. 

A modest difference.
But the bigger issue is this:

Grit is Rebranded Conscientiousness

The researchers of this meta-analysis of the grit literature pointed out that grit is, in essence, similar to other psychological traits that have already long been studied and researched.
Ph.D. psychologist Vitelli in Psychology Today expands on simple conscientiousness to also include industriousness, achievement need, and self-control.

With all these well-known psychological traits, was there a need to add a “new” one? 

Jordan Peterson, before becoming famous himself and writing “12 Rules For Life“, wrote on Quora:

Duckworth failed to notice that they had re-invented a very well documented phenomena, that already had a name (and, when they did notice it, failed to produce the appropriate mea culpas. Not one of psychology’s brighter moments).
A physicists who “re-discovered” iron and named it melignite or something equivalent would be immediately revealed as ignorant or manipulative (or, more likely, as ignorant and manipulative), and then taunted out of the field.
Duckworth? She received a MacArthur Genius grant for her trouble. 
(…)
It’s crooked psychology.

Crede commented that “grit” and “conscientiousness” are so closely interlinked that “grit” is a case of old wine in a new bottle.

Duckworth later stated that she likes to think of “grit” as a member of the conscientiousness family but with its own predictive power. 
But even that has been called into question.

Two different studies (with 213 students and 498 students) found conscientiousness to be highly predictive of results but not grit.

But most of all, a meta-study from 88 different and independent samples shows that grit is “only moderately correlated with performance”.

Grit is Genetically Inherited

While much of the success behind the concept of “grit” stems from the idea that it defies “talent” and you can cultivate it, a recent study in the UK shows that grit might be a highly inheritable trait.

Analyze if Persisting Makes Sense

As Bazelais noticed in his own study, which failed to replicate grit (Bazelais et al., 2016), tenacity might even be counter-productive when results are not forthcoming.
At that point, you might be better off cutting your losses and moving on to something else.

Blindly following the ethos of “grit” might compound loss aversion bias to achieve even bigger… Losses.

Grit is important. It’s crucial. But should always be mixed with a critical analysis of your results.

The Truth

Grit succeeded because it was framed as empowerment for the ambitious underdogs, a message we support.
Duckworth is quoted in this New York Times interview saying that “grit beats the pants off I.Q.

Grit beats the pants off I.Q.
-Angela Duckwort

This is where we diverge.
Personal power shouldn’t be used to downplay the equally important role of other variables. That’s not empowerment, it’s twisting reality. And we find it babying towards the audience: an empowered and agentic audience needs truth first to succeed in the world.