Did It Replicate?

A single study is a starting question, not a proven fact. A finding “replicates” when other labs, running it carefully, get the same result. Some of psychology’s most famous emotion findings held up — and one famous one did not.

Name it to tame it

held up partly

“Putting a feeling into words makes it smaller.”

The study: Lieberman et al. 2007 — labelling a feeling lowered activity in the brain's threat area.

What we know now: Naming a feeling does lower its heat — but by a SMALL amount, and the effect is clearer in a scanner than in everyday life.

Replication: Real but modest; lab effects are more reliable than field ones (Torre & Lieberman 2018 review).

Talk to yourself by name

held up partly

“Saying "You've got this, [your name]" beats saying "I've got this".”

The study: Kross et al. 2014 — third-person / distanced self-talk lowered stress before a task.

What we know now: Distanced self-talk gives people a bit more calm and steadier performance under stress — a small-to-moderate effect.

Replication: Promising and repeated in several labs, but the effect is small and context-dependent.

The pen in your teeth

did not hold up

“Holding a pen in your teeth (a forced smile) makes things feel funnier.”

The study: Strack et al. 1988 — a pen held to force a smile made cartoons seem funnier.

What we know now: This is the famous one — and when 17 labs ran it carefully in 2016, the effect DID NOT show up. The headline did not survive.

Replication: A 17-lab Registered Replication (Wagenmakers et al. 2016) found no effect — the textbook case of a famous finding that failed to replicate.

Nerves are excitement

held up partly

“Telling yourself "I'm excited" beats "calm down" before something big.”

The study: Brooks 2014; Jamieson et al. 2010 — reframing a racing heart as helpful energy improved performance.

What we know now: Reframing the SAME racing heart as excitement (not fear) tends to help — your body's energy is the same, the story you tell about it isn't.

Replication: Repeated with moderate support; the "this is my body helping me" reframe is the reliable core (Jamieson 2018 review).

Your granularity index

held up well

“People who use more precise feeling words cope better.”

The study: Barrett et al. — "emotional granularity": distinguishing feelings finely is linked to better regulation.

What we know now: Higher granularity (using precise, distinct words — not more words for the sake of it) is linked with steadier coping. It is a skill you can grow, not a score you are stuck with.

Replication: One of the better-replicated ideas here — precision, not quantity, is what matters (the fit-over-count rule).

Why this matters

“Held up well / partly / did not hold up” is not a ranking of what you should do — it is an honest read of the evidence. The useful move with any psychology headline is neither “trust it” nor “trash it all” — it is asking whether it replicated. That in-between is the whole skill.