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 (only a much smaller version survived).

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).

Timeline of evidence (2007–2018)
  1. 2007 · Lieberman et al. (the original): naming a feeling lowered threat-area activity
  2. 2018 · Torre & Lieberman (a review of many studies, the latest): review: real but modest, stronger in the lab

Last reviewed October 2026

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: Followed up in further studies (for example Moser et al. 2017, which saw calmer brain responses), many of them from the original group; the effect is small and depends on the situation.

Timeline of evidence (2014–2017)
  1. 2014 · Kross et al. (the original): distanced self-talk lowered stress before a task
  2. 2017 · Moser et al. (a replication, the latest): calmer brain responses; a small effect

Last reviewed October 2026

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. When 17 labs ran the pen version carefully in 2016, it did not show up. In 2022 a bigger study (the Many Smiles Collaboration: 3,878 people in 19 countries) found the pen version inconclusive again, but people who copied a smile or posed one on purpose felt a little happier. The pen headline did not survive; a smaller claim did.

Replication: Wagenmakers et al. 2016 (17 labs): no pen effect. Coles et al. 2022 (Many Smiles, Nature Human Behaviour): the pen method inconclusive; posed and copied smiles, a small effect. The famous version failed; a smaller one held up.

Timeline of evidence (1988–2022)
  1. 1988 · Strack et al. (the original): a pen-held smile made cartoons funnier
  2. 2016 · Wagenmakers et al. (a replication): 17 labs: no pen effect
  3. 2022 · Coles et al. (a replication, the latest): pen inconclusive; posed smiles, a small effect

Last reviewed October 2026

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).

Timeline of evidence (2010–2018)
  1. 2010 · Jamieson et al. (the original): reframing a racing heart helped performance
  2. 2018 · Jamieson (a review of many studies, the latest): review: moderate support for the core reframe

Last reviewed October 2026

Your granularity index

held up well

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

The study: Barrett et al. 2001 — "emotional granularity": distinguishing feelings finely is linked to better regulation.

What we know now: A little better, on average: 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: A link seen again and again, though it is a link, not proof that one causes the other. One of the better-replicated ideas here — precision, not quantity, is what matters (the fit-over-count rule).

Last reviewed October 2026

Stand like a superhero

did not hold up

“Two minutes in a "power pose" changes your hormones and makes you bolder.”

The study: Carney, Cuddy & Yap 2010 — expansive poses were reported to raise testosterone, lower cortisol and increase risk-taking.

What we know now: Not the hormones, and not the boldness: a much larger repeat found no change in either. People did report feeling a little more powerful afterwards.

Replication: Ranehill et al. 2015 (about 200 people) found no hormone or risk-taking effect; the first author, Dana Carney, said in 2016 she no longer believed the effect was real.

Timeline of evidence (2010–2016)
  1. 2010 · Carney, Cuddy & Yap (the original): poses were reported to shift hormones and risk-taking
  2. 2015 · Ranehill et al. (a replication): about 200 people: no hormone or risk effect
  3. 2016 · Carney (a statement, not a study, the latest): the first author said she no longer believed the effect

Last reviewed October 2026

Willpower runs out

did not hold up

“Self-control is a fuel tank: use some on one task and you have less for the next.”

The study: Baumeister et al. 1998 — people who resisted cookies (and ate radishes) gave up sooner on a hard puzzle afterwards.

What we know now: When many labs ran the same careful test, the drain all but disappeared. Getting tired is real; a measurable "willpower tank" that empties is not well supported.

Replication: Two registered multi-lab replications — Hagger et al. 2016 (23 labs) and Vohs et al. 2021 (36 labs) — found an effect close to zero.

Timeline of evidence (1998–2021)
  1. 1998 · Baumeister et al. (the original): resisting cookies led to giving up sooner
  2. 2016 · Hagger et al. (a replication): 23 labs: close to zero
  3. 2021 · Vohs et al. (a replication, the latest): 36 labs: close to zero

Last reviewed October 2026

Three good things

held up partly

“Writing down what you are grateful for makes you happier.”

The study: Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson 2005 — writing three things that went well each day, and why, for a week; Emmons & McCullough 2003 had found a weekly gratitude list lifted how people felt about their lives.

What we know now: A little. Across many studies the lift is small, and smaller still when compared with another pleasant writing task rather than with doing nothing.

Replication: Meta-analyses (Davis et al. 2016; Cregg & Cheavens 2021) find small benefits for wellbeing and low mood — real, but modest.

Timeline of evidence (2003–2021)
  1. 2003 · Emmons & McCullough (the original): a weekly gratitude list lifted life ratings
  2. 2016 · Davis et al. (a review of many studies): meta-analysis: small benefits
  3. 2021 · Cregg & Cheavens (a review of many studies, the latest): meta-analysis: small benefits for low mood

Last reviewed October 2026

Let it all out

did not hold up

“Hitting a pillow or shouting gets anger out of your system.”

The study: The old "catharsis" idea; tested by Bushman 2002 — people hit a punching bag while thinking about the person who annoyed them.

What we know now: It did not go down: people who vented that way stayed angrier and acted more aggressively than people who sat quietly for two minutes.

Replication: The "let it out" headline is not supported: Bushman 2002 and a 2024 review of 154 studies (Kjærvik & Bushman) found that arousing venting does not reduce anger, while calming activities do.

Timeline of evidence (2002–2024)
  1. 2002 · Bushman (the original): hitting a bag while angry did not reduce anger
  2. 2024 · Kjærvik & Bushman (a review of many studies, the latest): review of 154 studies: venting does not calm anger

Last reviewed October 2026

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.