Outer topic 13 of 13
How Psychology Cue is written
Psychology Cue publishes explanations of psychological research for a general audience, on this site and on YouTube. Every factual claim carries an evidence label, every page names the studies it relies on, and pages get rewritten when the evidence moves.
What we publish and who it is for
The audience is people who came across a psychology claim somewhere and want to know whether it is true. That includes students, writers, people building content of their own, and anyone who has argued with a friend about the Stanford Prison Experiment. The material sits between a news article and a textbook: more detail than a summary, less than a literature review, with the sources named so you can go further.
The channel covers the same topics in short video form and links back to the written guide for each one. Both are maintained by the same team, which is the point of running them together.
How evidence gets graded
Three labels appear throughout the site.
- Replicated means the finding has support from a meta-analysis, a multi-lab replication project, or several independent adequately powered studies pointing the same way.
- Contested means the effect appears real but its size, mechanism or generality is still argued over in the literature. Loss aversion and the Dunning-Kruger effect both sit here.
- Debunked means a direct replication attempt failed, the original data were unsound, or the popular claim was never what the study showed. Learning styles and power posing sit here.
Where a label is a judgement call, the page says so in the text rather than hiding it behind the badge.
Sources we rely on
Primary papers first, then meta-analyses and systematic reviews, then the large replication projects: the Open Science Collaboration's 2015 report, the Many Labs projects, and the registered replication reports published in Perspectives on Psychological Science. Clinical statements come from bodies like the American Psychological Association, NICE in the UK, and the World Health Organization. Press releases and secondary coverage are used for context only, never as the evidence for a claim.
Corrections
When a finding changes status, the page changes with it. We rewrite the section, move the label, update the modification date, and keep an account of why the old version was believed. Deleting a mistake quietly makes the site less useful than admitting it, because the history of how a wrong idea spread is often the more interesting story. Corrections can be sent through the channel.
Limits
This is educational writing about research. It is not therapy, not diagnosis, and not a substitute for a clinician who can assess your situation. Psychology research also runs heavily on samples of university students in wealthy Western countries, a bias Joseph Henrich and colleagues named WEIRD in 2010, so findings from those samples may not generalise. Where a result comes from a narrow sample, the page says so.
Watch this on the channelThe channel publishes the video version of these guides, with sources shown on screen.
Open Psychology Cue on YouTubeQuestions people ask about this topic
Who writes Psychology Cue?
The site is written and edited by the Psychology Cue editorial team, working from primary papers, meta-analyses and replication reports, with the review date shown in the footer of every page.
Is Psychology Cue medical advice?
No. Everything here is general education about psychological research and does not diagnose, treat or replace assessment by a qualified clinician.
How do you decide what counts as replicated?
A claim needs support from a meta-analysis, a multi-laboratory replication, or several independent adequately powered studies pointing the same way. One famous study is never enough.
What happens when a claim on the site turns out to be wrong?
The page is rewritten rather than deleted, the label changes, the modification date updates, and the page explains why the original claim was believed.