Psychology in Everyday Life: The Psych Files

What is embodied cognition, and did it survive the replication crisis? This episode of The Psych Files examines the famous embodied cognition and social priming studies — power posing, the hot coffee study, the Macbeth effect, the facial feedback (pen-in-the-teeth) study, elderly priming, and the action-sentence compatibility effect — and the large-scale replication studies that failed to reproduce them. Learn how small samples, publication bias, researcher degrees of freedom, and experimenter expectancy effects produced findings that later evaporated, and how psychology responded with pre-registration, multi-lab replications, and adversarial collaborations like the Many Smiles project. A clear, sourced guide to the replication crisis in psychology for students, teachers, and anyone who watched the power posing TED talk and wondered what happened next.

This episode looks at why comic timing works, using a 2026 study from Yuxi Ma, Yongqian Peng, and colleagues at Peking University, presented at the Cognitive Science Society. The researchers analyzed 828 professional stand-up sets from Chinese comedy competitions, about 86 hours of material, and measured what actually predicted the laughs: the content of each line, or the delivery. Timing won, and not by a little. The length of a comedian's pauses and how much those pauses varied beat every content measure, and slower delivery helped rather than hurt. The reason comes down to how the brain handles expectations: a setup builds a prediction (assimilation), the punchline breaks it and forces a fast mental revision (accommodation), and the pause gives you time to encode the setup so the twist lands harder, with the payoff running partly on dopamine. The most useful finding is that top comedians stretch the pause before a big laugh far more than weaker ones do, which means timing is a trainable skill, not a mysterious gift. The practical takeaway for anyone telling a story, giving a toast, or teaching a class is simple: set your best line up clearly, then stop, and let the silence sit a beat longer than feels comfortable, because that pause is you loading the spring.

Most of us who use AI tools live with a quiet contradiction: the tools are genuinely useful, and using them raises real ethical problems — work that might have gone to a person, the energy and water that data centers consume, and models trained on creators' content that was never paid for. This episode of The Psych Files sits in that uncomfortable middle and asks what psychology can tell us about it, drawing on Festinger's cognitive dissonance, the trivialization research of Simon, Greenberg, and Brehm, Bandura's moral disengagement, and Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning to show how we quietly talk ourselves into staying comfortable. Along the way Michael turns the lens on himself — as someone whose own YouTube videos have been scraped to train these systems — weighs whether local AI models actually resolve any of the ethical problems, and lands on the idea that the discomfort may be worth keeping rather than rushing to explain away.

Why did more than a dozen people walk past Steven McCluskey as he lay trapped in a Boston subway escalator? On the surface it seems to refute the newest research on bystander intervention — Richard Philpot's cross-national CCTV study showing that at least one bystander helps in roughly nine out of ten public conflicts. In this episode of The Psych Files, Michael Britt explains why this tragic case doesn't contradict that finding at all. The key is ambiguity: Philpot studied public conflicts, which are loud and unmistakable, while a still figure in a transit station is exactly the ambiguous situation where the classic bystander research — John Darley and Bibb Latané's work on interpreting the emergency, pluralistic ignorance, and diffusion of responsibility — predicts that helping breaks down. Michael also unpacks why a larger crowd raises the odds of help in clear situations but can lower them in ambiguous ones, why the situational explanation is more useful than blaming bad character, and the specific, research-backed steps that make you more likely to act. A content note: this episode describes a real death. A social psychology episode for students, teachers, and anyone who has ever wondered whether they would step in.

Why would anyone step out of an airplane — and why, after a fatal accident, would they go back up the very next day? In this episode I talk through that question using a recent New York Times feature on a brutal weekend in extreme sports, paired with my own interview with Dr. Kenneth Carter of Emory University, author of Buzz. It turns out "adrenaline junkie" mostly gets it wrong. The trait at the center of this is sensation seeking, and high sensation seekers actually process risk differently — running on less of the stress hormone cortisol and more dopamine — so the moment that floods most of us with panic gives them clarity instead. I break down Marvin Zuckerman's four components of the trait, explain why it's tied to openness but surprisingly not to extraversion, share my own (low) score on Carter's scale, and land on the practical point Carter made to me: the danger usually isn't the activity itself, it's doing it impulsively — so look before you leap, especially if you're leaping off a bridge.