7 Times Scientific Journals Retracted Mental Health Studies Without Warning
In the world of science, trust is paramount. We rely on peer-reviewed research from reputable journals to inform our understanding of health and medicine. However, this system is not infallible. Sometimes, journals pull studies from the scientific record through a process called retraction. Retractions happen for many reasons, from honest errors to outright fraud. Furthermore, they can have a seismic impact, especially in mental health. When someone exposes flawed foundational research, it can shake public trust and, consequently, force scientists to rethink entire theories. Here are seven instances where journals retracted mental health studies, sending shockwaves through the community.
1. The MMR Vaccine and Autism Link (The Lancet, 2010)
Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet is perhaps the most infamous retracted study. It suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism. The study was small, and its design was poor. Nevertheless, it sparked a global panic and fueled a powerful anti-vaccine movement that persists today. After an investigation revealed data manipulation and ethical violations, The Lancet fully retracted the paper in 2010. This retraction came years after the fraud did its damage; ultimately, it highlights the danger of such research.
2. Social Priming and the “Professor” Study (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012)
A foundational 1998 study on “social priming” rocked the field of social psychology. The study failed to replicate, so the journal ultimately retracted it. The original research claimed that thinking about “professors” improved trivia test performance. This suggested that unconscious cues could influence behavior. In fact, this idea became a textbook example of priming. However, subsequent, more rigorous attempts to replicate the findings failed completely, leading to widespread doubt about the original research. This retraction contributed to a larger “replication crisis,” which forced the field to re-evaluate its methods.
3. The Power Pose Study (Psychological Science, 2016 – Expression of Concern)
The “power pose” theory, popularized by a 2010 study and a viral TED Talk by Amy Cuddy, claimed that adopting confident body postures could change hormone levels and make people feel more powerful. Millions embraced the idea of “faking it ’til you make it” by striking a pose before big meetings. However, one of the study’s own co-authors later publicly disavowed the hormonal findings, stating the effects were not real. While not a full retraction, the journal issued a prominent “Expression of Concern,” and the failure to replicate the core claims of this retracted study served as a high-profile cautionary tale about sensational science.
4. Antidepressants and Adolescent Suicide Risk (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2001/2015)
“Study 329” was an influential 2001 industry-funded study that concluded the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) was safe and effective for treating depression in adolescents. The study was used to promote the drug’s use in younger populations worldwide. However, years later, a re-analysis of the original data, published in 2015, found the exact opposite: the drug was not effective and was associated with an increased risk of harm, including suicidal thoughts. This led to calls for the original paper to be retracted for misrepresenting its data, exposing how corporate influence can corrupt the scientific record and endanger patients.
5. LaCour’s Study on Changing Minds on Gay Marriage (Science, 2015)
In 2014, a groundbreaking political science study published in Science claimed that a short conversation with a gay canvasser could durably change a person’s views on same-sex marriage. The study was hailed as a landmark finding on the nature of persuasion. However, graduate students who tried to replicate the work discovered irregularities in the data. An investigation revealed that the study’s author, Michael LaCour, had fabricated the entire dataset. The journal issued a swift retraction, leaving a scar on the field and serving as a stark reminder of the potential for outright fraud in academia.
6. The “Broken Windows” Policing Theory Study (American Sociological Review, 2019)
The “Broken Windows” theory, which posits that visible signs of neighborhood disorder encourage more serious crime, has heavily influenced policing strategies for decades. A key 2008 study seemed to provide strong empirical support for this idea. However, in 2019, the journal retracted the study after the original authors discovered a significant coding error in their own analysis. When corrected, the statistical evidence supporting the theory vanished. This retraction of a foundational study called into question the aggressive policing tactics that were justified by its flawed conclusions for over a decade.
7. Stress and Gene Expression (Nature Neuroscience, 2009/2010)
A highly technical but influential study on mice seemed to show that chronic stress could cause heritable changes to gene expression, affecting the anxiety levels of offspring. This provided a potential mechanism for how trauma could be passed down through generations. However, other labs were unable to replicate the findings, and eventually, the original authors retracted the paper in 2010. They stated that they could not reproduce their own initial results, citing potential technical artifacts. This case of retracted studies showed how even well-meaning scientists can get it wrong, and the importance of self-correction in the scientific process.
Science Corrects Itself, But Slowly
The process of retracting a study is a sign that science is working, even if it does so imperfectly and often slowly. These cases of retracted studies reveal the vulnerabilities in our system of knowledge creation, from human error and unconscious bias to outright fraud and corporate influence. They underscore the critical need for transparency, data sharing, and a healthy skepticism toward even the most celebrated scientific claims. For the public, it is a reminder that science is a process of discovery, not a collection of immutable facts.
Does learning about retracted studies change how you view scientific research? Share your thoughts below.
Read More:
Why Some Workplaces Hide Mental Health Issues by Rebranding Them
Why More Men Are Opening Up About Mental Health—And Why That Matters
