Our Editorial Principles
The rules we hold ourselves to, stated plainly, so you know exactly what kind of source this is.
We start with published research, not with a conclusion
Every article on this site begins with a piece of peer-reviewed work. That might be a study from a journal of developmental psychology, a paper from a behavioural economics research group, or a meta-analysis of multiple experiments on financial decision-making. The research comes first. We don't start with a belief about why people spend the way they do and then find studies to support it.
This distinction matters. A great deal of popular writing about money psychology works backward from an appealing idea. We work forward from evidence. It's a slower process and it sometimes leads to less tidy conclusions, but it's more honest.
We represent findings accurately, including their limits
Research findings are not universal laws. A study conducted with a sample of American university students may tell us something interesting about human psychology, but it may not generalise to every culture, age group, or socioeconomic context. We note these limitations.
We also take replication seriously. When a finding has been challenged by subsequent studies, or when there is genuine scientific disagreement about what the evidence shows, we represent that complexity rather than presenting a contested finding as settled fact. Science is a process, not a product.
This is not financial advice
We say this clearly and we mean it. Understanding the psychological origins of a spending pattern is not the same as knowing what you should do with your money. Those are different questions requiring different expertise. Nothing on this site should be treated as guidance on savings, investment, debt management, or any other financial decision.
If you are facing financial difficulties, a regulated financial advisor or a debt support service is the appropriate resource. We provide information about how certain money behaviours develop and what research says about their psychological underpinnings. That is the boundary.
This is not therapy
Psychological research and therapeutic practice are related but separate fields. Reading about the research basis for a pattern does not constitute treatment for that pattern. We do not offer exercises, interventions, or techniques intended to change behaviour.
What we offer is explanation and context. Many people find that understanding why they behave in certain ways is valuable in itself. But if you are experiencing distress related to money, anxiety, compulsive behaviour, or anything that significantly affects your wellbeing or relationships, a qualified mental health professional is the right person to speak to.
We do not personalise or prescribe
The articles here describe patterns that researchers have identified and studied. They do not diagnose individual readers. The same behaviour can arise from very different origins in different people, and the same research finding can map onto lived experience in many different ways.
Our writing invites reflection. It does not tell you what your behaviour means or what you should do about it. The moment a piece of writing crosses from informing to prescribing, it has left the scope of this blog.
We name our sources
Where we reference a specific study or a body of research, we name it. We do not gesture vaguely at "research" or "studies show" without giving readers the means to find the source material themselves. You should be able to go and read what we read.
We do not have academic affiliations and we are not publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. We are writers and researchers producing accessible content about behavioural science. That context is worth knowing.
Corrections and updates
When an article contains an error or when the underlying research it draws on has been significantly updated, revised, or retracted, we update the article and note the change. We do not quietly delete or rewrite without acknowledgement. Getting things wrong is part of writing about a complex field. Acknowledging it is a matter of basic integrity.
If you believe an article contains an error, you can contact us at [email protected]. We read all correspondence and take corrections seriously.