About

Every day, businesses make decisions based on trends, hunches, or borrowed wisdom. We shine a light on what’s often overlooked: the growing body of psychological research that explains why people buy, decide, and lead the way they do. Our mission is to bring this evidence out of the shadows and into practical use for sales, marketing, and leadership professionals.

As part of the trusted PsyPost Media Inc. network, Psychology of Selling connects the academic and business communities. We translate peer-reviewed findings into actionable insights that help professionals make smarter, more ethical, and more sustainable decisions. Beyond research summaries, we also track relevant business news that aligns with behavioral science — offering readers both data-driven evidence and real-world context.

Our Mission

We exist to bridge the gap between the lab and the boardroom. By grounding business strategy in psychological science, we empower professionals to communicate more effectively, influence responsibly, and design systems that actually work — not just sound good.

What We Do

We read the research so you don’t have to. Our team reviews peer-reviewed studies, assesses their real-world relevance, and translates complex findings into clear, practical insights. Each article includes:

• A brief summary of the study and its publication source.
• A plain-language breakdown of methods and results.
• Evidence-based takeaways for professionals and decision-makers.
• A concise note on limitations and remaining questions.

We also curate current business and market developments that illustrate how psychological principles play out in real time — from leadership trends to consumer behavior and workplace culture.

The Founder

Eric Dolan

The founder of PsyPost.org, Eric is a behavioral science journalist with over 15 years of experience bridging the gap between academic journals and public understanding. He leads the publication’s research and writing operations, applying rigorous editorial standards to translate complex peer-reviewed studies into clear, actionable intelligence for professionals. Psychology of Selling is a natural extension of PsyPost due to the overlap between psychology, the sales process, and how human beings interact.

Our Editorial Standards

Our aim is to produce reporting that readers can rely on when they want to move from intuition to evidence. To that end, we follow a set of practical procedures intended to make our coverage accurate, balanced, and easy to verify. Below we expand each of the core commitments and explain what readers can expect in practice.

Evidence-based reporting

We prioritize articles grounded in peer-reviewed literature because peer review tends to provide a baseline level of methodological scrutiny. When available, we favor meta-analyses and large, well-powered studies because they provide stronger evidence about whether an effect is robust. Preprints and conference papers are not excluded, but when we discuss them we explicitly label the work as preliminary and indicate that the findings await peer review. Every article links to the original source whenever possible so readers can inspect the study directly. If we rely on secondary summaries or press releases, we say so and link to the primary research.

Faithful representation of the research

We aim to describe what studies actually did and what their results suggest, not to oversell tentative findings. Typical elements we report are study design (for example, experiment or survey), sample characteristics, sample size, and the main outcomes reported by authors. Where available, we include effect size measures or other indicators that help readers judge the magnitude of an effect. We distinguish correlational findings from causal claims. Limitations reported by the original authors are included, and we add context about common methodological issues that tend to influence interpretation, such as selection bias or low statistical power.

Editorial review and quality control

Articles undergo layers of review before publication. A writer prepares the initial draft and compiles supporting citations. That draft is then reviewed by an editor who checks that the study is represented accurately and that practical takeaways do not overstate the evidence. For pieces with substantial methodological content, we seek review from a subject-matter reviewer with relevant expertise to flag misinterpretations or important omissions. Fact-checking verifies citations, quoted material, and any numeric claims. The review process also examines potential spin or selective emphasis so that our coverage presents balanced implications and alternative explanations where they are relevant.

Conflicts, sponsorships, and corrections

We disclose relevant partnerships, sponsorships, and any financial relationships that could reasonably be seen to affect coverage. Sponsored content or advertorial material is labeled clearly so readers can distinguish editorial reporting from paid material. Authors and reviewers are asked to declare conflicts of interest that relate to the topic under discussion. If a factual error or material misinterpretation is identified after publication, we correct the item and publish a correction note that explains what changed and why. Readers may report potential errors, request source documents, or ask for clarifications by contacting [email protected]. We take such reports seriously and update the public record when warranted.

Openness and reproducibility practices

When studies provide open data or code, we indicate that and link to the materials. When data are not available, we note this fact so readers understand any limitations to independent verification. We also explain our criteria for selecting research to cover, including why a study was chosen and what kinds of follow-up evidence would tend to strengthen or weaken the conclusions.

If you have questions about a specific article, want the original sources, or believe we should correct something, please contact [email protected]. We welcome scrutiny; transparent debate is one of the best ways to improve both reporting and practice.