The Candy Hierarchy 2015: your essential guide to Halloween treats


(View this graphic as a huge PDF)


It’s always about the candy. The Candy Hierarchy is full up with this “joy induction” measurement, this thing that the co-principle investigators (PIs) Cohen and Ng go on about each year. From 2006 to 2013, the PIs conducted a longitudinal study, more or less guided by PI expertise and whim (or whimsical expertise) and possible corporation sponsorship. Research by others in the field sought to refute the findings, obviously unsuccessfully. Yet the PIs were so moved by the yearly outpouring of commentary that they opened up the study to additional data sources, namely people. People who the PIs surveyed. Or is it whom? Anyway, nobody cares - this is about sugar. The 2014 Candy Hierarchy was thus defined by data analysis of 43,767 votes obtained from 1286 individuals. Good for them. But not good enough for science. Because the 2015 Candy Hierarchy doubled down and reworked the whole thing with all kinds of more stuff. This hierarchy therefore presents the newly calculated 2015 rankings, based on a total of 518,605 data points obtained from 5459 individuals in a randomized fashion. It also provides the raw data from a secondary study that sought to understand the character of the survey takers, or rather how character affects joy induction. It’s all in there, just go check out the figures. TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS MORNING’S CONFERENCE PROCEEDING DISCUSSION, WITH DR. COHEN AND DR. NG.

BC: Don’t you love how they call us Dr.?

DN: I don’t mind. Read the rest

The Candy Hierarchy, 2014

David Ng and Ben Cohen performed acts of science (realistic ones) in order to determine, once and for all, a true and empirical understanding of which Halloween candies induce the most joy and despair. With more than 40,000 of your votes duly recorded, the results below are indisputably unassailable.

The Candy Hierarchy (2011)

@import url(; #footnotes { width:80%;padding:20px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:20px auto; max-width:700px; border-top:1px solid silver; } #footnotes p { font-size:14px; font-style:italic; } #chart { border:4px double orange; width:80%;padding:0px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:10px auto; text-align:center; max-width:700px; } #chart a{ text-decoration:none; color:brown; } #chart .h1 { font-family:Rokkitt, "Hoefler Text", Georgia, serif; font-weight:800; font-size:20px; margin:1em auto 0px auto;text-transform:uppercase; } #chart p { font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", Georgia, serif; margin:0px auto 1em auto; max-width:640px; line-height:1.3em; } sup, sub { vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; top: -0.4em; }

Once again with Halloween upon us, it’s time to revisit candy culture, or more specifically, a system that aims to rank it. Like before, the mechanism to do this would be according to, well, let’s just call it "joy induction."

This hierarchy actually began in 2006 as the work of a friend and colleague, Ben Cohen. Ben is an environmental historian over at Lafayette College, but in a previous life, he and I use to blog together. This partnership happened because of our backgrounds publishing science humor, and so in some respects, this "Candy Hierarchy" is just another creative juncture. However, since publishing the 2010 version at Boing Boing, we received such amazing feedback from the community, I thought it would be great to continue this tradition and allow even more kickass "peer review" into guide the rankings.

As always, I’m aware that: (1) some people will still be deeply offended by the rankings; (2) because the new rankings tried very hard to incorporate the feedback, you now know that we were serious about the potential for readers to shift the hierarchy year to year; and (3) above it all, we can all hopefully agree that the process of peer review is just kickass anyway. Read the rest