I'd be careful with the assertion that some fields are more prone to scientific misconduct than others. To make that claim I would like to see a study comparing different fields, while keeping, e.g., the stage of the researchers (PhD student, PostDoc, Professor) comparable. And let's hope that this study about data falsification does not contain data falsification.
Then there's the stage of the discussion about scientific misconduct. Psychology and other disciplines had a couple of highly visible cases of scientific misconduct (e.g., Stapel). They put the discipline, or at least the subdiscipline (social psychology) in question. So now there are people actively looking for ways to detect misconduct, e.g., by looking for statistical inconsistencies that happen when people fake data. So it might just be that a field is more sensitive to the issue and thus more prone to detect cases. The current "house-cleaning" might expose the misconduct that still lies hidden in other domains.
But there also might be differences between fields because it might be easier to get away with these forms of misconduct in some compared to others. Looking at the fraud triangle (see posting here, my blog), you need a motive/pressure, a rationalization and the opportunity to commit fraud.
- Motive: I know no scientific field that isn't dominated by publish or perish, so there's a motive. In some fields you can make a lot of money or the alternatives to an academic career look especially bleak (after all, it's impossible for all PhDs/PostDocs to stay in Academia, even if all were excellent researchers). And while all research is risky (no-one can guarantee that your experiments work), some domains may have a higher failure rate. So motive might differ.
- Rationalization: The rationalization might be higher in more fuzzy/soft domains, where it might be easier to convince yourself that the theory is sound, but the data is skewed (so many possibly confounding variables). There might also be "personal experience" as a bias, e.g., when it comes to evaluating therapies ("But I know that it works, I have seen it.").
- Opportunity: Also the opportunity might be higher in some fields where you alone have access to the data and it's virtually impossible to reproduce exactly the same results (again, confounding variables). Not to mention that replications are rare, esp. with more "interesting but not so relevant" topics.
So while it's an interesting question, it's also a highly complex issue. And there might even be the desire to point to other disciplines to avoid addressing the issue oneself ("misconduct never happens in science ... in our domain ... in our sub-domain ... at our institute ... in our workgroup ..."). Instead, science needs better controls for scientific misconduct, no matter the discipline.
Edit: P.S.: As for the flyer highlighting misconduct in (clinical) psychology -- well, consider the source. ;-)