Sign in

Bastian Jaeger

@bxjaeger.bsky.social
996 followers 542 following 366 posts

Assistant Professor @ Tilburg University 🇳🇱 ❤️🧠Moral Psychology & Altruism 🌚🌝First impressions & Social biases 🔬📊Meta-science

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
New preprint! 🎉 I analysed 1660 papers from 4 psychology journals and found materials sharing went from 9% of papers in 2015 to 82% in 2025, and these materials *do* get downloaded — a median of 135 times each. BUT shared code is often hard to run. doi.org/10.31234/osf... Let's walk through it 🧵
Two-panel figure. Panel a is a flow diagram tracking 1,611 empirical psychology articles from publication year (545 in 2015, 552 in 2020, 514 in 2025) to repository-link type: 785 link an OSF project, 85 link another platform, and 741 link no repository. Of those with an OSF link, download counts were retrieved for 670 and not retrieved for 115. Panel b is a line chart of the share of empirical papers linking OSF across 2015, 2020 and 2025. The overall rate, shown as a dashed black line, rises from 9% to 57% to 82%. All four journals rise steeply and end close together: Psychological Science 92%, JESP 89%, JML 83%, Cognition 76%, with Psychological Science highest throughout.Three-panel figure. Panel a: ridgeline plot of downloads per file by material type on a log scale, with the percentage never downloaded labelled for each — archive 16% of 545 files, documents 20% of 2,970, code 12% of 3,471, other 17% of 1,646, data 21% of 10,051, media 35% of 2,120, images 35% of 4,102. Most files cluster between 1 and 10 downloads, with long right tails past 100. Panel b: ridgeline plot of downloads per paper by journal, log scale, with dashed median lines; Psychological Science is highest, then JESP, JML and Cognition. Panel c: stacked bars showing, for documents, data and code separately, the share of papers by download band (0, 1–10, 11–100, more than 100) in 2015, 2020 and 2025. The share exceeding 100 downloads falls sharply over time in all three types, from roughly two-thirds in 2015 to a quarter or less in 2025, as the 1–10 band grows.Four-panel figure. Panel a: statistical languages detected among 333 papers with retrievable code — R 88%, SPSS 12%, Stata 4%, SAS 1%. Panel b: code red flags among those 333 papers — 34% hard-code an absolute path, 40% reference a missing file — above documentation among 672 OSF-linked papers — 21% have a README, 30% are documented by README, description or wiki. Panel c: among 562 Elsevier papers with no repository link, 44% (245) host at least one journal supplementary file but only 14% (77) host data, code or an archive. Panel d: composition of those 448 hosted files — documents 52%, data 21%, media 9%, other 7%, archive 6%, code 3%, images 1%. The code panels are green, the journal-supplement panels blue.Coefficient plot (download predictors)

Dot-and-whisker plot of three standardised predictors of OSF download volume, each with a 95% confidence interval. Repository size (number of files) has the largest effect at about 0.76, citations about 0.38, and altmetric attention about 0.12. All three intervals sit entirely above zero, so each predicts more downloads, with repository size roughly twice the effect of citations and six times that of attention. X-axis: standardised effect, −0.2 to 1.0.
4264111
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Thomas Talhelm @thomastalhelm.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
🚨 It's published! 🚨 This is the big one. 100 cultures, 12,000 people, 108 researchers. Why people (and our most-used surveys) get collectivism wrong and how to fix it. www.nature.com/articles/s41... @natureportfolio.nature.com
312460
Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
Now out at EJSP: We explored cultural & individual differences in the hierarchy of moral concern across student samples from 41 cultural groups (n >6500). doi.org/10.1002/ejsp...
165
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Leonid Schneider @forbetterscience.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
Congratulations to Elsevier on this insanity my colleague found. Is anything in this clinical trial from Spain and UK real? www.cell.com/the-innovati...
cell.com
Quantum evidence of nonlocal consciousness during clinical death
If consciousness can operate under quantum principles, then the boundaries between life, death, and cognition are far more permeable than current science allows. In the first large-scale, randomized, ...
135423
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Mark Thornton @markthornton.bsky.social · 08/09/2026
Excited to share this new preprint from @lindseytepfer.bsky.social, @chujunlin.bsky.social, and me, in which we investigate the different ways our brains allow us to change our minds about people! "The neurocomputational mechanisms of naturalistic trait impression updating" osf.io/preprints/ps...
Schematics of scanner and online experimental designs. A) Scanner participants first completed individual difference surveys regarding their demographics, attitudes towards social groups, mood, and personality. In the MRI scanner, they then watched short autobiographical narrative videos. After the scan, they made ratings about the traits of the individuals in the videos they viewed. B) Online participants first made ratings about the traits of the individuals in the videos based on still frame images. They then made continuous ratings of the traits of these individuals over the course of the videos.Analysis schematic. A) Spatiotemporal representational similarity analysis was used to relate patterns of brain activity over the course of SEND videos to i) continuous ratings of the traits of the individuals in those videos, ii) multimodal annotations (face, voice, and speech semantics), and iii) representations learned by neural networks to support computational operations (compression, multimodal fusion, temporal integration, and prediction). B) Intersubject representational similarity analysis was used to relate intersubject correlations in brain activity to individual differences in trait impression updating, demographics, social group attitudes, mood, and personality. Computational operations of trait impression updating. The left column illustrates brain regions within which pattern similarity is uniquely associated with representations learned by neural networks trained to engage in the corresponding computational operation: compression, multimodal fusion, temporal integration, or prediction. The right column illustrates where these effects uniquely statistically mediate the association between brain activity and trait ratings. All results control for the raw annotations of face, voice quality, and speech semantics. Results are significant (p < .05) corrected for multiple comparisons across parcels via maximal statistic permutation testing.Individual differences in trait impression updating. IS-RSA results reflecting where individual differences were associated with ISC while watching SEND videos. A) Reflects where idiosyncratic trait impression updating was correlated with ISC. B) Likewise illustrates where four categories of potentially explanatory individual differences – social group attitudes, participant demographics, participant personality (Big 5), and participant mood (PANAS) predict ISC during SEND video viewing. C) Shows where social group attitudes statistically mediate the association between idiosyncratic trait impressions and ISC. Results are significant (p < .05) corrected for multiple comparisons across parcels via maximal statistic permutation testing.
14714
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
koenfucius @koenfucius.bsky.social · 05/09/2026
Research by @bxjaeger.bsky.social et al suggests that, compared to scientific experts, laypeople are 8pp less likely to attribute consciousness and 21 pp less likely to attribute emotions to non-human animals, and on average also more confident in their beliefs: buff.ly/5RapCMB
121
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Brian Nosek @briannosek.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
For the Replicability Project: Health Behavior we need some editors and reviewers of analysis plans for secondary data replications, especially for complex designs including multilevel, weighting, clustering, missing data. Earns coauthorship on the summary paper. Interested? replications@cos.io
01514
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
simine vazire @simine.com · 02/09/2026
Psych Science has retracted Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002). The second author requested the retraction. Both authors agreed to it. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... So grateful to @datacolada.bsky.social for these blog posts and the work behind them: datacolada.org/138 and datacolada.org/139 1/2
journals.sagepub.com
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
426794
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Data Colada @datacolada.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
Colada[139] Artificial Deadlines Part 2 Evidence of fraud in the 25 year old gradesheet behind the key finding in an influential paper on deadlines and procrastination. datacolada.org/139
816857
Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
New preprint! 🧠🐸🐦‍⬛🐟 (w/ Stefan Leach and Matthew Zipple) We find that the US public is more skeptical than scientific experts about the possibility that various animals are conscious & able to feel emotions. They are also more confident in their beliefs than the experts. osf.io/preprints/ps...
110
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Data Colada @datacolada.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
An influential paper by Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002) reported two studies with tampered data. Post 1 of 2. datacolada.org/138
datacolada.org
[138] Artificial Deadlines (Part 1): Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
A new paper in Psychological Science (.htm) reports a failure to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch’s influential article entitled, “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Contr…
723799
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Leah Banellis @leahbanellis.bsky.social · 23/07/2026
Sensing your body (‘Interoception’) is everywhere in theories of mental health. But when we tested how well hundreds of people sensed their heart and lungs, the link to symptoms was almost nowhere to be found. 💣 🚨New @natmentalhealth.nature.com paper 🚨🎉 asks why 🧵 www.nature.com/articles/s44...
1021491
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 27/08/2026
Psychological Science special issue call 📣 Ever had your research denigrated bc it's "only descriptive", "what's the mechanism though?" and "but what are the theoretical implications?" Now has come your time to shine. Send your best descriptive work! www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...
Psychological Science invites submissions that advance psychological science through careful description of psychological phenomena. Psychological research often focuses on explaining and predicting phenomena before we have a sufficiently detailed understanding of them. It can be difficult to build strong theories on incomplete empirical foundations of the phenomena themselves. Careful descriptive research helps establish shared empirical reference points developed around well-characterized phenomena. As such, descriptive research contributes to psychological science both by improving our understanding of the phenomena themselves and by providing a stronger foundation for future theory-building, explanation, and prediction.

We are interested in manuscripts that:

Deepen our understanding of psychological phenomena, including what they look like, how they vary, and how they unfold;
Draw on a variety of sources of evidence and methods, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches; research conducted in naturalistic settings; intensive, longitudinal, or small-sample designs; and open or large-scale datasets; 
Provide necessary context for interpreting what is being described, including who is represented in the data, the settings and circumstances in which phenomena occur, and the broader social contexts in which they are situated; and/or
Make a substantive contribution to psychological science through the quality, depth, or significance of the description provided.
The deadline for submitting regular manuscripts is April 15, 2027. Registered Reports will also be considered. The deadline for submitting Stage 1 Registered Reports is November 15, 2026. Authors should indicate in the “Comments to Editor” box during submission that the manuscript is intended for the “Descriptive Research in Psychological Science” special issue.
7244128
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
New pub, led by Aymin Triki & in collab w/ @abbycassario.bsky.social, accepted at JESP! We found similarities in party cues among the left and the right when using representative samples of issues, although right-wing authoritarians may be an exception Other interesting findings follow!
Abstract of paper. It reads, How do people with different political ideologies process political information? Party cues are an
effect where people are more likely to support a policy position if they learn their party also
supports it, shifting their judgement in accordance with cues from their inparty and against their
outparty. This effect has been at the center of the debate over the psychological differences
between liberals and conservatives, with some scholars suggesting that differences in cognitive
styles between liberals and conservatives (e.g., rigidity, cognitive reflection) should result in
differences in party cue susceptibility. We advance this debate by measuring rigid cognitive
styles and applying a stimuli sampling approach to party cues across four preregistered
experiments (N’s per study > 1200). We found convincing evidence for ideological symmetries
in party cues in quota matched samples of Americans (Studies 1 & 2). In Studies 3 and 4, across
four measures of ideology and three self-report measures of cognitive rigidity, we found
ideological differences in self-reported rigidity in line with previous research. In Study 3, a
convenience sample, we found that conservatives were more likely to follow party cues.
However, Study 4, using a quota matched sample, found no ideological differences in cue
susceptibility, except with respect to right-wing authoritarianism. Exploratory analyses found
that when one group has greater prior awareness or stronger initial views on a topic, they show
smaller cueing effects. We conclude that while liberals and conservatives differ in cognitive
style, they largely share similar cognitive processes for interpreting and integrating political
information.
12212
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Brian Nosek @briannosek.bsky.social · 11/08/2026
Over the next several months, we will phase out some popular OSF features. These changes do not affect current public content, which remains safe and accessible. We have prepared support material to help users adapt. I am very sorry for the disruption to your work. Please read this post for details.
cos.io
OSF Changes | Center for Open Science
We are preparing substantial changes to OSF that will reduce its functionality, focus OSF on its unique strengths, and move toward an integrated model with complementary services. As part of that shif...
10120113
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Hideki Sato @hidekis.bsky.social · 11/08/2026
Item Selection as the Cause and Solution to Validity Problems in Psychology journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
journals.sagepub.com
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
074
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Vishnu Sreekumar @vishnusreekumar.bsky.social · 05/08/2026
📢 ***Call for papers at Psychological Science (APS)*** Dr Roni Porat and I are editing a special issue, "From Lab to Life: Psychological Science in the Real World.” Please see the detailed call here (www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...) and send us your best work!
41923
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 03/08/2026
New Jingle assessment: we show that the "Perspective Taking Protocol" has very poor reliability and near-zero convergent validity with other nominal measures of emotional and spatial perspective taking, empathy, and theory of mind. w/ @malte.the100.ci
12110
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 30/07/2026
New blog post! Odds ratios are...a bit weird. Here I explain two problems (interpretation, non-collapsibility) and provide some simple recommendations for improved reporting. www.the100.ci/2026/07/30/r...
the100.ci
Reviewer notes: Odds ratios are really odd
When psychological researchers investigate binary outcomes, they routinely report odds ratios to quantify the strength of an effect or an association. This is quite understandable given that psycholog...
2428779
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Anne Scheel @annemscheel.bsky.social · 23/07/2026
New preprint w/ Leo Tiokhin & @lakens.bsky.social! Registered Reports (RRs) are great for science b/c publication is guaranteed before results are known, reducing publication bias & QRPs. This feature supposedly also makes them great for *scientists*. But is that really true? 1/ tinyurl.com/4sy993rr
tinyurl.com
Career incentives make Registered Reports unattractive under realistic academic conditions
Registered Reports are a publication format designed to reduce publication bias by guaranteeing publication before results are known. This guarantee is considered attractive in the prevailing ‘publish...
15934
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 20/07/2026
New paper out now 🥳 When psychologists discuss generalisability, they often refer to vague notions of representativeness. We provide an accessible intro to the total survey error framework as a tool to reason about this more rigorously. w @taymalsalti.bsky.social @ruben.the100.ci >
Thinking Clearly About Sampling and Representation With the Total Survey Error Framework

Collecting a sample that represents the population of interest well constitutes a challenge across the social and behavioural sciences. Psychology in particular frequently relies on convenience samples—most notably students and, increasingly, online participants—with a tendency to either (implicitly) assume representativeness without substantive justification, or to acknowledge a lack of it only in passing. In contrast, researchers rarely engage with the actual implications for their inferences, which undermines the generalisability of psychological findings. Critically, representativeness must be defined with respect to variables relevant to the target of inference, rather than superficial demographic diversity. Here we present the Total Survey Error (TSE) framework as a methodological tool that systematically addresses the multifaceted sources of error—particularly those related to representation—that emerge throughout the research cycle. Although TSE originated in survey research, its principles are broadly applicable to any psychological study seeking inference from sample to population. We offer practical strategies for identifying, preventing, and mitigating representation errors to improve the credibility and generalisability of psychological research.

Illustration of the total survey error framework with the representation strand highlighted. It shows how coverage error, sampling error and non-response error arise during the sampling process.
1027797
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Ted Schwaba @tedmond.bsky.social · 17/07/2026
New meta by @peterhaehner.bsky.social et al (I'm a little middle author) on individual differences in personality change across the lifespan (229 studies, N = 230k) 10.1037/bul0000525 Cool finding (imo): For all Big Five, variance in change is greatest in youth, declining through young adulthood!
Individual differences in change for each of the Big Five across ages 0 to 80. The trend for each trait is that individual differences in change are decreasing with age.
35625
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Julia Stern @juliastern.bsky.social · 06/07/2026
I'm hiring! I am currently establishing my new Research Group for Personality Psychology at Ulm University and am looking for a motivated researcher to join the team starting October 1, 2026 (or by arrangement). 🧵👇 (1/4) 🔗 Full description and details: stellenangebote.uni-ulm.de/jobposting/a...
stellenangebote.uni-ulm.de
Akademische/r Beschäftigte/n (m/w/d) - Abt. Persönlichkeitspsychologie - Referenz-Nr. 26091
22530
Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 03/07/2026
One takeaway from our ongoing meta-analysis of meat reduction interventions: We need higher-quality evidence. We've included 451 effect sizes from 162 studies so far. Only one effect size came from a study with all 5 quality markers shown below. #EASP2026
061
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Quentin André @quentinandre.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
HBS' latest filing in the Gino lawsuit contains a few new details: 1. A committee of 26 professors, admins, and fellows reviewed the allegations, and *unanimously concluded* that there was *clear and convincing evidence* of research misconduct.
13522
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Kevin Bird @stairwaytokevin.bsky.social · 02/06/2026
New post is live! 40 years of race science arguments about brain size & the racial IQ gap, nobody bothered to write down the math or do anything beyond gawk at correlations. I did, walking through the data & formalizing it with the Lande equation. It fares worse than you could even imagine.
open.substack.com
Race on The Brain: why brain-size differences can’t explain the IQ gap
Tackling a popular hereditarian argument
721665
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Max Primbs @maxprimbs.bsky.social · 22/05/2026
@keithpayne.bsky.social, @jimmycalanchini.bsky.social, Heidi Vuletich and I are co-editing a new Social Cognition special issue titled "10 Years of Bias of Crowds – Reflections and Future Directions". Deadline for letters of intent is July 15th. bit.ly/3R9e8KB
179
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Institute for Replication @i4replication.bsky.social · 29/05/2026
1/ Can AI help researchers check whether published social science results actually reproduce? In our new PNAS paper, we tested this directly in the AI Replication Games: 288 researchers, 103 teams, and real replication packages from quantitative social science.
36337
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Why do humans punish? Our new paper, with @manvir.bsky.social, is out in Psychological Science! With experiments in a small-scale society (Mentawai) & the US, we test whether punitive cognition evolved to deter wrongdoing or restore fairness. link: tinyurl.com/msrmu7cc pdf: tinyurl.com/mvprz8fb
24313
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Daniel Lakens @lakens.bsky.social · 27/05/2026
Excellent news! Nature is expanding Registered Reports to all the fields in which they publish! A great result by all those proposing this strong solution to publication bias and selective reporting (and getting expert feedback before data collection)! www.nature.com/articles/d41...
114273
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 27/05/2026
x.com/KelseyTuoc/s...
57820
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Matt Grossmann @mattgrossmann.bsky.social · 25/05/2026
If you compare people's life satisfaction to their retrospective judgments, it suggests that happiness is not declining. Instead, our expectations are changing with aggregate improvements so our relative satisfaction is rescaled for current circumstances www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
sciencedirect.com
Is it possible to raise national happiness?
We revisit the famous Easterlin paradox by considering that life evaluation scales refer to a changing context, hence they are regularly reinterpreted…
063
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) @improvingpsych.org · 19/05/2026
Collabra: Psychology, the official journal of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, seeks applications for Editor-in-Chief! The SIPS Publications Committee encourages editors with innovative ideas about how Collabra: Psychology can best accomplish its mission to apply.
11926
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Philip N Cohen @philipncohen.com · 14/05/2026
Two new facts stand out: 1. 85% of hallucinated citations in preprints are also in the subsequent journal version (thanks, peer review!) 2. Fake cites more likely to use the names of (male) scholars who are already highly cited, creating a fake-citation Matthew effect. arxiv.org/abs/2605.07723
arxiv.org
LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations
Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate plausible but false information across a wide range of contexts, yet the real-world magnitude and consequences of this hallucination problem remain p...
18626297
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
koenfucius @koenfucius.bsky.social · 13/05/2026
What determines the morality of harming another creature—eg a farm animal, or a foetus? In the West, this judgment relies more on sentience than on agency, and research by @bxjaeger.bsky.social& Bosten finds it generalizes across six cultures: buff.ly/4intBok HT @xphilosopher.bsky.social
043
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Nicholas A. Coles, PhD @nicholascoles.bsky.social · 12/05/2026
Can gratitude interventions make the world happier? We tested 6 gratitude practices across 34 countries with 10,696 participants to find out — and the answer is more interesting than a simple yes 🧵 www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
pnas.org
A multinational megastudy of the effects of gratitude practices on subjective well-being | PNAS
Scholars have observed people from a variety of cultures using a variety of gratitude-related practices to change their emotions, outlooks, and soc...
22418
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Arnaud Tognetti @atognetti.bsky.social · 11/05/2026
Disease cues and social avoidance Study how sensory disease cues shape social avoidance 🙅 and immune responses 🩸 using VR 🎮, laboratory experiments, and psychophysiological methods. ⏳ Start: Oct 2026 | ⚠️ Deadline: May 17 📍 CNRS / University of Montpellier 🇫🇷 → emploi.cnrs.fr/Offres/Docto...
emploi.cnrs.fr
Portail Emploi CNRS - Job offer - PhD Position in Behavioral Sciences (Psychology, Behavioral Ecology, and Psychoneuroimmunology): Perception of Disease Cues and Social Avoidance in Humans (M/F)
133
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Arnaud Tognetti @atognetti.bsky.social · 11/05/2026
🤢 Disgust, food avoidance, & immunity Study how disgust shapes food avoidance 🙅 & immune responses 🩸 using VR 🎮, laboratory experiments, and psychophysiological methods. With @csarabian.bsky.social & me ⏳ Start: Oct 2026 | Deadline: May 20 📍 Univ. Montpellier 🇫🇷 → euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/422430
034
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Patrick S. Forscher @psforscher.bsky.social · 11/05/2026
New in AMPPS, led by Adeyemi Adetula: "The Evaluation of Harm and Purity Transgressions in Africans: A Paradigmatic Replication of Rottman and Young (2019)" journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... We attempted to replicate a moral psychology finding in 1,320 participants from 12 African sites 1/
1127
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Jay Van Bavel, PhD @jayvanbavel.bsky.social · 07/05/2026
Although a tiny group of people are spreading misinformation, it is impacting the beliefs of a wide swath of the population. Over 70% of people believe at least one of these false or unproven health claims: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
0218
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Roger Giner-Sorolla @rogerthegs.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
Just spreading the word about an opportunity to nominate or be nominated for Editor-in-Chief of SPPS, beginning next year. I'm chairing the panel so feel free to ask about it! Deadline 30 June 2026. www.easp.eu/news/itm/nom...
easp.eu
Nominations Requested for SPPS Editor-in-Chief
Social Psychology News Articles
022
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 01/05/2026
New preprint: Preregistration is supposed to make research more transparent. But if registry records aren't kept up to date, the transparency benefit erodes. We checked 1,137 psych meta-analyses on PROSPERO and found the records are systematically out of sync with reality osf.io/preprints/ps...
Abstract
Meta-analysis preregistration is intended to promote transparency and reduce research waste.
However, it is largely unknown whether preregistration records accurately reflect the actual state
of research, and how many preregistered meta-analyses are ultimately published in the field of
psychology. We searched PROSPERO for preregistrations of psychology meta-analyses
registered between 2011 and 2021 (n = 1137), verified publication status through systematic
search, and contacted corresponding authors of unpublished registrations (n = 358) to obtain
information on reasons for delays and discontinuations. We found that PROSPERO status labels
were systematically inaccurate: 57% of records labelled "ongoing" were already published, and
publication rates varied by registration status (Completed: 94%; Ongoing: 59%; Discontinued:
9%). Among 80 survey respondents, resource limitations were the primary reasons for project
discontinuation (lack of time: 47%; lack of personnel: 11%; lack of funding: 7%) and
preregistration quality showed no association with publication likelihood. Altogether, these
findings suggest that PROSPERO registrations in psychology frequently fail to reflect the true
status of a meta-analysis, undermining their value as a transparency tool, and that resource
limitations frequently lead to meta-analysis abandonment. We recommend that journals and
funders require registration updates at publication to reduce the accumulation of inaccurate and
abandoned records.Figure 1. Overview of PROSPERO preregistrations of meta-analyses in psychology. (a) Number
of psychology meta-analysis registrations per year (2011–2025); the dashed line marks the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic. (b) Publication status by year of registration (2011–2021). (c) Publication
outcomes by PROSPERO registration status (Dark yellow = unpublished; Blue = published).
15621
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 01/05/2026
So we emailed the authors of all 358 unpublished registrations. 80 wrote responded. The reasons they gave were almost entirely logistical: no time (47%), people leaving the project (11%), no funding (7%). Only one person cited non-significant results as a reason for not publishing.
Reasons for discontinuation among respondents who no longer intend to publish (n = 62; respondents could select multiple reasons)
1115
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 18/04/2026
I’m hiring a PhD student! The candidate will work alongside @zefreeman.bsky.social, who is joining our research group as postdoc. jobs.unibe.ch/job-vacancie...
jobs.unibe.ch
PhD Student in Meta-Science and Clinical Psychology - Universität Bern
Universität Bern is looking for PhD Student in Meta-Science and Clinical Psychology
47358
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Experimental Philosophy @xphilosopher.bsky.social · 14/04/2026
How do people decide whether it’s wrong to harm a pig? A chimp? A baby? In the West, these judgments are based more on *experience* (being able to feel) than on *agency* (being able to think and act) New study finds that same pattern across other cultures journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
13111
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Joel van der Weele @joelvdweele.bsky.social · 17/04/2026
Proud of this paper; five years in the making. Correcting consumer beliefs about carbon impact of meat products (controlling for salience and social norms) does *not* lead to any change in consumption behavior in our setting. Any effects of carbon labels are likely to work through salience/norms.
0135
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Meltem Yucel @drmeltemyucel.bsky.social · 12/04/2026
🚨🚨🚨 International Society for Moral Psychology (ISMP) 🚨🚨🚨 ISMP was formed to create an interdisciplinary and international home for moral psychology, aimed at fostering deeper engagement across traditions, methodologies, and cultural contexts. internationalsocietymoralpsychology.com/join-ismp/
internationalsocietymoralpsychology.com
Become a Member – International Society for Moral Psychology
24025
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Katie Corker @katiecorker.bsky.social · 07/04/2026
The governing body for 14 Dutch universities (UNL) has published a "Vision on Publication Culture" that is so inspiring and forward thinking. Worth a read for those trying to changes publishing and research assessment practices. Take a read: www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/public...
Screen shot of section 1.1 of the report "vision for a new publication culture"
43928
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Andrew Gordon @andrewgordon.bsky.social · 01/04/2026
New preprint out today (osf.io/preprints/ps...). We tested whether AI agents are actually infiltrating online surveys. Spoiler alert: they aren't Thread 🧵 [1/9]
osf.io
OSF
213162
Reposted by Bastian Jaeger
Brian Nosek @briannosek.bsky.social · 01/04/2026
SCORE, a collaboration of 865 researchers, is now released as three papers in Nature, six preprints, and a lot of data (cos.io/score/). SCORE examined repeatability of findings from the social-behavioral sciences and tested whether human and automated methods could predict replicability.
cos.io
SCORE | Center for Open Science
SCORE shows that there is no shortcut to producing credible research findings, and there is no single indicator of trustworthiness. Research progress depends on transparency, rigor, and establishing r...
1190107