iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

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.

4265113

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

312462

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Data, analysis code, and materials available here: osf.io/p4q7z.

000

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

3. Some rankings emerged in all 41 samples. Family & friends were at the top everywhere. Other rankings were more variable. Outgroup members (e.g., somebody with different religious beliefs) were prioritized over the environment (e.g. a coral reef) in only 21/41 samples.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Important caveat here: These were student samples so it is unclear whether differences would be stronger with representative samples.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

2. But on average, 11/13 adjacent rankings in the typical hierarchy of moral concern (e.g., ingroup > stigmatized individuals) replicated across the 41 samples, which suggests that there are substantial cross-cultural similarities.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

1. We used a multidimensional cultural distance measure to quantify how culturally different the 41 groups were to the US where the typical hierarchy was first documented. The closer a sample was to the US culturally, the more similar its hierarchy of moral concern.

101

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

We re-analyzed data from a study where >6500 participants from 41 universities completed the MES, and we quantified the role of cultural and individual differences in various ways. I'll highlight 3 results here:

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Recent work on this topic (mostly using the Moral Expansiveness Scale) points to a hierarchy of moral concern that has replicated across many studies. But these were mostly run in the US and a few other Anglosphere countries, so how generalizable is this pattern actually?

100

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

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.

426694

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

All data, code, and materials are available here: osf.io/9v3rh/.

000

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

We also asked participants how confident they are that their beliefs are accurate. Compared to the scientists, people from the general public were quite a bit more confident in their beliefs about the prevalence of consciousness and emotions among animals.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

There was also a gap for beliefs in animal consciousness, but it was smaller.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Our results showed that the US public is much more skeptical than scientific experts about animals’ capacity to experience emotions.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

We compared beliefs by the public with the beliefs of 100 evolutionary biologists and other experts on animal minds. In the absence of an objective benchmark, we can at least test whether people are more or less skeptical about the mental capacities of animals compared to experts.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

So our treatment of animals depends on whether we think they are conscious or sentient. In this project, we recruited a representative sample of 600 US Americans to test whether they believe that primates, birds, insects, and other groups of animals have consciousness and emotions.

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

This is also reflected in animal welfare policies, like the EU’s Lisbon Treaty: “Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”

100

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Many scientists & philosophers, but also many laypeople, believe that we need to treat individuals more carefully if they are conscious or sentient. Most people don’t worry about harming a rock. That’s different for a dog or a bird because they can experience pain, hunger, and other emotions.

100

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

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...

1021493

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...

2428879

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.

1027997

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

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

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

Agree with 2 - I think there's a temptation to skip over the technical stuff. I think that's bad. I think burying the methods online would clearly reduce how much people engage with it, but I also think that the current format you describe in 1 is a weaker version of that so also not great.

010

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

(1) Seems simply unintuitive to read what was found without knowing what was done. (2) Do you think fewer people read it at the end vs in the middle? (3) Would you be okay with the methods being in an online appendix?

140

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