iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 20/08/2026

Now out in Science Communication! Super happy about this article 🤩 doi.org/10.1177/1075... Read original thread: bsky.app/profile/hilm...

000

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

Last chance for ECRs of the DGPs and ÖGP to sign up for the Writing Retreat 2026 in 🏔️ Austria! 🏔️ Don't miss this great opportunity to 🪶📜 get some WRITING done 📜🪶 in the beautiful Alpes! Please share, people :D @helenahartmann.com @mfjsperl.bsky.social @igor-dgps.bsky.social @dgps.bsky.social

010

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

A big thank you to my collaborators Sarah von Götz and Fabian Gehm. Read the preprint here: Brohmer, H., Gehm, F. & von Götz, S. (2026). Believing What We Want? Myside Bias and the Role of Open Science Practices in Public Trust in Science. osf.io/preprints/ps...

000

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

... Other findings: > We replicated this pattern for the gendered-language topic. > General trust in science showed the strongest main effect. > The null effect for Open Science may due to the majority of Austrians believing such practices are applied anyways.

100

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

... However, the topic and myside bias did matter: when a study confirmed participants' myside bias (here: contemporary and alternative medicine [CAM] works), they trusted this study more, compared to a study with a non-controversial topic and a study that dis-confirmed their belief. ...

bias-confirming studies (text 1) are trusted more by participants, who hold this bias, compared to other studies.

100

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

... with or without Open Science practices, and also assessed participants' myside bias. Results were sobering for Open Science practices: It did not matter for participants' trust ratings, whether they were applied or not. ...

Open Science does not affect trust ratings

100

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

But what if this controversial study seems to be well conducted? 🤔 Would you trust this study when it openly shared data and methods? 🤔 This is what we wanted to test in a large preregistered survey in Austria (N = 1083): We presented participants with controversial findings, ...

100

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

Assume you read about a psychological study in the news... and the topic is 🌶️spicy and controversial 🧨 (e.g., "alternative medicine works" or "gendered language does not have an effect"). 🤔 Would you trust this study? 🤔 Probably depends on your own attitudes towards these topics, right? ...

100

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 05/09/2025

Shout out to my amazing co-authors Sarah von Götz, Gaby Hofer @sci-gab.bsky.social, Katja Corcoran, Silvia Kober, Živa Korda, and Hildrun Walter @hildrun.bsky.social And also shout out to Helmut Klug, who organized the original conference: open-science.uni-graz.at/de/tagung-op...

020

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 05/09/2025

We also report the state of #preregistration with a brief historocal section, a beginners tutorial, and the current state of its uptake. Brohmer, Hofer & von Götz, 2025, doi.org/10.5281/zeno... Brohmer, Corcoran, Hofer, Kober, Korda, Walter, & von Götz, 2025, doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

121

hilmibro87.bsky.social @hilmibro87.bsky.social · 05/09/2025

Hello BlueSky peeps! Hilmar's cold opening contains not one BUT TWO articles that I want to advertise! My co-authors and I have summarized the work we have done, the progress we achieved, and the challenges we encoutered during the last seven or so years in several #OpenScience initiatives in Graz.

141