iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

This suggests that the CDC communication shapes not only individual perceptions and behavioral intentions, but also how people evaluate scientific information more broadly. When uncertainty is emphasized despite expert consensus, it may act less as transparency and more as a cue for doubt. (4/5)

160

Participants who read the uncertainty-based (vs. consensus-based) CDC message saw vaccine side effects as more likely, felt less certain about vaccine safety, reported lower willingness to vaccinate, trusted the CDC less, and more strongly endorsed science-denial strategies. (3/5)

141

In a large-scale experiment with a quota-representative sample of nearly 3,000 U.S. adults, we compared public responses to the revised uncertainty-based CDC communication vs. the previous consensus-based CDC communication. There was also a control group that received no message. (3/5)

130

Despite scientific consensus that vaccines are not linked to autism, the myth persists in public debate. In November 2025, the CDC amplified that debate by changing its communication, emphasizing uncertainty and calling for further investigation into an alleged vaccine–autism link. (2/5)

130

🚨 New in @science.org: CDC communication undermines trust in vaccines Link to the publication: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/... I’m excited to share this paper, which I wrote together with @schneali.bsky.social, @corneliabetsch.bsky.social & @laulilleholt.bsky.social (1/5)

14118

To be very clear: this article is satire. But the point is serious. As long as academic incentives reward neat, significant, publication-friendly stories more than rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, the creatively empirical will keep finding room to maneuver. #OpenScience #MetaScience

051

We warn of dark times ahead for the creatively empirical: 1. Preregistrations that become too specific 2. Journals insist on clearly labeling confirmatory vs. exploratory analyses 3. Standards for reproducible workflows 4. Routine comp. reproducibility checks 5. Mandatory study registration

We outline 3 promising strategies for the modern significance massager: 1. Treat preregistration as a menu 2. Dress exploration in confirmatory clothing 3. Practice opaque openness

100

Good news for the creatively empirical: despite the rise of preregs, open data, RRs, and other regrettable obstacles to tidy storytelling, there may still be ways to produce the kind of clean, significant results that journals, reviewers, and conference audiences have learned to love.

100

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

🚨NEW PREPRINT🚨 together with Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler: “Massaging Significance in the Age of Open Science: A Satirical Tutorial,” which is a public service for anyone unwilling to let inconvenient data get in the way of a compelling narrative. 😉 Link to preprint: osf.io/preprints/ps...

22311

Wir diskutieren evidenzbasierte Ansatzpunkte, wie Antibiotic-Stewardship-Initiativen durch psychologische Interventionen gestärkt werden können. #Antibiotikaresistenz #AMR #AntibioticStewardship #Gesundheitskommunikation #PublicHealth #OneHealth #Verhaltenswissenschaft (4/4)

000

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

In unserem narrativen Überblick zeigen wir, dass nicht nur Wissen zählt. Auch Unsicherheit, Entscheidungsprozesse, soziale Normen und die Kommunikation zwischen Ärzt*innen und Patient*innen spielen eine zentrale Rolle beim Antibiotikaeinsatz. (3/4)

100

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

Antibiotikaresistenz ist nicht nur ein mediz. Problem, sondern auch ein psychologisches. Um die Ausbreitung von Antibiotikaresistenz wirksam einzudämmen, muss menschliches Verhalten stärker in den Mittelpunkt rücken, sowohl bei der Verschreibung als auch bei der Einnahme von Antibiotika. (2/4)

100

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 25/01/2026

It‘s ball season in Vienna. We had a great time at the Science Ball #Wissenschaftsball @schneali.bsky.social @anneic.bsky.social @riangross.bsky.social and many more

060

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 09/01/2026

New paper led by @leonhardreiter.bsky.social titled "Country-level differences in socio-economic development and cultural dimensions are associated with workers' economic expectations of AI" out now in Computers in Human Behavior Reports 👇

030

BTW, we explicitly mention the potential risks you refer to in the discussion section.

No, we use a standard llm but feed it with information for the user interactions. So, we cannot exclude certain bias, but haven’t observed it in our study.

100

Our AI communication is embedded in a gamified set-up via avatars speaking to users. We prompted it with specific evidence-based information, so the risk of misinformation spreading is very low.

We hope that the findings will help to improve and tailor climate-related communication for the public. Thanks for the financial support @undp.org & Tryg Fonden (5/5)

💡 Takeaway: One-size-fits-all climate communication doesn’t work. AI isn’t a magic bullet, but it can help reach people who would otherwise disengage from climate information altogether. If we want broader impact, we need smarter, audience-sensitive communication strategies. (4/5)

120

📊 Findings: Both communication formats can promote behavioral intentions and engagement. However, people who are less curious and less concerned about climate change are more likely to engage when information is delivered through interactive, AI-based formats (e.g., smartphone apps). (3/5)

100

🔍Aim: Across two preregistered studies, we examined how different communication formats—relying either on information-based or experience-based communication—affect climate-friendly behavior and engagement with climate information. (2/5)

100

Sabrina Norwood @sabrinanorwood.bsky.social · 16/12/2025

🎄 New paper in the Journal of Environmental Psychology (early Christmas gift!) 🎄 "Engaging the unengaged: Differential effects of AI-driven climate communication across audiences" together with Adéla Plechatá and Guido Makransky. doi.org/10.1016/j.je... (1/5) 🧵👇

261

Reposted by Robert Böhm

Did you know that from tomorrow, Qualtrics is offering synthetic panels (AI-generated participants)? Follow me down a rabbit hole I'm calling "doing science is tough and I'm so busy, can't we just make up participants?"

Text reads: About synthetic panels
Recruiting the right participants for a study can be difficult. You may not get the exact demographics you need, and the shorter the deadline, the less sure you can be that everyone will answer on time. One possible solution can be to use synthetic panels.

Synthetic panels are powered by a first party proprietary AI model developed here at Qualtrics. Our synthetic panel is trained on thousands of responses from a variety of demographic backgrounds in order to more accurately predict how certain populations would respond to a survey.

Our synthetic panel is based on the United States General Population, and is only available in English. This panel comes with ready-made quotas and target breakouts in order to represent your chosen population and make it easy to launch your survey right away.

Text reads:
Discussion
The current study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the TPB when applied to health behaviours which addressed the limitations of previous reviews by including only prospective tests of behaviour, applying RE meta-analytic procedures, correcting correlations for sampling and measurement error, and hierarchically analysing the effect of behaviour type and sample and methodological moderators. Some 237 tests were identified which examined relations amongst model components. Overall the analysis indicated that the TPB could explain 19.3% of the variance in behaviour and 44.3% of the variance in intention across studies. This level of prediction of behaviour is slightly lower than that of previous meta-analytic reviews which have found between 27% (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger et al., 2002) and 36% (Trafimow et al., 2002)
of the variance in behaviour to be explained by intention and PBC.

37652285

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 11/12/2025

Ich sehe das anders. Anwendungsnahe Forschung inkl. Feldforschung ist sehr populär in der Ökonomie. Und sie machen es oftmals besser als (viele) Psycholog*innen: gute kausale Identifikationsstrategien + formale Prozesstheorien. Wir müssen uns methodisch weiterentwickeln um hier dran zu bleiben.

120

Reposted by Robert Böhm

David Lazer @davidlazer.bsky.social · 09/12/2025

Paper out today in @nathumbehav.nature.com: 1) those groups (women, African Americans, lower SES, rural) that are underrepresented in science have been less trusting of science. 2) If you improve representation in science, you improve trust among those groups. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

nature.com

Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA - Nature Human Behaviour

Druckman et al. document gaps in trust in scientists in the USA. People from groups less represented among scientists (for example, women and those with lower economic status) are less trusting. Incre...

313861

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 01/12/2025

🚨NEW PUBLICATION🚨 together with @schildchristoph.bsky.social, @laulilleholt.bsky.social, and Ingo Zettler: "Testing the effectiveness and endorsement of collective punishment." Published in the European Journal of Personality, find it here: doi.org/10.1177/0890...

072

Robert Böhm @robertboehm.bsky.social · 01/12/2025

🚨NEW PAPER🚨 led by @qinyuxiao.bsky.social, with @simoncolumbus.bsky.social and me: "Self-serving intergroup aggression escalates and prevails over parochial cooperation." It's now published in Evolution and Human Behavior by @humbehevosoc.bsky.social. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

171

Taken together, we present a new toolkit for measuring individual- and group-level social preferences, show that both are shaped by conflict experiences and perceptions, and demonstrate that they predict conflict engagement across diverse samples and group memberships. (6/7)

In a quasi-experimental Study 5 among US participants, we show that parochialism is elevated in high- relative to low-conflict group pairings, whereas altruism appears comparatively less depended on perceived conflict intensity. (5/7)

Study 4 employed a lab-in-the-field approach with members of the Nyangatom, a small-scale society in Ethiopia engaging in cross-border conflicts. We find that higher conflict experience is related to higher levels of altruism, particularly among participants with higher levels of parochialism. (4/7)

100

In Study 1, we validate our measurement toolkit, showing that altruism and parochialism are separate social preferences. In Studies 2-3, we find that individual-and group-level preferences independently predict participation in real-world conflict (football derby fans and political camps). (3/7)

100