Sign in

Yannic Meier

@ymeier.bsky.social
600 followers 460 following 81 posts

Postdoctoral researcher | @psychdue.bsky.social @unidue.bsky.social | online privacy protection and self-disclosure | digital inequalities | science information reception & science skepticism | #openscience yannicmeier.de

PostsRepliesMedia
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
Findings show that we need more #comparative studies as key relations do not always hold when recruiting culturally diverse samples. Also, future studies need to examine how the negative consequences of dataveillance may be mitigated either by stronger regulations or by literacy programs.
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
Active protection does not diminish self-inhibition; in fact, pos. relationship. Active protection not perceived as adequate to avoid dataveillance. People see need to limit what they do online (e.g., service use or opinion disclosure). This may have neg. individual and societal consequences.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
Perceived surveillance pos. related to active protection only in 🇩🇪 & 🇺🇸. Self-inhibition more common response to surveillance in our sample (although not significant in 🇧🇷). Perceiving active protection as effective strategy to avoid digital surveillance: higher active protection and self-inhibition.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
We recruited a total of 2,092 participants from these four countries. Survey items were translated into the respective country languages. We tested our assumptions in one overarching model and models with multigroup analyses to account for country-level differences.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
As most privacy studies are from the US and Europe, we adopt a #comparative lens choosing 2 well-known countries (🇩🇪Germany and 🇺🇸USA) and 2 understudied countries (🇧🇷Brazil and 🇻🇳Vietnam). Although still limited, this selection helps broaden our understanding by taking cultural diversity into account.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
Permanent digital surveillance by online companies can induce chilling effects, i.e., digital self-inhibition. We expand PMT separating active privacy protection (e.g., using anti-tracking tools) from self-inhibition. We further studied privacy literacy overconfidence and resignation as a moderator.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
🚨 New open access paper /w @laurentwang.bsky.social , Nicole Krämer, and Miriam Metzger in JCMC. We extend & comparatively test protection motivation theory (PMT) explaining privacy protection efforts in Brazil, Germany, the US, and Vietnam. Short 🧵 below. Full paper: doi.org/10.1093/jcmc...
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
In sum: content processing & engagement similar across different societally relevant topic areas (like politics and science). Although people may come across content they are not interested in, interest seems to be the main driver of deeper processing which indicates rich-get-richer processes.
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
mostly passive engagement (reading/watching); few like or share // credibility judgements heavily depend on source; trust in content low (concern for misinformation); many use verification strategies // participants report more political content than science; politics seen as more relevant to public
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
Main findings: most users identify social media algorithms as main reason for IE to science content // confirming PINE, most participants said that they engage in 2nd-level processing due to personal relevance // learning was the most mentioned consequence of IE to science content //
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
Also, I examined engagement with science content, credibility assessments, perceptions of consequences of IE to science content, and perceptions of differences in IE to politics and science. Semi-structured interviews with 19 social media users were conducted to answer the questions.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
I examined the Political Incidental News Exposure (PINE) model for science information. PINE describes two levels of content processing: passive scanning (first-level IE) and cognitively more demanding processing (second-level IE). Only the latter one may affect learning, engagement, and behavior.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
Incidental exposure (IE) occurs when social media users encounter content that they did not actively search for. IE has mainly been studied in relation to political news. Since IE may positively affect knowledge, engagement, and further behaviors, studying IE to science information is crucial.
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
🚨Publication Alert🚨 New open access paper in @jscicom.bsky.social. I present results of a qualitative study examining incidental exposure to science content on social media using the PINE model. You can find a short 🧵 below and the full paper here doi.org/10.22323/377...
810
Reposted by Yannic Meier
Lena Frischlich @lenafrescamente.bsky.social · 06/06/2026
Wanna know more about the state of academic freedom? You can find the academic freedom index here academic-freedom-index.net
academic-freedom-index.net
Academic Freedom Index
The Academic Freedom Index (AFI) assesses de facto levels of academic freedom across the world. It is a collaborative effort between researchers at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (F...
011
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 04/06/2026
Tomorrow, I'll present two papers at #ica26. At 10:30, I'll talk about a comparative study on privacy protection, chilling effects, and surveillance. At 12:00, @janadreston.bsky.social and I will present a study about incidental exposure to science information on short-format video platforms.
031
Reposted by Yannic Meier
Collabra: Psychology @collabrapsychology.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Why do some people reject scientific evidence? While most studies examine reasons for domain-specific science denial (e.g., climate denial), in new #RegisteredReport, @ymeier.bsky.social & @psychdue.bsky.social developed, tested & validated a General Science Skepticism Scale doi.org/10.1525/coll...
doi.org
General Science Skepticism: Development and Validation of a New Scale
The question why segments of Western populations reject scientific evidence has occupied researchers for some time. While most studies examine reasons for domain-specific science denial (e.g., climate...
031
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
end) The paper always created mixed reviewer feedback. Some Rs were very positive while others doubted the scale's necessity. I believe that the presented evidence of convergent and discriminant validity partly refutes this criticism. I am excited to see how this scale will be used in the future.
010
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
9/n) Some words about this project. I had the idea to develop this scale during the COVID-19 pandemic when it became apparent that a sig. part of Germans deny sci evidence. The paper originally consisted only of two studies and was gradually expanded by a third and a registered fourth study.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
8/n) The GS3 can be used to examine a common reason why people reject scientific evidence independent of particular topics. Future studies should focus on reasons why people become generally skeptical about science and to find countermeasures against GSS which may also reduce domain-specific denial.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
7/n) You already knew the preprint? Have another look at the published version. This version contains a 4th registered study, we added further analyses, reframed some earlier findings, and shortened the scale through item response theory, presenting compelling evidence for the scale’s validity.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
6/n) GSS predicts science denial in various domains (e.g., global warming, vaccinations, genetically modified food, or COVID-19). GSS relates negatively to trust in science and in sci-journalism, and positively to science-related populism, conspiracy mentality, and political disenchantment.
200
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
5/n) The GS3 comprises 2 dimensions: 1) skepticism about the scientific process and 2) skepticism about the independence of science. Importantly, people are only slightly skeptical about the scientific process itself, but moderately skeptical about the independence of science.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
4/n) We developed a set of 25 items which were tested for reliability and convergent, discriminant, & incremental validity in 4 studies with German participants (N≈4000). The final scale shows high reliability and was shortened to 11 items.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
3/n) We predicted that GSS would highly negatively relate to trust in science and highly positively to science related populism (which was later confirmed). From a theoretical point of view, these variables were still thought to be distinct which was also tested (and later confirmed).
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
2/n) In concordance with definitions of skepticism from other areas, we define general science skepticism as “a disposition of universal doubts and distrust towards the methods, results, and independence of science and towards the motives and honesty of scientists”.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
1/n) We identified two main lines of studying science denial: 1) testing unique reasons for science denial in specific domains (e.g., denying global warming). 2) testing reasons for science denial across various domains. We locate general science skepticism (GSS) on that 2nd stream.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
🚨New OA Publication🚨   I am very excited to present the General Science Skepticism Scale (GS3) to you. The scale was validated in 4 studies with N≈4000 participants. Datasets, codes, and materials are available on OSF for reproduction and further analyses. Short 🧵 below👇   doi.org/10.1525/coll...
274
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 27/05/2026
🚨 New publication in the Journal of Science Communication! In two preregistered experiments, we examined factors influencing the perception of science information provided by AI-based chatbots👇
041
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 30/04/2026
@icasecac.bsky.social pls share😊
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 30/04/2026
Join our workshop for students/early-career scholars going to #ICA26 organized by @facusuenzo.bsky.social, @ambervdwal.bsky.social, @wendi-li-phd.bsky.social, @mqrmobile.bsky.social, @floprim.bsky.social. 📅 Friday, May 8th ⏰ 8:00 AM EDT | 12:00 PM UCT 🔗 Register here: forms.gle/AryewUXumCsC...
167
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 18/03/2026
In my blog post I reference a couple of studies finding mixed item scales to produce both systematic error (shared variance among neg. items) and random error (e.g., due to careless responding or response styles).
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 18/03/2026
Fair point. But what we know is that scales only w pos. items have least measurement error, scales only w neg. items contain more error, and mixed scales contain most error. That would be a pro argument to only use pos. items imo
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 18/03/2026
very interesting paper! I find it hard to tell though, if findings are due to AB or partly the known issues with rev. items. Issues with AB and rev. items may even be partly conflated. I think we need alternative approaches to control for AB because using rev. items can also affect corrs in the end.
001
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 04/03/2026
🚨 New Blog Post 🚨 I wrote my very first blog post 😊 This post is for quantitative researchers working with negatively worded Likert-scale items and haven't heard that these items can cause problems. I outline key issues, describe alternatives, and recommend lit. yannicmeier.de/2026/03/03/w...
yannicmeier.de
Why reversed items can be problematic in survey research
In quantitative psychological research, questionnaires with Likert-style items are mostly used to assess variables like emotions, cognitions, and dispositions. Sometimes, it is possible to fall bac…
13312
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 27/01/2026
Interested in a short thread about the main findings? Here you go 👉 bsky.app/profile/ymei...
021
Reposted by Yannic Meier
Human Communication Research @hcr-journal.bsky.social · 26/01/2026
New in HCR by @ymeier.bsky.social & @masurphil.bsky.social: A 3-wave longitudinal study shows dataveillance relates to privacy resignation between-person, while critical privacy literacy is the key within-person predictor of self-inhibition. Read the full article: doi.org/10.1093/hcr/...
doi.org
Escaping the digital panopticon? Longitudinal effects of dataveillance salience shocks on privacy attitudes and inhibited behaviors
Abstract. Using internet technologies exposes individuals to constant surveillance by companies and other actors. Perceptions of constant surveillance—term
153
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
TLDR: dataveillance chilling effects were measurable but very small. Open questions about meaningfulness or cumulating effects. "Salience shocks" too common? Resignation does not “protect” against chilling effects. Crit. privacy literacy may be an important driver of “rational” chilling effects.
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
Critical Privacy literacy (ability to criticize, question, and challenge the status quo of institutional surveillance) positively relates to self-inhibition on within-pers. level. Chilling effects may thus be a “rational” behavioral response of critically reflecting barely avoidable dataveillance.
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
Using Bayesian random-effects models, we find evidence that salience shocks increase self-inhibition and crit. privacy literacy. Within-person effects of perceived dataveillance on self-inhibition are pos. but probably too small to be meaningful. Resignation not associated with self-inhibition.
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
In a 3-wave panel study w/ 774 German Internet users, we test if making dataveillance salient to users by means of so-called “salience shocks” (articles about dataveillance) increases their a) sense of dataveillance, b) self-inhibition tendency, c) privacy cynicism, and d) critical privacy literacy.
100
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
Technology use is inherently associated with pervasive surveillance by online companies, which can lead to panoptic chilling effects. Chilling effects describe the self-inhibition of legal & legitimate behavior due to feelings of surveillance (e.g., limiting information searches or use of services).
110
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
🚨Publication Alert🚨 New paper with @masurphil.bsky.social in Human Communication Research! In a longitudinal panel study, we connect chilling effects research with the concepts of privacy cynicism and critical privacy literacy: doi.org/10.1093/hcr/... Short 🧵 about what we found👇
Screenshot of the title, author names, and abstract of the new publication in HCR.
150
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 14/09/2025
At this year’s #MePsy25 conference in Duisburg, I presented a position paper about “small” media effects. While our field lacks objective criteria to decide when such effects are practically relevant, I proposed 5 criteria that can help deciding about relevance. Slides & paper on osf 👉 osf.io/d2ah7/
1132
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Thank you for these praising words 🙏
000
Reposted by Yannic Meier
Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch @anneo.bsky.social · 10/09/2025
You heard it here first (maybe): The CAT/Mobile doctoral consortium will officially be happening again at #ica26 in Cape Town! Are you dissertating? Consider applying for mentorship from top scholars in comm tech / mobile.
0127
Reposted by Yannic Meier
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
🚨Publication Alert🚨 New paper with @nadinebol.bsky.social published in JCMC! We studied inequalities in users’ beneficial and harmful online experiences (3rd level digital divide) and combined this view with arguments about mistrust in online companies and self-inhibited behaviors. Short🧵👇
293
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 09/09/2025
Link to article 👉 doi.org/10.1093/jcmc...
doi.org
Unequal experiences, unequal outcomes? Digital inequalities in experiencing online benefits and privacy harms, mistrust, and self-inhibiting behaviors
Abstract. Digital inequality research shows that certain sociodemographic groups (e.g., older persons) experience fewer benefits from using digital technol
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
In the manuscript, we discuss possible reasons for these patterns of inequality including structural disadvantages and power imbalances.
000
Yannic Meier @ymeier.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
Dig. inequalities: older age relates to both less frequent beneficial and harmful experiences while higher education positively relates to having beneficial experiences. Older age also positively relates to mistrust and self-inhibition. Women are more likely to engage in self-inhibition than man.
110